In the piece “Wealthier People Produce More Carbon Pollution – Even the ‘Green’ Ones” by David Roberts, he argues that the wealthier people in a population are one of the main reasons many greenhouse gases are emitted into the atmosphere. Roberts uses rhetoric to explain his argument, his first point is made by using ethos. He appeals to the audience by explaining how being green brings a positive outcome in life. He then uses logos to prove his point that the wealthier pollute the environment more, even if they recycle and eat organic vegetables. The ecological footprint is mainly based on income, more income typically means larger household size, and larger household size leads to larger land. All of this research is wrapped up with the rhetorical device, pathos. Roberts uses this passion to give an example of an average upper-middle-class woman that would drastically change her lifestyle to improve the environment.
Roberts argues that wealthier people are the reason for more carbon pollution, but with this argument, I am of two minds. I agree that wealthier people cause some of the damage to the environment, even if they are green, but I disagree that the wealthy are not every reason why the environment is damaged. Everyone is accounted for in the environment, everyone has a role in destroying a piece of the environment. By focusing on the wealthy, Roberts overlooks the deeper problem of every human that is involved in destroying the environment. Although I disagree with much that Roberts says, I fully endorse his final conclusion that action should be taken place to save the environment.