This is a Big Deal

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/04/opinion/sunday/friedman-this-is-a-big-deal.html?_r=1&ref=thomaslfriedman

Friedman's main claim is that Obama's action in backing a new deal between the EPA and top U.S. automakers is a great move forward in moving the U.S. up to the level of Europe and Japan in environmental initiative. His worldview is based upon a globalized world, and he believes that to keep pace with the rest of the developed world, the U.S. must move forward toward a more environmentally friendly policy. He begins with a concession, agreeing with many readers that Obama has failed in many of his goals in making the U.S. more green. This is effective because it gains the trust of many of his readers and starts him off on the same side as the readers. By convincing people of the importance of this new plan, Friedman gains support for other green environmental policies. In the third paragraph, he contrasts the 2025 goal for emissions, 54.4 miles per gallon, with a short, emphatic sentence: "The current average is 27.5 m.p.g." This makes the current gas mileage, which many consider less significant than other problems of today, seem like an important problem. By presenting the problem as a serious failure, he gains the attention and concern of his readers. Friedman states his thesis about halfway through the article, after stating the billions of gallons of saving in oil and green house gas emissions. He waits that late to state his thesis because the first part of the article states his concession and the concrete savings the deal will bring, and it brings his readers to his side so that they'll agree with his thesis when he states it. Friedman uses mocking language to criticize the people in opposition to the bill in order to depict them as selfish, incompetent, and stagnant. Phrases like "Naturally, the E.P.A.-haters hate the deal" use mocking words like "naturally" and "haters" to show that the opposition are bigots who prevent change and "ignore the net savings to consumers, plus the national security, innovation, jobs, climate and health benefits." By connecting these changes that almost all Americans want with the deal, he depicts the deal in a positive light while demonizing the opposition. By gaining support for the deal and criticism of the opposition, Friedman makes his readers more inclined to support environmental legislation and deals, which he thinks are necessary for the U.S. to maintain its position in the globalized world.