B.It criticizes some politicians that think climate change is supposed to be about politics, when it’s really about the people on the planet who need to be safe and the bad side of industries and corporations. 

C.corporations are not worried about the environment and they just want more money and politicians don’t do anything because the corporations say that they will give them a bunch of money to vote no on laws against the law that would affect them and that also how they make money.

D.i think that it is the lead to an end of something. The growth population could be the start of something big that could be explainable and tragic.

E.i think there are perspectives they sort of touched on (such as people that don’t think population growth is an issue or corporations are doing fine with their growth) they just show overall people and children that are in need and starving and suffering and that could put in some pathos, the emotion in people who care about children and the hungry.

F.This film’s perspective were people who care about the earth and only had a lot of negative emotions towards corporations and politicians because they are caring about money and representation other than the earth and the people on it. I think this is somewhat effective way to persuade people through perspective with montages and interviews of politicians to show how much they really care or don’t because even if people who care about politics, they still had a wide universal of showing that people are hurting. Lots of pathos and ethos for persuasion.