Rough Draft  

The Rhetoric of Sustainable Energy

Introduction

Political agendas have always dominated social and policy change. Today fiscal budgets allot $7.6 billion on TSA, while only $3.2 billion is allocated for green energy (Source). If ecological rhetoric improves, then policymakers will properly understand green energy projects and these technologies will receive more attention. Green energy projects get less attention because those involved with the report generation do not understand audience analysis and therefore, do not reach their target audience. The current problem is that sustainable energy does not have well-articulated representatives, so really the entire world population is losing because of the inability to have access to sustainable energy. There is a connection between failed sustainable energy projects and a lack of articulation within the information reports that are provided to the public and to policymakers. Not only Americans, but also the global society should understand the results and importance of sustainable energy research. Is sustainable energy failing because of a lack of articulation? The History of Ecorhetoric Humans have an innate infatuation with the world around them. Throughout the last ninety years, the negative effects of “large-scale” human activity on the environment have become better known and humans have begun to feel not just aware, but also responsible for the disruption of the “balance of nature” (Seigal 394; Killingsworth and Palmer 1). Rhetoric is the invention and comprehension of arguments that use logical, ethical, and emotion appeals with a call to action (Killingsworth and Palmer 1). So far, historically, two main competing views of the environmental world have driven the environmental dilemmas: one that believes resources on earth are meant to be utilized by humans and one that believes that humans an unnatural disturbance to the earth and that they have a responsibility to replenish resources (Killingsworth and Palmer 4).

The Ecological Society of America (ESA) is one of the earliest ecology-focused organizations, having been founded in 1915. Following their establishment, the nonprofit began publishing the journal Ecology in 1920 (Seigel 389). Although the idea of ecology became popular in the 1930s, the subject of ecology itself had already been an “established discipline” since the 1920s (Seigel 389). Scientists were researching ecology, but the concept remained largely ignored by the public until massive dust storms and droughts began affecting populations of the Midwest and even east coast residents (Seigel 389). Due to an increase in public speculation, the causes of the dust storms were more deeply researched and ultimately identified as overfarming, overlogging, and overgrazing (Seigel 392).

This idea of connecting human activity with potential environmental repercussion was new, and scientists, like those of the ESA, challenged previous perspectives by improving communication among ecologists and raising public awareness regarding the importance of ecological science (ESA). Marika A. Seigel’s “’One little fellow name Ecology’” explores Kenneth Burke’s argument that efficient farming isn’t actually efficient if, in the long run, environmental destruction ensues (Seigel 395). Few solutions can be proposed due to competing ecological interests, which leaves policy-makers divided simply based on politics rather than scientific arguments (Ecospeak 4).

Ecorhetoric in 2013

As a resident of the twenty-first century, it is uncommon to be unaware of the looming environmental concerns related to energy and emissions—arctic winter, global warming, and destruction of natural resources. It appears that scientific progression is becoming more and more stifled by political intervention, and that critical issues are hidden by less significant issues with greater political qualities (Tian 25). One of the critical issues currently constraining scientific development is the legislative practice of scientific policy ultimately being passed or denied by “external experts,” sometimes related to the industry, but typically just voters or representatives of the government (Shi Tian 25). If legislators do not understand the ecological ramifications of ignoring certain policies, they won’t pass effective legislation. “External experts,” without backgrounds in sustainable energy, are failing to develop relevant policies because of their irrelevant background so instead of finding “new” policy-makers, it may be more efficient to just better inform current ones.

Shi Tian makes the argument that scientific agendas are being skewed by political agendas, which instead of making “politics more scientific” is making “science more political” (Shi Tian 25). The main result is that the benefits of science are lost, and policy-makes and society itself both lose (Shi Tian 25). Basically it’s a matter of “private interests” masquerading as public policy and often these policies are poorly devised (Shi Tian 25). Politicians are also known to “selectively” interpret scientific data with the intention of pushing their own political agendas (Shi Tian 25). If most citizens understood the importance of ecological policy it would be much easier to convince policy-makers of the same, nonetheless, American citizens may be less scientifically informed than legislators.

While some (False Promises) argue that green energy will raise energy prices, and therefore raise the price of all products that use such energy (food, clothes, etc), others argue that, initially, energy costs will be higher, but that after trial periods, the price will drop lower than current costs. (Morriss 4).

Either way, it has become apparent that instead of searching for absolute scientific truth, it is more important to recognize the “limits of human knowledge” and a need to contextualize reality and manage “uncertainty” (Shi Tian 24).

Until now, policy-makers have been expected to detect successful policy with little to no advice from scientists; however, the main concern is that the “system” is incorrect and that the contextual nature of that systematized viewpoint is inhibiting the progression of environmentally conscious laws (Shi Tian 28).

A problem that is recognized by Tian is that the presentation of scientific research lacks compatibility with “necessary improvement” to legislation (Shi Tian 28).

Tian Shi in “Ecological Economics” uses an argument by J. MacNeil asserting that the government cannot be expected nor should be given the authority to create the system in which “informed decisions” regarding “environment and development” are established (Tian Shi 26).

The Competing Narratives of Ecorhetoric

Walter Fisher’s “Narration as a Human Communication Paradigm: The Case of Public Moral Argument” outlines the rational world paradigm, which assumes premises like “humans are essentially rational beings” and “rationality is determined by subject matter knowledge” (Fisher 378). Fisher’s arguments are based on a “new” paradigm, the “narrative paradigm,” in which individuals both intentionally and unintentionally make decisions based on past experiences and past stories (Fisher 384).

Thomas Rosteck and Thomas S. Frentz’s “Myth and Multiple Readings in Environmental Rhetoric: The Case of An Inconvenient Truth” dissects the success of Al Gore’s 2006 documentary that inspires its audience to enact environmental change and become ecologically conscious. Rosteck and Frentz argue that “with so much personal narrative,” An Inconvenient Truth (AIT) consists of much of “the story of Al Gore” (Rosteck and Frentz 3). They argue that this rhetorical move is meant to build ethos with a “direct political consequence” in mind (Rosteck and Frentz 3). Several narratives are identified within AIT: the political jeremiad, the touching autobiography, and the scientific documentary (Rosteck and Frentz 4). Each of these narratives presents conflicting premises, which may have contributed to the success of the film. Almost by direct comparison, AIT merges the events of global warming with the “autobiography” of Al Gore, which presents the audience with a “narrative form of personal transformation” (Rosteck and Frentz 4). The story follows a “hero myth” pattern of departure, initiation, and return (Rosteck and Frentz 4). Sustainable Energy Policies An example of such a policy is The Public Lands and Renewable Energy Development Act of 2013 presented by the committees of Conservation, Energy, and Forestry within the House Agriculture and the Energy and Mineral Resources within the House Natural Resources (GovTrack). The bill addresses the current, outdated legislative barriers and restrictions, which constrain opportunities to implement wind and solar energy on public lands. If passed, this bill will work to “modernize, improve, and promote renewing energy” on federal lands (NWF). The secondary benefits, as stated by the National Wildlife Federation (NWF) of this bill include protecting wildlife, benefiting local economies, and battling climate change (AWF). The royalities from these wind and solar projects will be sent into wildlife conservation funding that will benefit the state and the counties.

One of the most surprising qualities of this bill is the political affiliation of the 29 cosponsors, 15 represent the Democratic Party and 14 represent the Republican Party (GovTrack). The current American political system is regularly impeded by a lack of

agreement between Democrats and Republicans, yet here is a policy with a significant amount of support from both sides and until now it still remains ignored. Organizations like the NWF have voiced their support of the bill and argued that, if executed properly, wind and solar energy “expansion” can complement the mission to protect public lands and wildlife (NWF). The NWF also recognizes that the development of sustainability projects are a “critical” segment of lowering carbon pollution and decreasing climate change effects on wildlife (NWF). Potential Environmental Policy Reform

Ecological economics is intended to give “intellectual background” of hypothesizes that determine policy (Tian Shi 28). This idea of “ecological economics” has been acknowledged, but a connection between it and increasing the effectiveness of environmental policy has yet to be examined thoroughly (Tian Shi 28). Because there are two viewpoints of environmental resources, authors must be aware of the need to inspire an ecologically conscious pathos appeal in order to more efficiently connect to the audience and to convince them of the need to value the environment itself (Rosteck and Palmer 4).

Requiring that scientific results be provided to policy-makers in a timely manner, ultimately, “empowers” these legislators because they will be more well-informed and be able to use the most innovative “peer-reviewed knowledge” to create helpful legislation for the latest problems (Tian Shi 27).

More so, successful ecological economic policy will be possible once inevitable human actions are considered (Tian Shi 27). This new way of establishing policies would acknowledge “environmental limits” instead

The main purposes of ecological economics are to advance scientific, political, and ethical issues (Tian Shi 28). The ultimate goal is to convince voters and policy-makers to choose legislation that benefits “social, economic, and ecological sustainability” (Tian Shi 28).

By presenting and by considering the ethical, scientific, and political perspectives, a more comprehensive evaluation of ecological policies can occur. Conclusion