Introduction
In recent years, climate change has become the most urgent global environmental issue. In the current debate over global climate change, arguments advanced by different social groups typically combine multiple discourses and meanings, including those of science, economic, ethics, and governance, frequently making these arguments difficult for the public to understand and assess.
With a view to untangling some of the complexity of climate-change argumentation, the proposed paper presents a rhetoric analysis of the use of economic discourse in the climate-change controversy.
There have been a number of studies investigating the discourse employed in the climate- change debate; for instance, researchers have used discourse analysis to address problems about the global environmental issues in different disciplines such as Political Science, Economics, Geography, Communication, and Sociology among others.
For example, Livesey (2002, p. 117) has examined corporate discourse from the perspectives of Burke’s new rhetorical theories and Foucauldian discourse-analytic theory.
Smart (2011) has studied the arguments advanced by a range of different organizations, identifying two opposing ‘discourse coalitions’ (Hajer, 1995, p. 156) – a ‘climate-change crisis discourse coalition’ and a ‘climate-crisis skepticism coalition’ – and describing the macro-argument advanced by each of these groups.
Some researchers have employed Hajer’s concept of discourse coalition to study political policies, geography or international relations in related with climate change, however, little or no research has looked specifically at the rhetorical functions of economic discourse in the debate over climate change.
Accordingly, the proposed paper will focus on the different ways in which economic discourse is employed rhetorically by various social groups in advancing arguments on the reality, consequences, and policy implications of global climate change.
This study is guided by the following question
How do different social actors rhetorically write economic discourse that focus on government policies about climate change? What kinds of rhetorical devices are used in their persuasive writing?
Literature Review
Ethos, Logos and Pathos
Aristotle’s notion of how a speaker can effectively persuade and appeal to the audience was by ethos, logos and pathos. Logos appeal to the sense of reason or argument of the speaker on an issue. Ethos, on the other hand, appeal to the speaker’s or writers owns character or the credibility of his/her argument. In contrast, pathos appeal to sympathy and emotions, values as well as the beliefs of the audience.
Metaphors
Metaphors were originally considered rhetorical devices. Plato abhorred the use of metaphors arguing that they can persuade a person to be illogical. Schon (1993) reasons, at that time “metaphors were considered harmful to the growth of language and meaning” (p. 45). However, according to Lakoff (1979), metaphors are important items of comparison.
He argues, “Words only tell us what we already know, metaphors tell us what is new” (p.71). Lakoff and Johnson studied the use of metaphors in common language. They argue that metaphors can shape the way we discuss issues and even our thinking patterns (1980, p. 5). They further argue that the major purpose of metaphors is to give structure to language and reasoning.
In their book, Metaphors We live by, Lakoff and Johnson describe a number of common conceptual metaphors. In particular, they cite orientation metaphors, which largely define the way people talk about concepts such as happiness, health and success (p. 7).
According to Ortony (1993, p. 90) metaphors reflect our thoughts on particular subjects that we are talking about. They also define people’s expectations and ability to negotiate and compromise during conversations. Reddy contends that, linguistically, people perceive ideas as objects and linguistic expressions including metaphors, as containers used to convey the ideas (1993, p. 67).
The receivers of these ideas constitute the audience and information seekers. From this perspective, Reddy argues that underlying metaphors influences the way people view the communication process; it trivializes the role of the listener and speaker.
Metaphors, therefore, largely control the communication process as well as people’s ability to use language or infer meaning. It is no doubt they are used in speeches and public debates. Their role in this context is to convince the audience with respect to the speaker’s argument.
Findings
Of all the social sciences, economics is largely related to natural science discourses especially with regard to methodologies. Indeed, the perception of economics as an objective discourse is central to its large influence in policy-making debates. Often, economists’ language and metaphors show the desire to maintain objectivity common in scientific discourses.
For instance, Luks (1999, p. 716), while analyzing an influential article on global warming written by Nordhaus, which has calculations to reflect objectivity, observes that, the oversimplifications of uncertainties and issues surrounding global warming are “only redundant except for rhetoric purposes” (Luks, 1999, p. 719). Even natural sciences, several factors influence research methodologies.
The same factors influence the knowledge base for economical analyses and interpretations. Therefore, it is apparent that many technical and methodological obstacles exist in the assessment of economic implications of climate change.
By considering these obstacles, one concurs with Luks’ assertion that, arguments from either the climate-change-advocacy coalition, or the climate-change-skepticism coalition, are designed more for their rhetorical value than epistemological usefulness. In light of this, the present study focuses on the rhetoric strategies and devices employed by the two coalitions when discussing the economic implications of climate change.
When the climate change debate began, much of the controversy concerned the scientific opinions on the climate change issue. Climate change skeptics such as Chuck Hagel, a U.S. Republican senator, and Global Climate Coalition (GCC) contended that the scientific and economic aspects of climate change were “inconclusive”.
Another Republican senator once claimed that President Clinton incited “hysteria” based on insufficient scientific evidence (Wente, 2010, Para. 7). On the other end of the spectrum, were environmentalists and scientists, whose opinion was that the scientific evidence was sufficient for mitigation efforts to be put in place. These constitute the climate-change-advocacy coalition.
Bazerman’s (1993) notion of rhetoric underlies the use of scientific evidence, statistical data and expert opinions in articles and in the media when talking about climate change. The purpose here is to enhance the validity of the information being disseminated to the audience. In this study, the findings indicate that these rhetoric devices are extensively used by both the advocacy group and the skeptics.
Climate Change Advocacy Coalition Rhetoric Devices
Classical rhetoric
Among the rhetoric devices used by the climate-change-advocacy coalition is classical rhetoric. Environmentalists offer descriptive account of the upshots of climate change in the near future to persuade policy makers and the public to undertake precautionary measures.
From the perspective of environmental economics, climate change constitutes a classic example of what Garrett Harding terms a “tragedy of the commons” ((Wente, 2010, Para. 9). He explains that, unregulated use of a common resource results to over exploitation of the given resource, which in this case is the atmosphere.
He describes this problem as arising from market failure with regard to regulation of emissions of greenhouse gases including CO2 and other GHG gases (nitrous oxide and methane), coupled with the loss of forests that serve as carbon sinks.
From this perspective, the solution is two-pronged; free-market solutions that depend on issuance of emission permits; and control-and-command solutions, which involve taxation and setting minimum standard regulations.
Figurative Language: Metaphors
Another rhetoric device commonly used by the climate-change-advocacy coalition involves the use of metaphors. An original metaphor used in the 80’s describes how greenhouse gases raised the temperature of the atmosphere was ‘hothouse’.
‘Global warming’ and ‘greenhouse effect’ gained popularity in the media and the public in the 1990’s (Lemke, 1990, p. 19). Nowadays, ‘climate change’ is the common term. From the perspective of industries and businesses, the Kyoto protocol has been called the ‘job killer’ because of its regulatory stance on industrial emissions (Lemke, 1990), 21).
Metaphors have a direct influence on public perception of the climate change problem, which ultimately influence state actor’s decisions. The metaphorical fusion of CO2 reduction and the economy using the noun ‘carbon’ helps to measure environmental resources in commercial terms.
From this perspective, as Lyman (1990, p. 37) observes, trade is turned into an environmental issue through comparative valuation. He contends that, “there may be immense potential benefit to the Australian environment and to biodiversity conservation in general, through the introduction of a ‘carbon credit’ or greenhouse gas emissions trading system” (Lyman, 1990, p. 43).
Further, the use of term ‘carbon’ in metaphors such as ‘carbon lifestyle’, ‘carbon diet’ and ‘carbon living’ constitute a frame that aims to re-organize lifestyles around climate change in order to reduce consumption at a personal level. By compounding, the noun ‘carbon’ with the lexis ‘lifestyle’, the aim is to evoke a scenario where global warming is perceived as a personal or family issue.
Metaphorical expressions such as, “Learn about the controversy surrounding global warming, and calculate your family’s ‘carbon diet’ in an online game” (Boehmer-Christiansen, 1999, p. 29) is commonly used by proponents of climate change.
Another expression: “We know that we will not be burning oil, gas and coal forever…and we know the environmental benefits of kicking our ‘carbon addiction’” (Boehmer-Christiansen, 1999, p. 34) is commonly used by the climate change advocacy coalition to emphasize the economic implications of climate change.
Additionally, the metaphors ‘carbon addiction’ highlights restraint with regard to carbon consumption and develops a green ethic to guide lifestyles. A moral frame is also developed using metaphors. For instance, the use of ‘carbon guilt’ in “Why Planting Trees for Carbon Guilt Doesn’t Add Up” (Boehmer-Christiansen, 1999, p. 46) implies that the elevation of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is regrettable.
Logos, Pathos and Ethos
Logos, pathos, and ethos are other rhetoric devices used by the proponents of climate change. In the media especially newspaper articles, these rhetoric devices are common. An article by Revkin, (2003, Para. 5) in the New York Times describes global warming as a “hoax perpetrated against the Americans”. The article uses testimony and opinions of experts, which represent ethos to convince the public.
It also uses statistics (logos), and positive affect (pathos) to persuade the readers. The findings extracted from the National Post articles indicate a strong emphasis on persuasion, specifically the pathos, logos and ethos. The common ethos used in the newspaper articles includes quotations and statements from experts of environmental and economic issues.
For instance, the term ‘expert’ is used repeatedly in the National Post articles to help reinforce the arguments and enhance their credibility. Another significant finding involved the National Post’s emphasis on business and ways of increasing investments to mitigate global warming.
In the Globe and Mail, articles by various writers use logos, ethos and pathos to convince the audience that climate change has heavy economic costs. Examples of such articles include an article by Curry, which uses statistics and expert opinion (ethos) to support climate change mitigation efforts (2007, Para. 4). It outlines the BC provincial government’s approval of a plan to curb greenhouse gas emissions.
The article states that, the legislation passed complied with the Kyoto protocol and even quotes a law professor Elgie’s sentiments that the legislation is legally binding, and the government must respect it. Curry also includes expert opinion (ethos) to argue that by increasing the prices of oil by a dollar per barrel will result to a decline in greenhouse gas emissions without affecting the economy (2007, Para. 8).
The article claims the power bills will not rise significantly (less than 10% increase), refuting earlier predictions of 40-60% increase. This represents logos. The central argument here is largely deductive and refutes industry officials’ position on carbon emissions by expert opinion, an instance of ethos.
Another article in the same newspaper describes a study by over fifty thousand scientists on the economic impacts of climate change in the polar region and its effect on people and wildlife (Harding, 2007, Para. 11).
The article establishes pathos by claiming that Arctic has the future of Canada’s geopolitical and economic interests. Pathos is also established through the framing of the polar region as a “great opportunity for scientists to explore the effects of climate change” (Harding, 2007, Para. 12), in order to raise the curiosity of readers.
In general, the sampled articles in the Globe and Mail newspaper demonstrated a keen interest in environmental issues, especially with regard to climate change and Kyoto protocol. The newspaper has a section for climate change news. In most of the articles, though opinions and arguments may be different, logos in the form of statistics, historical facts or scientific data are used consistently.
Ethos is established through consultations involving experts from various fields. Pathos on the other hand, involved the images especially of a person in order to elicit sympathy or interest from the audience. The nature of the arguments in the articles is conventionally deductive and involves the use of pathos.
For instance, in one article President Bush proclaimed that, in the future, there would be a shift towards alternative energy; therefore, investments should be directed towards green technology markets (Cline, 1992, p. 129).
Majority of the political articles dwelt on the potential economic costs of climate change and approaches of achieving the targets of Kyoto Protocol. Pathos used appealed to economic costs of achieving the targets of the Kyoto protocol.
Similarly, in the Toronto Star, different writers establish logos, pathos and ethos in various articles. For instance, one article explains why and how banned refrigerants are in use in countries, such as China and India. The article further reveals how Indy car racers and NASCAR (Caldwell, 2007, p. 15) are using cheaper racing fuels.
Pathos are established by describing these cars as being economical and efficient while logos are established through outlining the properties of gasoline and the costs of projects that focus on how climate change is affecting polar regions, namely the Arctic and Antarctic. In another article, the environmentalists’ supported for TXU’s sale of private equity and reduction of coal-dependent plants (Charlton, 2007, p.29).
Logos in this article was established through the profiling of the company’s plans. In summary, the findings from analysis of Toronto star articles showed an emphasis on the three rhetoric devices of pathos, logos and ethos. Prominent environmentalists, economists, and corporations were used, in any of the articles, to establish ethos and further enhance the credibility of the articles.
Logos were established through statistical evidence like; “80per cent of the public would like to help the environment” obtained from the article “Global Warming pitch on the front burner.” (Flavelle, 2007, Para. 11) In summary, articles in Toronto Star emphasized more on logos and ethos to enhance credibility.
In his Nobel speech, Al Gore appeals to ethos, logos, kairos, and ethos in many ways. Al Gore’ speech is highly effective. He reckons, “The pace of people’s response demands some acceleration to match the quickening pace of the crisis itself” (Al Gore, 2007, Para.9). The overall impact of Al Gore’s speech is to deliver a speech that is, not only educative, but also beneficial in curtailing the advents of global warming.
He also remarks, “While painting a stark picture of a bleak future…this offers a message of hope to people worldwide who are willing to unite and stand together for a meaningful change” (Para.9). Al Gore can make a rhetorical and strategic appeal to ethos, logos, kairos, and pathos.
While painting the bleak future, Al Gore also offers a message of hope to people around the globe, as he says, “We have a purpose. We are many. For this purpose, we will raise, and we will act” (Para. 12). Every time he states the problem, he asks everybody to form the unity in order to make this world a better place to live.
The rhetorical strategies allow him to persuade people and put out his vision for global warming, reflecting the current situations with which the world is dealing. He presents a message that is powerful and influential enough for the leaders of the world to consider the long-term economic consequences of climate change.
Invented Connotations of Words and Axioms
Several invented words and axioms are used in the evaluation of the economic effects of climate change on various countries. Modelers face a daunting task when designing an assessment of the economic cost of climate change. ‘Carbon tax’ is the most widely discussed approach of dealing with climate change. It refers to the levies imposed on fuels based on the energy/carbon they contain (Sands, 1995, p. 131).
The British Thermal Unit (BTU) was one such tax that failed to be implemented in the United States despite President Clinton’s support. Proponents of carbon tax contend that the carbon tax can be implemented through a decrease in income and sales tax.
Recent report published by the Howe Institute in Canada indicates that the carbon tax can result to tremendous decline in carbon emissions but concedes that the federal government may not implement the report (Cline, 1992, p. 137). ‘Negative tax’ is another invented term common in climate-change-mitigation efforts. Often, investments into green technologies are low.
Additionally, emerging industries involved in renewable energy including solar and wind cannot compete effectively in an open market. Negative tax refers to the subsidies extended to these industries to spur their growth with an objective of ultimately reducing carbon emissions.
However, as Luks (1999, p. 705) points out, there are weaknesses with policies pegged on carbon tax. He argues that when carbon tax is too low, it has little impact on climate change mitigation. On the other hand, when the carbon tax is too high, it may not be politically feasible, but it can generate lots of money. However, this again raises concerns over the administration of these funds.
In addition, the costs and benefits derived from climate change as noted in WG II report do not account fully for the impacts experienced on traded goods and services (Baliunas, et al., 2002, p. 23).
The term used here is the “willingness to pay” (WTP), which is used by economists to determine the value of a clean environment. For instance, the value of the clean air is measured by determining the people’s willingness to pay for new technologies that reduce air pollution.
The actors in the climate-change-advocacy coalition also call for urgent steps to extenuate the effects of climate change. They claim urgent action is needed otherwise, the economic gains of human development will “go up in Smoke” (Cline, 1992, p. 136). In the recent past, the Canadian government has increased investments into what is termed as “a silver bullet” of “carbon capture” and “carbon sequestration” (White, & Cahill, 2008, p. 42).
“Cap and trade” is another common expression used by climate change proponents to refer to regulatory mechanism whereby governments pay buy or sell “carbon credits” “Clean technology” and “energy security” are phrases often used by proponents when persuading governments to adopt cleaner and efficient technologies.
Rhetoric questions
Environmentalists respond to skeptics of climate change by pointing out the economic impacts of non-ratification of the Kyoto protocol on climate change.
On one hand are the skeptics comprising of the GCC and industry that emphasize on the economic risks, in the short-term, associated with the climate-change mitigation measures, while environmentalists and scientists focus on the long-term ecological threats posed by climate change.
The differences of opinion can be exemplified by comments by Joseph Steed, an environmental manager with DuPont, who contends that “with the available scientific evidence it is necessary to implement climate change mitigation measures”.
He wonders, “How do you trade business risk for environmental risk, which is real?” (Cline, 1992, p. 132).The question posed is a rhetoric question meant to emphasize the importance of climate-change mitigation efforts.
Al Gore also poses rhetorical questions in his Nobel speech. He wonders; “have we the will to act in time or are we imprisoned by a dangerous illusion? (Para. 6).The dangerous illusion in this context refers to the views spread by skeptics that threaten the climate-change mitigation efforts.
Mansanet-Bataller, Pardo, and Valor (2007, p. 77) on the other hand, citing recent natural catastrophes including hurricane Katrina and Tsunami, wonder; “Shouldn’t we “play it safe” and implement mitigation measures against global warming?”
This question aims to persuade people to take a collective action to prevent global warming. Another rhetoric question posed by Mansanet-Bataller et al. includes; don’t we have the responsibility to shield the citizens of developing countries from the effects of global warming? This refers to the carbon credit system proposed by climate change proponents.
Climate Change Skepticism Coalition
Invented Connotations of words and Axioms
In newspapers, blogs and the social media, writers use rhetoric devices not only to persuade their readers to agree with their opinions, but also to strengthen the effect of persuasion. Concerning climate change, many newly coined words or phrases are used, often with little change to the archetype meaning of the words or phrases to enhance their persuasive effects.
The climate-change skepticism coalition emphasizes the economic implications of implementing the Kyoto protocol. One of the opponents of the Kyoto protocol, senator Chuck Hagel, argues that implementing the “green economy” as stipulated in the Protocol would lead to “millions of Americans” losing their employment as companies cut back on spending resulting to severe economic consequences to the US economy.
Another Senator, Tom DeLay, predicts that, mitigation measures would result to “extra-ordinary increases in prices” and “decline in consumption of the American market” (Linnerooth-Bayer, & Amendola, 2000, p. 219). The critics agree that any action should be put on hold until scientific findings were conclusive.
The position of John Doolittle, a congressional representative, is no different; he is skeptical of climate-change mitigation campaigns and scientific findings in general. He remarks, “I cannot be drawn into peer-reviewed mumbo jumbo spread by eco-Marxists global warming fanatics” (Linnerooth-Bayer, & Amendola, 2000, p. 212). The eco-Marxist in this case refers to the climate-change advocacy coalition.
The messages disseminated by skeptics of climate change often are manipulative and denounce the scientific findings. The skeptics refer to scientific explanations as “junk science” and a misinformation to the public.
As Schelling observes, “the vilification of scientific research viewed as a threat to industry interests as “junk science” contrasts with industry sponsored research (sound science), which, surprisingly, yields opposite results” (2000, p. 831)
The junk science has been used as anti-climate change campaign propaganda; moreover, it has gained much acceptance in the public arena in the present debate over the use of scientific findings for economic policy actions. One of the leading disseminators of the “junk science” gimmick is Steve Milloy who even operates a website called junkscience.com.
He describes, “Junk science” as “meaningless science only used by lawyers, Chicken Littles, ‘food police’ and dishonest scientists to spread particular economic agendas for personal gain”. The website frequently attacks scientists and environmentalists by claiming that global warming is unreal and just one of the many “scares” and “scams” of science (Schelling, 2000, p. 841).
Skeptics dismiss the scientific ‘peer-reviewed’ evidence on climate change as ‘pal reviewed’ implying that the published work was reviewed only by friends and thus unreliable.
Other common expressions used in the media include “green jobs”, “cap and trade system” and “healthy forest initiative” to criticize the climate change efforts. Skeptics refer to green renewable energy as spread by proponents as not exactly some kind of “A pie in the sky”. Their aim is to discredit scientific findings and mitigation efforts for climate change.
Use of Ethos, Logos and Pathos
The coalition of climate change skeptics uses rhetoric devices of ethos, pathos and logos in the media and other public forums to refute science. American Petroleum Institute invested US$600,000 to increase the media coverage of campaigns to against climate-change mitigation measures (Schelling, 2000, p. 833). The statistic represents the logos that enhance the credibility of the media reports.
Simpson estimated cost per tonne of carbon emission capture to be $ 1.6 billion and concluded that “cost-benefit analysis of carbon-capture projects” reveals that they are a waste of taxpayer’s money because of the minimal amount of carbon they can trap. The statistic here appeals to logos while the ‘expert cost-benefit analysis’ appeals to ethos.
The combined effects of anti-science campaign have influenced journalists to view the climate change as a controversial issue. Experts frequently give contradictory information to journalists making the US media be conventionally biased towards skeptics (Schelling, 2000, p. 834). Some skeptics oppose the introduction of the ‘debate on climate change’ into the classrooms.
They liken it to the creationist theory of evolution, which elicits much debate to this day. Additionally, they claim that teaching students to adopt green technology may not be of great economic gain as the consumption culture indicates a different scenario.
The affective explanations appeal to pathos by emphasizing the economic uncertainty surrounding climate change. The climate-change skepticism coalition involves prominent personalities and authority figures to appeal to pathos.
The current Canadian Prime Minister, Harper, has been a strong critic of the Kyoto protocol describing it as “job-killing and disastrous to the economy”. He further alluded that, the Protocol is “a communist scheme to siphon money from industrialized nations to poor developing countries” (Schelling, 2000, p. 837).
He pointed out that the Protocol relied on controversial scientific data and therefore, unreliable for economic policy development. The same line has been used by the Competitive Enterprise Institute, which is funded by the Koch Brothers. Their TV ads carried the line, “They call it pollution, and we call it life” (Sands, 1995, p. 127).
As McKee states, a leading Canadian newspaper published articles that spread fear over the Kyoto Protocol by claiming that the total cost of ratifying the Protocol on Canada was to the tune of 450,000 lost jobs (p.4). The Canadian Manufacturers and Exporters association arrived at this figure. The use of statistics appeals to logos and aims to persuade the public and policy makers.
Classical Rhetoric: Argumentation
Most skeptics use various terms in blogs and social media for purposes of argumentation especially by criticizing the climate-change mitigation measures. The controversy surrounding carbon offsetting has been reflected in the term “carbon indulgence”, which most people believe makes industries continue pollution in the name of “carbon offsets”.
“Carbon indulgence market” and “carbon indulgence money” (in reference to Al Gore’s speech) represent the proliferation of finance terms related to criticism of carbon-offset schemes. Expressions such as “the green guilt”, “carbon sinners” and “reward our virtue” are commonly used in arguments in blogs and websites.
Some blogs expand more on carbon indulgence by referring to environmental movements as akin to a religious sect with Gore as the Pope.
Often, economic offsetting skeptics spread the economic discourse around “carbon indulgence”. According to this discourse, the offsetting of carbon indulgences absolves a country from the problem of climate change but does not prevent climate change in the first place (Sands, 1995, p. 133).
The economic offsetting skeptics identify the misuse of carbon offsetting as a scheme for individual enrichment rather to mitigate the impacts of climate change. The climate change skeptics also claim that “the green movement” and carbon indulgences are like the taxes, which will drag industrialized nations back to medieval ages economically.
The carbon offsetting skeptics also contend that, the Al Gore campaign on climate change amounts to hypocrisy as Gore’s own energy use may be over-indulgent. The arguments also see the carbon offsetting as a corrupt behavior that resembles the carbon indulgences, which, historically, were employed by the Roman Catholic.
Many concepts such as climate justice and carbon equity are central to the principles of climate justice. Sands (1995, p. 127) argues that, these principles are a threat to the efforts of allocating resources equitably.
The principles state that, for climate justice to be achieved, the economic benefits and costs must be shared equitably, social actors must act in a transparent and accountable manner, and efforts should be made to reduce risks to vulnerable regions. Sands (1995, p. 128) further argues that, addressing climate change is often difficult because of the current economic system needs continuous growth at the expense of the environment.
Disasters, whether financial or ecological, are because of poor environmental regulation. The greed for enormous profits has turned currency markets into moneymaking machines, usually at the expense of the environment resulting to climate change.
Conclusion
Both the coalition-change advocacy coalition and the climate change skepticism coalition, use rhetorical devices to strengthen and enhance their ideals with regard to climate change economic discourse. This can be illustrated by the use of statistical evidence, scientific data, and authority figures to propagate their claims.
The media including articles in the newspapers such as ‘Toronto Star’, blogs and films use financial figures and expert opinion to persuade the audience to invest in changes regarding consumption or markets to curb global warming. With these approaches, the media articles appeal to logos (financial figures), ethos (through expert statements), and pathos (affective argument), rhetoric questions and invented terms.
Similarly, governments, NGOs and policy figures supporting or opposing climate change mitigation, use these rhetoric devices to convince the public to support their argument.
The findings of this rhetorical analysis report indicate that the media play a significant role in spreading the economic ideologies in a society as relates to climate change. The newspaper articles, and the rest of the media, create stories filled with rhetoric devices specifically to spread their opinion, and persuade the target audience or market.
The invented connotation of words and axioms in both coalitions is used to convince the masses to agree to what they believe in. The climate change advocates use negative connotations in order to discourage the masses from any acts aimed at affecting the climatic conditions whereas the skeptics also use the connotations to show the negative impacts of adopting the green technology that is advocated for by the climate advocates.
However, either of the coalitions uses these phrases with the main aim of persuading the people on the importance of either adopting or rejecting the green technology.
The use of paths, logos and ethos by both the proponents and the opponents is through the media through statistics and figures.
The proponents use statistics and figures to show how the cost of energy use can be reduced, and the environmental impacts thereof while the opponents use the statistics on the media to show how conferences on climatic change have had a negative impact on the economy in terms of the amount of money spent on these meetings.
The classical rhetoric by the proponents believe that the overuse of the atmosphere could lead to devastating effects to the people while the skeptics argue that the conforming to the green movement is actually dragging country to medieval times. However, both the advocates and the skeptics use the social media and blogs to share their arguments.
Reference List
Al Gore, A. (2007). Nobel Lecture. Web.
Baliunas, S., et al. (2002). Climate Change is Natural. National Post, 135, 19-23.
Boehmer-Christiansen, S. (1999). Climate Change and the World Bank: Opportunity For Global Governance? Energy and Environment, 10(1), 27-50.
Caldwell, D. (2007). Race-Car Drivers Join in Green Crusade. Toronto Star, 23, 15-16.
Charlton, A. (2007). Polar Climate Change to be Studied. Toronto Star, 18, 29- 30.
Cline, W. (1992). The Economics of Global Warming. New York: Institute for International Economics.
Curry, B. (2007). Kyoto Would Ruin Economy, Baird Worries. Globe and Mail. Web.
Flavelle, D. (2007). Global Warming Pitch on the Front Burner. Toronto Star. Web.
Harding, K. (2007). Warming Reveal Antarctic Secrets. Globe And Mail. Web.
Lakoff, G. (1993). Contemporary Theory of Metaphors. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors We Live By. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Lemke, J. (1990). Talking Science. Language, Learning and Values. Westport, CT: Greenwood.
Linnerooth-Bayer, J., & Amendola, A. (2000). Global Change, Natural Disasters And Loss Sharing: Issues of Efficiency and Equity. The Geneva Papers on Risk And Insurance, 25(2), 203-219.
Livesey, S. (2002). Global Warming Wars: Rhetorical and Discourse Analytic Approaches to ExxonMobil’s Corporate Public Discourse. The Journal of Business Communication, 39(1), 117-148.
Luks, F. (1999). Post-Normal Science and the Rhetoric of Inquiry: Deconstructing Normal Science? Futures, 31, 705-719.
Lyman, F. (1990) The Greenhouse Trap – What we’re Doing to the Atmosphere and How We Can Slow Global Warning. Boston: Beacon Press.
Mansanet-Bataller, M., Pardo, A., & Valor, E. (2007). Co2 Prices, Energy and Weather. The Energy Journal, 3, 73-92.
Mckee, M. (2009). Denialism: What is it and How Should Scientists Respond? European Journal of Public Health, 19(1), 2-4.
Ortony, A. (1993). Metaphor, Language and Thought. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Reddy, M. (1993). The Conduit Metaphor. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Revkin, C. (2003). Politics Reasserts Itself in the Debate Over Climate Change and Its Hazards. The New York Times. Web.
Sands, P. (1995). Principles of International Environmental Law: Frameworks, Standards and Implementation. Manchester: Manchester University Press.
Schelling, C. (2000). Intergenerational and International Discounting. Risk Analysis, 20(6), 833-37.
Schon, D. (1 993). Generative Metaphor. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Wente, M. (2010). The Great Global Warming Collapse. Globe and Mail. Web.
White, R., & Cahill, A. (2008). Climate Change and the Insurance Industry– No Silver- Bullet Solution. The Zurich Report, 41-45.