fill in a little prose in main chapters

1 files changed, 49 insertions, 0 deletions

diff --git a/chapter1.md b/chapter1.md
index f500275..ff9f650 100644
--- a/chapter1.md
+++ b/chapter1.md
@@ -9,3 +9,52 @@ solutions, and fails to identify an appropriate audience.
 3. R fails to identify credible routes to credible solutions
 4. R fails to identify an audience that can be persuaded to make a difference
 5. The material results of R have been dismal
+
+Good rhetoric does four things:
+
+1. Accurately diagnoses the root causes of a serious problem
+2. Presents a credible route to a credible solution
+3. Addresses an audience that can be persuaded to make a difference
+4. Proves to this audience that taking action is good for them
+
+Contemporary green rhetoric too often fails, and it's usually down to the first
+three points.
+
+First, green rhetoric mis-diagnoses the problem. Rhetors imply that the root
+cause of green evils is the combined consumption choices of all the world's
+individuals. But in fact, most of the world's consumption isn't driven by
+choice.
+
+This then leads green rhetors to propose incredible solutions. The worst is
+simply to cut consumption. Most of the world's people can't afford to cut back.
+A little better is proposing market-based policies like carbon taxes. But there
+is no credible route to implementing and sustaining an effective carbon tax,
+because it is against the interests of almost everyone. The route green rhetors
+almost universally promote is: listen to the science, then act rationally. This
+denies the evident fact that society is driven by the private interests of those
+who have power, not collective interests; and this is also true of science
+itself, which, as we have proven time and time again, is up for sale to the
+highest bidder. The spectre of the 'science denier' or 'science fraudster' as
+the bogeyman behind all resistance to the collective interest serves only to
+hide the real enemy: the powerful private interests that pay him.
+
+Then, the rhetoric fails to properly identify an audience that can make a
+difference. In line with its scientistic ideology, it pretends to speak to the
+universal human citizen, as if we all have shared interests. But in fact, it
+speaks only to the professional-managerial class (PMC). The whole point of the
+rhetoric is to fight the interests of capitalists, so of course it doesn't speak
+to them. Nor does the condemnation of indulgent over-consumption and the demand
+for cutbacks have any way of resonating with the working class.
+
+Yet this rhetoric doesn't even work for the PMC, because it has already failed
+to identify a credible route change. The exhortations are addressed to the
+universal human collective, or nebulous imaginary entities like 'countries': cut
+carbon emissions! Give 'developing countries' money to stop chopping down
+rainforests! Fund research! But these recommendations don't come with a credible
+route to making them happen. It fails to diagnose why these things are hard to
+do, i.e. identify the vested interests that are preventing change, and show how
+to fight these vested interests and win.
+
+The action that PMC people have taken so far (alternative consumption, political
+protests, banning plastic straws, holding COPs, setting targets) have not been
+effective. The result is that PMC people feel powerless.