chapter 1: green rhetors mis-diagnose the problem

1 files changed, 79 insertions, 27 deletions

diff --git a/chapter1.md b/chapter1.md
index 5e3c183..b76ff3f 100644
--- a/chapter1.md
+++ b/chapter1.md
@@ -27,33 +27,85 @@ been partially rolled back.
 - Energy transition shows no signs of starting
 - Greenhouse gas emissions are increasing at an accelerating rate
 
-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.
+All these failures beg the question: why aren't the green movement's strategies
+working? In particular, I want to focus on green rhetoric.
+
+Rhetoric, as I'm using the term, refers to an utterance with an agenda. When
+green rhetoric works well, it solves a problem relevant to green concerns. In
+order to solve the problem, the rhetor must persuade their audience that taking
+action is good for them. For that action to be effective in solving the problem,
+the rhetor must also address an appropriate audience: that is, an audience that
+has or could have the means, motive, and opportunity to solve the relevant
+problem. Furthermore, they must present their audience with a credible solution,
+and if the solution is to be credible, the rhetor will be best placed if they
+have accurately identified the root causes of the problem.
+
+There are problems with dominant green rhetoric from beginning to end of this
+process. 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.
+
+For example, \[EXAMPLE\]
+
+This idea is further reinforced with the language of 'carbon footprinting.' The
+idea seems innocuous enough: tot up the carbon emissions produced in the process
+of producing all the goods and services consumed by a person, and you've got
+their 'carbon footprint,' their personal contribution to global carbon dioxide
+emissions.
+
+WWF-UK offers a popular carbon footprint calculator on their website
+[@wwf-footprint-calculator]. I'm promised that although 'our world is in crisis
+\[…\] it's up to us to fix it' and I'm encouraged to 'take your first step with
+our UK based environmental footprint calculator.' With each question, it ekes on
+a little more guilt: how many flights did you take this year? How much did you
+spend in your car last week? When's the last time you bought large electricals?
+How much do you spend on clothes, or beauty products, in an average month? I did
+my best to max out on every question. At the end, I'd chocked up over 39 tonnes
+of CO_2. I was duly informed that I was just under four times more evil than the
+UK average. Not to worry, I can install their My Footprint App.
+
+> We’ve seen the devastating impact that human activity can have on the natural
+> world, but it doesn’t have to be this way. We can build a better world by all
+> making small changes in our everyday lives. \[…\] WWF-UK’s My Footprint app is
+> your hub for positive change. Using this app is a step in the right direction
+> to help our planet and keep you motivated to make sustainable choices.
+> [@wwf-my-footprint]
+
+This rhetoric is clear: human beings (that's me) are wreaking havoc, and I am
+contributing more than my fair share to the mayhem. But if we all play our part,
+by following simple tips to change how we choose to consume goods and services,
+together we'll make a big difference. I just need to do my bit.
+
+\[TODO: Naomi Klein? Matt Huber?\]
+
+By calling on people to reduce their 'carbon footprint,' the rhetor suggests
+that global carbon dioxide emissions are determined by the aggregation of every
+individual's consumption choices. However, this analysis ignores the fact that
+individual consumption is usually highly constrained. In an ideal world, for
+example, you might like to take public transport rather than drive, but that
+might not be an option if you live in a rural area with no bus routes, or if
+your local railway infrastructure is too unreliable to get you to work on time.
+In an ideal world, you might like to buy lots of sustainably-produced fresh
+fruit and vegetables, but tough luck if you live in a food desert. In an ideal
+world, you might like to insulate your home, but there's small chance of
+financing that when you've already got debts: so you carry on burning excessive
+heating gas month on month.[^1]
+
+[1]: See @{climate-change-class-war} for more on this argument.
+
+Because they have mis-diagnosed the root causes of the problem, they too often
+go on 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