link chp1 and chp2

1 files changed, 12 insertions, 11 deletions

diff --git a/chapter1.md b/chapter1.md
index 305a921..ea6f2e7 100644
--- a/chapter1.md
+++ b/chapter1.md
@@ -23,11 +23,12 @@ the sense of crisis faced with the devastating effects of climate change feeding
 passivity — or even the rush to preserve past privileges — rather than
 mobilization?' [@stetler-2025]
 
-In order to solve a problem, a rhetor must persuade their audience that taking
-action is good for them. For that action to solve the problem, the rhetor must
-address an appropriate audience. Furthermore, they must present a credible
-solution, and if the solution is to be credible, the rhetor ought to have
-accurately identified the root causes of the problem.
+For a rhetor -- any rhetor -- to be successful, they must get the fundamentals right:
+
+- The rhetor must address an appropriate audience -- that is, one with the
+  means, motive, and opportunity to make a difference.
+- The rhetor must persuade their audience that the solutions they propose are credible.
+- The rhetor must accurately diagnose the root causes of the salient problems.
 
 There are problems with mainstream green rhetoric from beginning to end of this
 process: rhetors mis-diagnose the root causes of the problem, propose incredible
@@ -393,8 +394,8 @@ by Thunberg:
 > all you can talk about is money and fairy tales of eternal economic growth.
 > How dare you! [@no-one-is-too-small, p. 127]
 
-In summary, green rhetoric is not working. I've explored some reasons why this
-is so. Green rhetoric mis-diagnoses the root causes of the relevant problems by
+In summary, much mainstream green rhetoric is not getting the fundamentals right.
+Green rhetors mis-diagnose the root causes of the relevant problems by
 putting harms down to individual consumption choices and science denial, whereas
 in fact, these factors play a relatively small role in explaining ecological
 harm, and other factors, such as industrial production decisions shaped by
@@ -408,8 +409,8 @@ gas emissions. But in fact, green rhetors do not address that imaginary 'we,'
 but rather the Western middle classes, who may not have the right powers and
 interests for such exhortations to be feasible.
 
-This begs the question: if green rhetoric is failing, how might it be fixed? One
-common suggestion is that green rhetoric needs to be less catastrophic. Since
+This begs the question: why are green rhetors getting the fundamentals wrong? One
+common suggestion is that catastrophic language drives rhetors in all the wrong directions. Since
 apocalyptic language is often reduced to a catastrophic symbol, it is easy to
 infer that successful green rhetoric should avoid apocalyptic language. In
 chapter 3, I'll argue that such a conclusion ignores the possibilities of
@@ -417,5 +418,5 @@ apocalyptic language, including, and going well beyond, its catastrophic
 aspects. Then, in chapter 4, I'll argue that green rhetors today must use John's
 apocalyptic rhetorical techniques in order to make change happen. But first, in
 the following chapter, I'll explore how catastrophism appears in contemporary
-green rhetoric, and why critics allege that catastrophic language is
-counter-productive in this context.
+green rhetoric, and why critics allege that catastrophic language contributes
+to green rhetors getting the fundamentals wrong.