## Chapter 1

Thesis: contemporary green rhetoric is a failure because it mis-diagnoses the
root causes of the problems, fails to identify credible routes to credible
solutions, and fails to identify an appropriate audience.

1. Contemporary green rhetoric (R) is a failure
2. R mis-diagnoses the problem
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.