Sunday, November 18, 2018

Harrison Ford's September 2018 Climate Speech: Wow, He Used Language and Voice Skillfully


NASA Global Warming Graph

Let’s look back at Harrison Ford’s September 2018 speech, “Thriving Planet – A New Hope for the Next Generation,” at the Global Climate Summit. The title is a clever twist on the first Star Wars film. Ford serves as Vice-Chair of Conservation International. As wildfires ravage California, it is a good time to think about climate change. Ford’s speech did not just get attention because he is famous, but also because of his powerful vocal delivery and language use.

Ford appeared on stage to much applause, wearing a quite distinguished-looking beard, and laid out the issues forcefully and persuasively. His speech garnered attention in the news. This was partly because he is a celebrity, but also because he spoke so forcefully. He never yelled but he projected clearly; he spoke slowly; he sounded confident. He used language with effect.

In his introduction, Ford identified with his audience: “You’re here, I’m here, because we care.” He warned of “global climate catastrophe,” a startling statement that gains attention. Wasting no time, Ford hit his first point, that carbon emissions are only part of the problem. “And I beg of you, don’t forget nature,” he insisted, for “today the destruction of nature accounts for more global emissions than all the cars and trucks in the world.” So much attention focuses, rightly, on fossil fuels, that we sometimes forget about the climate’s need for green vegetation. Ford’s forceful language (“I beg of you”) encouraged the audience to notice that point.

Using the rhetorical technique of parallel language, Ford said:

“As long as Sumatra burns, we will have failed; so long as the Amazon’s great forests are slashed and burned, so long as the protected lands of tribal people indigenous people are allowed to be encroached upon, so long as wetlands and bogs are destroyed, our climate goals will remain out of reach.”

The parallel language (“As long as,” “so long as”) gave his language cumulative power. The phrases add to a total that exceeds the parts.

To protect nature, Ford suggested that we should “empower indigenous communities to use their knowledge, their history, their imagination, our science to save their heritage and their land. Respect and ensure their rights.” The rhetorical technique here is a tricolon (“their knowledge, their history, their imagination”). People love to hear things in threes, which balances Ford’s point.

Ford used his voice to emphasize key points. People often want easy, modest solutions. Too often, however, we need more difficult solutions. To convey urgency, Ford said: “Set a goal to cut costs and increase scale dramatically.” He said “dramatically” loudly, emphasizing the point. He didn’t yell; he just projected his voice. Little solutions wouldn’t work, and he implied this just by how he used his voice.

As a solution, Ford said that the world needs to “Educate and elect leaders who believe in science and understand the importance of protecting nature.” He continued: “Stop giving power to people who don’t believe in science or worse than that pretend they don’t believe in science for their own self-interest. They know who they are. We know who they are.” He spoke the phrases that I put into boldface loudly and firmly and said “we” even more forcefully. This conveyed his moral condemnation of people who misrepresent the truth.

Specific language always shows more power than passive language. Ford brought up the human side of climate change, for example, “It’s the mother in the Philippines who worries that the next big storm is going to rip her infant out of her arms.” That was vivid and specific. It was a powerful statement. Once you hear that, you need to think about the image that Ford creates in our minds.  You can’t help it.

Ford gave this speech almost two months before the horrible Camp Fire and Woolsey Fire that swept through California. Presciently, Ford mentioned California: “It’s the people in California who are fleeing from unprecedented fires.”

Ford challenged human arrogance using the rhetorical technique of thesis and antithesis: “Nature doesn’t need people. People need nature.” True enough, and obvious when he phrases it that way. Ending, he called us to action: “Kick this monster.”

NASA chart of historical CO2 levels
Ford is, of course, not a scientist. I would never quote him as an expert source. He is, instead, a celebrity who uses his fame to speak for an important cause. His goal is advocacy, not science. We must, however, remember that the debate about climate change is no longer occurring in the scientific community. Qualified climate scientists have long since almost unanimously agreed that the evidence of climate change is overwhelming, and that human activity, particularly the burning of fossil fuels, is its main cause. As Naomi Oreskes pointed out in Science several years ago, “there is a scientific consensus on the reality of anthropogenic climate change. Climate scientists have repeatedly tried to make this clear. It is time for the rest of us to listen.” Or, as NASA’s Earth Science Communications Team explained just this month, carbon dioxide has reached record atmospheric levels. This has led to shrinking polar ice sheets, sea level rise, and warming oceans.

The point is, based on extensive data, scientists have reached near-universal agreement that human activity is causing serious climate change. Nevertheless, powerful economic and political forces are unwilling to admit the obvious, and instead launched massive propaganda efforts to protect their wealth and fame. The problem is not whether climate change is real; the problem is how to get the American population to discredit right-wing propaganda and recognize the truth. So, Ford was not speaking as a researcher, but as a communicator, a publicist for his cause.

Good communication is worth a lot. If you can’t communicate, you can’t persuade people. Ford’s rhetorical methods brought light and publicity to an important issue.

P.S.: A note to my fellow communication folks. Communication studies today look at social issues, hermeneutics, and insights from continental philosophers. That’s all good. But language and delivery still lie behind much rhetorical excellence. These are the two rhetorical canons that we have underestimated ever since Peter Ramus’ regrettable attempt to reform rhetorical studies. Let’s stop making that mistake.

P.P.S.: Readers are invited to browse through my blog, where I often comment on Donald Trump’s superior delivery and presentational skills. Here’s a good place to start


Images from NASA


No comments:

Post a Comment