 |
| 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