Rhetorical Analysis: Derrick Jensens Forget Short Showers - Assignment Example

Rhetorical Analysis: Derrick Jensen’s Forget Short Showers Derrick Jensen’s Forget Short Showers is one of the most inspiring writings on environmental conservation. Jensen believes that simple living is doing nothing to save the world from environmental degradation, but worsens the challenge instead. The author positions himself at the opposition, arguing that all moves by upcoming environmental enthusiasts are pro-capitalist. In essence, simple living is a refined version of the “self,” which is in stark contrast to the community (Jensen 1). People are encouraged to drive cars less, for instance. This is more personal than universal. The benefits accruing will fall on the person and not the universe. After all, very few people own cars in the world. Environmental challenges do not affect individuals, but the whole world. The perpetrator of deforestation in Africa has a ripple effect on China because environmental change knows no frontiers. Therefore, the advice that simple living is a sure way of saving the world is misplaced according to Jensen. Jensen is addressing the world. His is a global concern – climate change and management. So serious is this concern that it rarely escapes the attention of any human being on the planet (Karl and Trenberth 1720). Others would think Jensen only targets environmental enthusiasts who are either policy makers or students of environmental law. However, Jensen’s sentiments touch on every aspect of human life, from consumption to death. Jensen’s work is a balance of the Aristotelian rhetorical appeals as discussed hereunder. These make the work substantial and authoritative as an academic source and a guide to policy change in the realm of environment. Jensen has given a good ethos for his argument. The author has written several articles on environmental matters. One of the most acknowledged pieces is Thought to Exist in the Wild: Awakening from the Nightmare of Zoos (2007). The latter bagged Jensen an award while the former is persuasive enough too. These writings establish Jensen’s credibility as a qualified author and advisor on environmental issues. Jensen speaks to an audience that adheres much to the capitalist values. These values stress the need to accumulate as much personal wealth as possible to the exclusion of any other person (Storm 1020). In so doing, Jensen notes that people disregard the existence of others in the universe and, therefore, destroy the natural resources that are meant to serve everyone in equal measures. He states, “Part of the problem is that we’ve been victims of a campaign of systematic misdirection” (Jensen 1). Jensen’s arguments cannot appeal to proponents of simple living. With the advent of technology and globalization, life is becoming simpler each day. Cars are being manufactured that do not use fossil fuels. Solar windows are being manufactured to tap natural energy from the sun. These developments, Jensen argues, are self-centered and help further the interests of a capitalist world than rescue the universe from the biting effects of climate change and environmental degradation. He states, “So, even if we all took up cycling and wood stoves it would have a negligible impact on energy use, global warming atmospheric pollution” (Jensen 1). The author stresses the damaging effects of personal consumption and supports the same with concrete data to boost the logos of the work. He hopes to touch his audience and persuade them into believing that the kind of lifestyle encouraged by capitalism is destroying the world indirectly. He positions the audience at a vulnerable position in the hope of gagging their attention to the matters under discussion: “I think part of it is that we’re in a double bind (Jensen 1).” Jensen uses terminology to evoke the attention and sympathy of the audience, with the hope that people will change their stand over the climate change issue. For instance, he uses the term “killing” to depict how grave human actions impact on the planet. He also uses the term “harm” a number of times to denote the damaging effects of human actions most of which are perpetrated under the veil of simple living (Jensen 1). The author has supported his arguments with concrete statistical evidence. He makes no errors by imposing on the audience his opinions. Rather, he sums up worldwide statistical data on climate change, environmental degradation, and resource depletion to buttress his arguments. The sources are credible, thereby giving Jensen’s arguments the authoritative touch. On water depletion, he says, “More than 90 percent of the water used by humans is used by agriculture and industry (Jensen 1).” Here, Jensen justifies his argument that people are dying because much of the water necessary for life is being stolen by government entities masquerading as ghost humans. Data reported on water consumption does not reflect what actual living human beings consume, but inexistent human beings. Jensen is pushing for climate change control in a collective way. There seems to be a contradiction in his arguments because the same cause he is advocating is the one he is stopping people from pursuing to the detriment of the pathos of the work. Although self-centered life championed by capitalism leads only to a negligible amount of environmental conservation (Storm 1020), these little proportions still serve a crucial purpose in rescuing the world. Jensen is misled by the fact that massive lifestyle changes replicated the world over is the surest way to end climate change and conserve the environment and natural resources. He ought to have treated both approaches with relatively equal weight than downplaying the efforts made at simple living. Living life the hard way is quite boring and exhausting (Adger 330). Jensen’s accounts tend to negate technological advancements that have taken brilliant minds lengthy durations and studies to design and implement. An amicable solution should be sought for surmounting climate change other than negating noble improvements of life (Hulme 140). In conclusion, Jensen’s work is a concise documentation of barriers to environmental conservation, which have propelled climate change. The author has discussed the misconceptions around the subject and examined at length why capitalist values are fueling climate change. His position is that the fight against climate change should be a collective responsibility replicated throughout the world. This is a sound proposition, but Jensen fails to recognize that the little efforts put by individuals in their quest for simple living also contribute to the fight against climate. The author should revise the work to validate some of his arguments and iron out the contradicting interpretations. Works Cited Adger, W. Neil. Social Capital, Collective Action, and Adaptation to Climate Change. New York: Springer, 2010. 327-345. Hulme, Mike. Why We Disagree about Climate Change: Understanding Controversy, Inaction, and Opportunity. New York: Oxford University Press. Jensen, Derrick. Forget Short Showers. Orion Magazine, 2009. Accessed at https://orionmagazine.org/article/forget-shorter-showers/ 21 March 2015 Karl, Thomas, R. and Trenberth, Kevin, E. Modern Global Climate Change. Science Magazine, 302.5651 (2003): 1719-1723 Storm, Servaas. Capitalism and Climate Change: Can the Invisible Hand Adjust the Natural Thermostat? Development and Change, 40.6 (2009): 1011-1038. Read More