Page 324 - Essentials of Human Communication

Three Types of Persuasive Speeches 303

into the source of our drinking water. Or worse, the companies drill right into
the ground water itself, and pump the chemicals directly in. Alarming, consid-
ering that a leaked gas industry study admitted that drinking contaminated
water posed “significant risks for cancer.” The gas industry’s mouthpiece,
NaturalGas.org (copyright 2010) contends that any harm posed in the first step
is more than countered in the second, which they euphemistically term
“wastewater disposal.” The industry will tell you that the vast majority of the
fluid is simply recovered and treated. In reality, this is a joke. Only about half
of the fluid ever leaves the ground, and the “treatment” follows one of two
options. First option, and I’m not kidding, the toxic mix is put into a massive
open pit and sprayed into the air, hoping the sun evaporates it, a procedure
which conveniently coincided with a tripling in the number of children with
severe asthma in Texas, and left one county in Wyoming with worse air qual-
ity than Los Angeles. Or second option, it’s dumped into rivers. The Wall Street
Journal of March 13, 2011, reports that last year, in Pennsylvania alone, over
3.6 million gallons of toxic fluids were dumped into rivers, rivers supplying
drinking water to 27 million Americans. Hydraulic fracturing in the smallest
amount is a public health nightmare. What our waters face today is nothing
less than a torrent of these poisons.
So, how has hydraulic fracturing so successfully dodged the Clean Air Act, Note the preview sentence here: “So, how has hydraulic fracturing so suc-
Clean Water Act, and the EPA? cessfully dodged . . .” This tells the listeners what the speaker will cover in this
next section—the reasons fracturing prevailed, that is, the second problem—
the corruption.

The answer lies in two bits of legal maneuvering which shield the indus- This next section deals with the second problem, the corruption that has
try. The Halliburton Loophole, and the abuse of Proprietary Secrets. The 2009 allowed hydraulic fracturing to continue. Did the speaker convince you that
documentary Gasland describes how, beginning in 2005, Vice-President Dick corruption has enabled fracturing to thrive? If not, what might the speaker
Cheney began a series of meetings with 40 of the top drilling companies. The have said that would have convinced you?
product of these meetings was the Halliburton Loophole (named after the
beneficiary at whom Cheney had just been CEO). The loophole exempted hy- Logic and evidence are used throughout the speech and there are instances
draulic fracturing from all federal regulation, with no stated reason for doing of reasoning from specific instances to a generalization, from causes and ef-
so. This theoretically shifts authority to states. But according to the previously fects, and from sign. Can you identify these examples? What other types of
cited ProPublica of the 31 major drilling states, only four have any regulation evidence would you have liked before accepting the speaker’s thesis?
on the books. Of those four, West Virginia has 17 inspectors for over 55,000
wells, New York State allowed a 700% increase in drilling while cutting regula- At this point you’ve probably formed an impression of the speaker’s
tors 20%, and Texas has completely given up, promising a 72-hour turnaround credibility—his competence, character, and charisma. What impression did
on drilling applications. With the federal government willfully looking the you form and, more important, what specifically in the speech gave you these
other way, and the states simply unable to keep up, the only option left to impressions?
families is to take legal action themselves, which brings us to our second legal
maneuver, the abuse of proprietary secrets. When a gas driller involves propri- The speaker used a variety of emotional appeals. To what needs were these
etary secrets, it means they are not required to reveal what’s in their toxic appeals directed? What other emotional appeals might have been appropriate
sludge, like a restaurant with a secret sauce. Even when scientists have found if this speech were given in your class?
lethal chemicals in a family’s water, the companies respond “we don’t use that
one,” and that’s the end of the legal story. The Christian Science Monitor of July Note this transition: “It is clear the situation is desperate”—it reminds listeners
22, 2010, reports that these families can’t leave; their property is worthless. of the dangers/corruption (the situation is desperate) and allows the speaker to
Their only clean water is trucked in by the drilling company, and not until they move into his solution with the understanding that we really have a problem.
sign a gag order swearing they’ll never tell a soul what happened to their What other choices were available to introduce the section dealing with the
family. Our government turns its back on devastated families, and assures solution?
them the drilling company knows best.
It is clear the situation is desperate.
But while the mounting evidence of environmental catastrophe may Here the speaker identifies the solution; it’s a question of policy: the speaker
seem, well, insurmountable, there is a simple solution at hand that will save implicitly argues that our policy should be to adopt and implement the 2011
American lives: the 2011 Fracturing Responsibility and Awareness of Chemi- Fracturing Responsibility and Awareness of Chemicals Act. And he explains its
cals Act. We’ll explore the incredible reach of this paragraph-long legislation two major provisions. Were these clear? If not, what else might the speaker
by looking at its two clauses, and how we can help. First clause: Regulated ac- have said?
tivities “shall include the underground injection of fluids . . . pursuant to hy-
draulic fracturing.” This closes the Halliburton Loophole and puts fracturing
back where it should have been all along, under federal supervision. No lon-
ger will we have to wonder if a well has seen an inspection in the last ten
years. No longer will gas drillers be able to run circles around state regulators.
Second clause: “Any person using hydraulic fracturing [shall] disclose to the