Environmental Rhetoric and Ecologies of Place

Peter Goggin, Peter N. Goggin, Peter Goggin, Peter N. Goggin

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2013
• Print ISBN: 9780415818407
• eBook ISBN: 9781135922726
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Languages & Linguistics
• Subtopic: Communication Studies
• Index: Languages & Linguistics

Understanding how rhetoric, and environmental rhetoric in particular, informs and is informed by local and global ecologies contributes to our conversations about sustainability and resilience — the preservation and conservation of the earth and the future of human society. This book explores some of the complex relationships, collaborations, compromises, and contradictions between human endeavor and situated discourses, identities and landscapes, social justice and natural resources, movement and geographies, unpacking and grappling with the complexities of rhetoric of presence. Making a significant contribution to exploring the complex discursive constructions of environmental rhetorics and place-based rhetorics, this collection considers discourses, actions, and adaptations concerning environmental regulations and development, sustainability, exploitation, and conservation of energy resources. Essays visit arguments on cultural values, social justice, environmental advocacy, and identity as political constructions of rhetorical place and space. Rural and urban case studies contribute to discussions of the ethics and identities of environment, and the rhetorics of environmental cartography and glocalization. Contributors represent a range of specialization across a variety of scholarly research in such fields as communication studies, rhetorical theory, social/cultural geography, technical/professional communication, cartography, anthropology, linguistics, comparative literature/ecocriticism, literacy studies, digital rhetoric/media studies, and discourse analysis. Thus, this book goes beyond the assumption that rhetorics are situated, and challenges us to consider not only how and why they are situated, but what we mean when we theorize notions of situated, place-based rhetorics.

Part I

Places We Dig (Mine)

1 A Certain Uncertainty

Drilling Into the Rhetoric of Marcellus Shale Natural Gas Development

James Guignard

Since 2007, there have been over 2,300 natural gas wells drilled in Pennsylvania. The effects of the drilling manifest themselves in many ways: increased diesel truck traffic, packed motels and rental houses, “man camps” scattered throughout the countryside, miles of insulated wire rolled out for seismic testing, and an influx of temporary offices, water storage tanks, and out-of-state license plates. This activity takes place above the Marcellus Shale, a band of natural gas-laden shale that stretches from West Virginia through eastern Ohio, western and north-central Pennsylvania, and into upstate New York. In 2008, Terry Engelder, a geoscience professor at Penn State, and Gary Lash, a geology professor at SUNY-Fredonia, estimated that the shale contained 500 trillion cubic feet of natural gas, about ten percent of which is recoverable. According to Geology.com, that volume of gas is “enough to supply the entire United States for about two years.” Although the number has been disputed, notably by the USGS, there is enough gas in the Marcellus to attract many energy companies, including Shell, Exxon/XTO, Range Resources, and Chesapeake Energy. This gas rush is accompanied by a large, ongoing, multimedia conversation involving the industry, government officials, lobbyists, environmental groups, and the people who live over the shale. These agents’ rhetoric shapes the perceptions of the Marcellus Shale region through numerous acts involving websites, press releases, TV, radio, and print advertisements, letters, contracts, phone messages, billboards and signs, news coverage, blogs, art (quilts, photography, pottery, and pastel landscapes, to name a few), bumper stickers, protests, books, bills, policy statements, scientific research, Google Groups, and public meetings. This ongoing conversation constitutes a corner of Burke’s Barnyard par excellence. For this chapter, I drill into the rhetoric of the Marcellus Shale development, particularly in north-central Pennsylvania, where I live, although the conversation resonates nationally and globally. Because I live in the midst of an extractive process, I am most interested in the ways in which the industry and the locals who live here shape attitudes toward north-central Pennsylvania and how their rhetorical acts incline people to see this place.¹

Gas drilling has become a mainstay of everyday life in Pennsylvania, and it promises to intensify, especially if the proposed 360,000 wells are drilled in 93,000 acres.² Nationally, natural gas is often touted as a bridge fuel to an alternative energy future and as a means to reduce our dependence on foreign oil. But this national public discourse hides the effects that occur on the ground when an industry moves into a region and begins extracting the gas. My research explores the competing rhetorics of the natural gas industry and local communities. In 2007, the industry began drilling and hydrofracturing the Marcellus Shale, a band of shale 5,000 to 8,000 feet below the surface. High-volume slick water hydrofracturing is a new extraction technology that involves pumping millions of gallons of water mixed with sand and chemicals into the drill bore and blasting the fluid into the shale. The liquid drains from the shale, leaving the sand behind to prop open the cracks, enabling the gas to flow into the well bore. Changes in Pennsylvania have been rapid, a sort of industrial blitzkrieg, and have left local communities reeling as they struggle to cope.

I argue that the industry uses a nationalized, displacing rhetoric that abstracts the region to ensure that gas development continues unabated, whereas communities use a localized, emplacing rhetoric that seeks to preserve a way of life by giving a face to the place. Although by no means symmetrical or balanced, the competing rhetorics present idealized versions of the worlds they inhabit and seek to create different perceptions of the region. For example, the gas industry ignores local knowledge in favor of their own language and practices (renaming roads with their own signs), whereas local communities discuss the need to preserve the small town feel and history of the area (overlooking the region’s history with extractive industries). These competing views of north-central Pennsylvania lead, for the industry, to rhetorical strategies that create a geographical “blank” space useful primarily for the gas it provides and that moves Americans toward a “better future” and “energy independence.” In response, local communities use rhetorical strategies to create an alternative sense of Tioga and the surrounding counties and their residents, one that asserts “We live here!”

The development of the Marcellus Shale has created what Marilyn Cooper calls a “web” of language (370), one that is connected intimately to the geography of the Marcellus Shale region. The words and images resemble the industry itself, with its well pads, roads, businesses, and pipelines interconnected across the land in order to move the gas. This web evolves as time passes, stretching, deforming, and reforming into new shapes and relations as each new rhetorical act emerges and works to shape attitudes toward whatever condition (unfettered access to gas; untrammeled public land; uninterrupted quiet at home) the agent desires. As Jenny Edbauer describes it, “we might … say that [the] rhetorical situation is better conceptualized as a mixture of processes and encounters” (13). Like the Marcellus Shale itself, the attitudes and emotions that constitute much of what people understand about natural gas development runs deep, spreading in all directions.

There have been millions of words written about the Marcellus Shale. Between 2000 and 2009, The New York Times database shows thirty-five articles for the phrase “Marcellus Shale”; from 2010 until this writing, the database shows seventy-three records. For 1,521 newspapers across the U.S., NewsBank shows one hit for “Marcellus Shale” in 2007; 216 hits in 2008; 403 hits in 2009; 2,014 hits in 2010; and 2,954 hits in 2011. Drawing on 2000 publications, the ABI/INFORM Trade and Industry database shows twelve hits for “Marcellus Shale” in 2006; eighty-five hits in 2007; 1,085 hits in 2008; 1,200 hits in 2009; 2,058 hits in 2010; and 2,311 hits in 2011. Significantly, ABI/INFORM shows how the industry’s attention on the Marcellus Shale preceded the public’s. I focus on salient examples of industry and local rhetoric to demonstrate the major strategies each group uses to argue for its version of the way this region should be perceived.

BIG MAN

Over the past three years, the rhetorical strategies used by the industry have evolved in response to a local public generally thrilled at first by the promise of an economic boom, then angered by the material effects of traffic, noise, and the threat of pollution. While the industry’s rhetoric has evolved, several key strategies that shape attitudes toward the region nationally and locally have emerged. One key feature of these strategies is that they transcend their immediate geographical region, creating an impression of north-central Pennsylvania as open and implying that the region is abstract space (Tuan 6). Contrasting place with space, Tuan writes that “[p]lace is security, space is freedom: we are attached to the one and long for the other” (1). Tuan characterizes space as “a resource that yields wealth and power when properly exploited. It is a worldwide symbol of prestige. The ‘big man’ occupies and has access to more space than lesser beings” (58). Tuan’s theorizing provides the framework needed to understand how the industry’s presentation of north-central Pennsylvania as a frontier ripe for exploration recognizes the psychological importance for people to see resource-rich areas as such. The industry uses language that appeals to this sense of freedom and downplays the sense of place experienced by people who live over the gas. One example includes the renaming of roads from, say, Ore Bed Rd. to Pipeline Road 7, as happened to the road I live on. Rather than use the name that suggests knowledge of the place (Ore Bed), the gas industry uses a generic name that would work just as well in Texas, Wyoming, or Louisiana.³ Such signs encourage whoever reads it to disassociate the resource from the place, thus downplaying the environmental impacts on people who live above the Marcellus Shale and who deal with the industry daily.

If there is a center for messaging, it’s probably the Marcellus Shale Coalition, formerly the Marcellus Shale Committee. The Marcellus Shale Coalition (MSC) is an industry trade group that features prominently in the news, especially MSC’s president, Kathryn Klaber. Although there are other groups representing the industry, such as Energy In Depth, MSC is most prominent in the region. MSC acts as a focal point for much of the messaging about the industry, and rhetorical strategies used by MSC reverberate through the larger conversation about gas development.

We can observe several strategies summarized in the statement that greets readers on MSC’s homepage. Only 129 words, the statement captures concisely the industry’s major arguments for the development of the Marcellus Shale:

The Marcellus Shale: Energy to fuel our future

Welcome to the Marcellus Shale Coalition’s (MSC) website. You’ll find information on the Marcellus Shale formation, how we extract the natural gas and protect the environment, why we value the communities where we do business, and the opportunities that the Commonwealth and its residents can realize in the coming years and decades through natural gas exploration and production.

You’ll also learn about the important issues being addressed by our Marcellus Shale Coalition and the positive impacts natural gas drilling is already having on families, businesses and communities in many parts of Pennsylvania.

So for some quick facts or more in-depth information, we invite you to explore the MSC website and discover why Marcellus Shale is the energy to fuel our future. (“The Marcellus Shale”)

It’s no surprise that MSC offers information on the process of extraction, which is clear and fascinating. However, the website also raises other issues, like “protect[ing] the environment,” the effects of development on communities, and the promise of opportunities to families and businesses, which fall outside their expertise and are not as settled as MSC’s language makes them out to be. But that’s not surprising because the statement notes that the site is dedicated to sharing the “positive impacts” of natural gas development, a purpose that itself abstracts the region. Few changes on this scale are only positive.

Notably, the statement begins and ends with the phrase “energy to fuel our future.” This phrase appears in differing versions in different contexts, ranging from politicians’ utterances to newspaper editorials to industry CEOs’ statements. For instance, responding to protestors outside an industry conference in Philadelphia, Chesapeake’s CEO Aubrey McClendon stated, “What a glorious vision of the future [the protestors hold]: It’s cold, it’s dark and we’re all hungry” (Rubinkam). Speaking about natural gas development at a manufacturing plant visit in Johnstown, Pennsylvania Governor Tom Corbett told a crowd of business owners and politicians, “It’s not just jobs … It’s national security. It’s national defense. It’s a future for our children, our grandchildren” (Siwy). McClendon conjures images of the Dark Ages, of regressing, which stands out in sharp contrast to a warm, bright, comfortable future his words suggest. Corbett raises issues of jobs, safety, and energy independence and ends by implying a promising, safe future for two generations of children. Such appeals to the future and safety echo throughout industry rhetoric, conjuring images of the frontier and taming the wilderness. As Lakoff and Johnson remind us, the future suggests a sense of progress, of moving forward or up (22), and it encourages people to look ahead, not at the present or past. Although the development of the Marcellus Shale holds promise, the industry’s emphasis on the future turns attention away from the present and Pennsylvania’s past experience with extractive industries. And because the future is an abstract fiction, the industry can choose the future they present. This framing aligns well with Tuan’s notion of abstract space, and it can apply anywhere gas development occurs.

MSC’s vision of the future focuses on economic development and jobs. This is particularly powerful at a time when, nationally, the economic outlook is bleak, and, locally, much of the drilling is occurring in rural areas that have lost manufacturing jobs and financial support for farming.⁴ MSC addresses such concerns, claiming that “[t]he development of natural gas from Marcellus Shale offers great potential for the region’s economic future, as well as the thousands of individuals, families and small, locally-owned businesses involved in extracting this clean-burning and abundant energy source from the ground” (“Opportunity”). Combining economics and the future, MSC states that gas development will benefit “thousands of individuals, families and small, locally-owned businesses,” a characterization that encourages people to think about what may be, not what is. They support their claims with a Penn State University study called “An Emerging Giant: Prospects and Economic Impacts of Developing the Marcellus Shale Natural Gas Play.” The study claims that “developing these natural gas reserves will directly generate thousands of high-paying jobs and indirectly create many others as employment is stimulated in support industries and as workers spend these wages and households spend royalty income” (“Opportunity”). MSC provides some numbers from the study’s projected impacts, like jobs created and dollars generated, although they do not provide a link to the study.⁵ MSC expects the appeal to expertise suggested by the academic affiliation to suffice for framing Marcellus Shale development as economically beneficial.

PICK A FUTURE, ANY FUTURE

MSC’s emphasis on the future, economics, and jobs interjects possibility, security, and hope into the conversation about natural gas development by directing the audience to look to the future, specifically, the economic future, which discourages people from thinking about the present or a specific place. Looked at through Tuan’s framework, the future is a psychological concept akin to abstract space—we may not know what the actual future will be, but we need such a vision in order to achieve a sense of progress. This economic framing serves the gas industry’s purposes by projecting their vision of the future on this space, which appeals broadly to a national audience.

MSC claims that the industry works to protect the environment as well. Less than fifteen years old, slick water hydrofracturing is a major concern for many Pennsylvania residents because of the amount of water required, the amount of chemicals used, and the fact the technology outpaces the science. Yet the industry seeks to assuage public fears by portraying the environmental concerns as unwarranted. Industry rhetoric downplays the concerns by abstracting and simplifying the process, making the amounts of water used sound like a non-issue and creating analogies that link the water and chemical use with everyday items.

At a public informational meeting hosted by the MSC in June 2009, Pennsylvania Independent Oil and Gas Association (PIOGA) Executive Director Louis D’Amico stated that the natural gas industry will use the equivalent of one percent of the entire daily amount of water used in the state of Pennsylvania. He noted that the industry uses less water in a day than is required by Pennsylvania’s golf courses. He also claimed that the chemicals used for hydrofracturing can be found in “consumer goods and cosmetics,” which is true (Marcellus Shale Informational). D’Amico’s choice of wording, however, overlooks significant differences between consumer goods under the sink or cosmetics on a shelf. For one, the scale is not comparable. A fraction of a percentage in a million gallons of water equals thousands of gallons of chemicals. Second, the public generally does not pump thousands of gallons of chemicals into the ground where they could potentially affect the environment. Instead, his phrase serves to abstract the chemicals in ways that put them into an innocuous framework by suggesting they are in our homes and used every day. His language suggests a just-more-of-the-same approach, which implies that the industry knows what it is doing, has been doing it for years, and is certain that the economic future they project will be untainted by pollution. So you shouldn’t object now if you haven’t objected before.

BIG BABY

Another way the industry rhetoric abstracts the region is by presenting contradictory frames depending upon context, a strategy that works well when projecting a particular vision for the future. Two framing metaphors the industry uses are industry as infant and industry as expert.

The gas industry often portrays itself in the stages of infancy whenever severance taxes are suggested. Severance taxes are an extraction tax, a tax applied any time a resource is removed from the ground. Pennsylvania is the only state involved in natural gas extraction without a severance tax, and the industry shapes their discussions of the tax in ways that suggest it would effectively stop resource development. The following press release is representative of the industry’s rhetoric:

Pennsylvania is blessed with rich natural resources, including a potentially large natural gas field in the Marcellus Shale. Although the MSC strongly opposes a broad-based severance tax, especially while the development of the Marcellus Shale is in its infancy, the industry remains willing to work through the Commonwealth’s current financial challenges with the Governor and the legislature. (“Marcellus Sha...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Half Title
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Dedication
• Contents
• List of Figures
• Acknowledgments
• Introduction
• PART I Places We Dig (Mine)
• PART II Places We Build and Create
• PART III Places We Travel Through, Around, and Within
• PART IV Places of Resistance and Acceptance
• Afterword
• Contributors
• Index