Download Rhetorical Analysis: Dead Zones Engulfing Waters Around the World

Freund 1
Lindsay Freund
Jennifer Bray
English 1302.480
March 28, 2011
Rhetorical Analysis: Dead Zones Engulfing Waters Around the World
Whether it’s family vacations to the shores off the nearest coast, or the roaring
waves in your own background backyard, oceans are beautiful, fun, and blissful.
However, because of human corruption, dead zones are appearing in waters all over the
world causing a very negative effect on the environment and it’s inhabitants. This
problem is making the once picturesque seas into repulsive sites to see. Long ago, before
humans began polluting Earth, ocean water around the world was clean, healthy, and free
of any man-made pollutants, but that has not been the case lately as we have been
experiencing detrimental dead zones appearing in oceans all around the world due to
fertilizer runoff and other pollutants. Human being’s have the ability to not only
deteriorate our environment, but we possess the intelligence to reciprocate the negative
things we have done.
Dead zones did not randomly begin popping up in the oceans for no reason;
events throughout history have caused this problem. First of all, a dead zone is an “area
of low-oxygen water that threatens marine life,” and these areas are occurring all over the
world (Berger). The main culprit for oxygen-depleted waters is nitrate rich fertilizer
runoff. As one can imagine, there is much more of this runoff than there was in the past.
Because of technology and scientific studies, nitrogen and phosphorus have been used in
fertilizers in order to produce abnormally abundant, and healthy crops. As the American
Freund 2
population has grown, so has the demand for food; the major crop for this purpose being
corn. Throughout the years, bigger farms have used a greater amount of fertilizer in the
hopes of producing more crops, which eventually turns to revenue (Zabarenko).
There are many key aspects and facts surrounding the issue of dead zones. Many
scientists have different theories as to why dead zones are taking place, but many of them
conclude the same thing: fertilizer runoff. According to a study at Stanford University,
“fertilizer runoff from farms can trigger sudden explosions of marine algae capable of
disrupting ocean ecosystems and producing ‘dead zones’ in the sea” (Agriculture 8). This
is one of many studies that have been taking place over the years. Many of these studies
conclude that fertilizer runoff is the major factor in producing dead zones. According to
an article explaining these harmful effects in Chesapeake Bay, not only does fertilizer
create dead zones, but other pollutants such as “sewage plants, storm drains, development
sites, and auto exhaust are other [contributors] that rob oxygen from water and create
dead zones” (Harper). This article strongly suggests that human pollutants are corrupting
the natural environment and human beings need much more respect for nature. To
summarize the overall issue, Robert Diaz, a professor at Virginia Institute of Marine
Science, states, “Human activities really screwed up oxygen conditions in our coastal
areas” (Achenbach). Diaz is essentially right; if humans did not exist, the world would be
a much cleaner, healthier place. Earth’s worst enemy is the people that inhabit it.
However, crop production is not the only factor contributing to this environmental
issue. According to a reporter for The Washington Post, “smog from vehicles” is a major
pollutant feeding the disaster water. It was not until the 1900’s did automobiles even
Freund 3
exist, but now we have millions all over the world. The rise of the automobile industry is
a major reason to air pollution, which in turn created pollution of the water (Achenbach).
There are many key players surrounding this issue. The main group that comes to
mind when facing an environmental issue is the EPA, Environmental Protection Agency.
This group strives to protect any problem that nature is
faced with. The EPA is very aware of the issue of dead
zones, and they are doing what they can in order to
protect marine life and clean up our oceans. They use
effective rhetoric in both print and visual forms in
order to get what they desire - a pollution-free world.
They use an effective advertisement by putting dirty
pollutants in a drinking glass and titling it, “Bottoms
Up.” The sarcasm of the title is effective because of
the repulsiveness of the photo. The labeled pollutants
in the picture are car wash soap, yard waste, litter, and
sediment. When analyzing this photo, it is obvious that
Figure 1 The image from the EPA reveals the pollutants that drain into our drinking
water and sarcastically states, “Bottoms Up” (Nonpoint).
the harmful things going into our drinking water are all man-made pollutants. This form
of rhetoric is logical because it states, “Everything that goes into our storm drains makes
its way into our streams. And into what we drink” creating a sense of logic, that is indeed
truthful. The ethical appeal in this photo comes from the fact that the EPA created it, and
the EPA is a well renowned organization with respectable knowledge of the topic.
Freund 4
The next piece of visual rhetoric comes from the Chesapeake Club
advertisements. The organization is advertising for less fertilizer runoff and in order to
protect the blue crabs that inhibit the Chesapeake Bay. The brightly colored picture
Figure 2 This advertisement from the Chesapeake Club urges farmers to use less (or
organic) fertilizers because the runoff is killing the blue crabs in the Chesapeake
Bay (See).
catches the attention of the reader along with the bolded words, “greener, blue crabs, and
gone.” Figure 2 brings a logical appeal because it states that fertilizer runoff is killing the
blue crabs in the bay, and marine protection is a concern for many, especially seafood
lovers. It is only logical that the fertilizer runoff is the main culprit to the destruction of
the blue crabs. Figure 2 also presents an ethical appeal because the Chesapeake Club
created it. The Chesapeake Club is an organization that is dedicated to the protection of
the bay.
Freund 5
There are many other groups other than the EPA that are trying to protect the seas,
one being the NOAA, or the National Oceanic Atmospheric Administration. Their goal is
to address the problems of human activities in our waters. They want to “conserve,
protect, and enhance biodiversity” and they plan on doing this by creating laws that limit
human interaction with the water (Selkoe 36). In this article, Selkoe uses rhetorical
appeals, most of them being logical appeals. She uses facts such as “89 million
Americans and millions more around the world participate in marine recreation each
year” (Selkoe 33). This appeal is logical because she uses the number as a fact of people
who enjoy the ocean waters, yet that number will dramatically decrease with the influx in
dead zones around the world. Another key aspect that helps to do this is the United States
Coast Guard. They are the people who will enforce the stricter laws on fishing as an
attempt to maintain the marine life that is still in existence (Labov 67). The Interagency
Ocean Policy Task Force is a relatively newer group of people who plan on carrying out
CMSP, or Coastal and Marine Spatial Planning. This is yet another attempt in order to
preserve and create for a better ocean environment (Mengerink 42). Michael Brune, the
Sierra Club Executive Director, states that dead zones have had a detrimental effect on
the economy of coastal areas. In the Gulf of Mexico, he explains that because of dead
zones, less oil drilling is taking place and that fisheries are collapsing due to the issue
(Brune). In Maryland, the citizens have taken action in ocean cleanups whether they like
it or not because taxes in Maryland have risen due to the issue (Editorial). In attempts to
conserve the water of Chesapeake Bay, an article which discusses advertisements that are
intented to lessen pollution are rhetorically clever. Slogans such as "Save the Crabs...
Then Eat 'Em," appeal to the emotions because it brings humor to a serious issue. The
Freund 6
intent is the save the marine life, only for us to eat it, which indeed is a way of life
(Harper).
However, not everyone agrees that fertilizer runoff is so destructive. For instance,
The Missouri Corn Growers Association is a grassroots organization that has come into
play with all of the dead zone talk because they believe that their fertilizers are not
causing any problems. In a letter that they sent to the Gulf of Mexico Hypoxia Working
Group, they state that they have been looking over the scientific research that has been
conducted for the dead zone problem, and nothing is certain that nitrogen and
phosphorous are the culprits for the problem. They state that scientists only theorize, but
they do not actually know. If this is not the case, then they are hurting their business for
no apparent reason. This group of people would be out of work due to false theories from
scientist, and they are not happy with that outcome (Taylor).
Not only do organizations want to protect the ocean, but governmental acts have
taken this issue into their own hands as well. According to an opening statement at a
congressional hearing, House Representative Baird states that he wants to reauthorize the
1998 Harmful Algal Bloom and Hypoxia Research and Control Act in the attempts to
save the marine environment and get rid of the dead zone problem (Brian). Another
article explains Baird’s passion for the issue as it tries to push legislation for cleaning up
dead zones. This article uses logical rhetoric by using statistics as it states, “Fifty percent
of the air we breathe, or every other breath we take, comes from oxygen created by the
ocean.” He also explains here that the dead zone problem is extremely detrimental to the
citizens’ health (Robinson). This appeal is logical because he uses a shocking statistic in
order to scare people into passing the legislation that he has proposed.
Freund 7
If we do not do anything about the dead zones, it is believed that there are very
severe consequences. For instance, according to John Roach of National Geographic, he
believes that there will not be any seafood left by the year 2048. He thinks that dead
zones and other contributing factors are causing fish to either die or swim off from their
natural ecosystems, which will eventually disrupt the way of natural marine life and that
can conclude in death (Roach).
In conclusion, humans are the most destructive animals on earth. Because of our
intelligence and the wrongful ways of using it, the once beautiful nature scene is
diminishing before our very own eyes. Even though there are groups and legislation out
there intended to preserve all of this beauty, it is unrealistic that the world will ever be the
same as it was before humans invaded. Even though we cannot fully reverse the situation,
we should be able to open up our eyes and see that nature is a gorgeous thing that should
not be taken advantage of, and that is exactly what groups like the EPA and NOAA are
trying to accomplish.