Rhetorical Analysis Of Oceans Of Pollution By Dahr Jamail

Are we killing our oceans? This is the proposed question of Dahr Jamail in his article Oceans of pollution. He details several environmental pollution issues facing the waters of the world, from large floating plastic islands to hypoxic zones in which sea life cannot breathe. His thesis is that humanity’s inability to deal with plastic waste is causing harmful problems in the ocean to rise, which could lead to serious negative effects on the planet. He conveys the current scientific consensus and directs it towards an audience that is unaware or ignorant of these issues. Jamail hopes that by reading his article it will encourage a unified effort towards battling oceanic pollution. Using standard rhetorical approachs of logos, pathos, and ethos, Jamail writes a convincing article that raises interest as well as concern. This paper will first dive into the aforementioned rhetorical strategies then conclude with a personal critique.
To say that Jamails approach to logos is strong is a drastic understatement.
He uses hard scientific data and research to back his claims. A very pressing piece of evidence was a study done by colleagues at the Scripps institute, it suggested that fish in the North Pacific Ocean could be ingesting plastic at a rate of 12,000 to 24,000 tonnes per year. Quite an astonishing amount especially when you take into consideration the potential health complications this could have on humanity and the effects it is causing on fish fertility rates. Even a biological oceanographer Dr Debora Iglesias-Rodriguez is worried as she states “Pollution is having a huge impact on the oceans, and is urgent and needs to be dealt with”. With this information Jamail provides a context that allows one to see the big picture, as well as smaller issues
within.

In the terms of pathos, Jamails use of language and stressed direness of the issues brings to mind an image of the hour glass. Time, as Jamail would argue, is running out, this statement echoes right from the beginning of the article when a prominent marine biologist by the name of Jeremy Jackson warns that “without profound and prompt changes in human behaviour, we will cause a mass extinction in the oceans with unknown ecological and evolutionary consequences". From the gecko you are overcome by a feeling of guilt and this theme carry’s on till the end. Jamail also uses examples that appeal to the basic human instinct of survival. From citing The US National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration who quotes claim that the earth’s oxygen production is at risk, to a serious problem with the food chain, Jamail uses powerful connotations and imagery that mass disaster type situations carry. In his final paragraph, Jamails use of an experts quote as to humanity’s ability to find solutions serves as a final jab to modern existence. Essentially, he uses humanity’s inability to establish a true symbiotic equilibrium with the earth as a means of driving his thesis home. Jamail may argue that plastics are a fundamental part of life and perhaps a solution is a pipe dream.

With the fear of having our basic needs diminish, pathos holds a strong emotional tie which in turn helps to develop a powerful case for ethos. While he effectively uses logical and emotional appeals, his use of credible sources and established authorities allows his article to garnish much persuasion. As Jamail is not an expert himself, he uses quotes from a number of leading experts, from varying organizations of great prestige, from the Scripts Institute of Oceanography to the University of South Hampton. By allowing other to speak and validate his thesis, it not only gives the article serious scientific backing, but also gives the appearance of an unbiased assessment of what is really happening. Instead of a heavy handed opinion piece, inter spliced with a few credible quotes and paraphrases, Jamail allows the credibility appeal to those who view these heavily credentialed figures as neutral scientists merely recording what they find.

Overall Jamails article was very well written and presented a disturbing picture to the issue of oceanic pollution. The amount of experts used, research paraphrased, and emotionally charged wording proved to be an excellent persuasive measure, as no rational person would ever claim to not want to be able to breathe or eat again. One flaw in his approach, however, was the lack of presenting the alternative argument, for one or many of the issues addressed in the article. For example, there may be some deception or misinformation on how large the plastic islands are. A very simple check into this shows that, while there are large amounts of plastic that collect together, the claim that one is twice the size of Texas is debatable. Perhaps Jamail could have included a quote from the heavily criticized US Environmental Protection Agency, or other possible explanations on one of the other issues he raised. Even if the alternative explanation offers little in terms of credibility, one should always present the other side to show that at least some thought was given to it. Because to have an open and unbiased mind, one must truly give both sides of any argument a chance. As the old adage goes “there are always two sides to every story”.