preview

Rhetorical Analysis of McKibben’s Article, Power Play Endangers Hawaii's Rain Forest

Decent Essays

Rhetorical Analysis of McKibben’s Article, Power Play Endangers Hawaii's Rain Forest

Protecting Hawaii’s rain forest from the invasion of Corporate America is Bill McKibben’s intention as an environmentalist. His 28-paragraph article, “Power Play Endangers Hawaii’s Rain Forest,” appeared in Rolling Stone, a popular culture magazine, on May 31, 1990. He argues that producing power through geothermal drilling harms the Wao Kele o Puna rain forest, the environment, and the people that live nearby. He also presents alternative methods for power, hoping that people will consider these, such as solar-water heating systems and energy efficient gadgets. Unfortunately, his elevated, subjective stance and attempt to convince his audience through …show more content…

Thus, McKibben plays the role of looking like a credible source to entice his audience to agree with him.

McKibben attempts to sway the reader through comparisons of the rain forest to important values even though we are not sure about the validity of these comparisons. The state only has to clear 1% of the rain forest, which spreads out into “a honeycomb of roads, corridors, and steam pipes,” says Russell Ruderman, a part of the Big Island Rainforest Action Group. Ruderman says that “the plants aren’t used to foreign competition,” but we are not told that he has the qualifications to make these statements. He compares this “honeycomb” to weeds, a negative connotation, which pervade the heart of the forest. Then McKibben compares that to the negative effect on nine or ten sticks of butter on veins and arteries. This pathos appeals to the reader because health is very important. But there is really no way of truly knowing that one of these circumstances is as destructive as the other because they are extremely different. Also, the 1% of the “honeycomb” that is invading the forest is much smaller compared to the excess butter to the 1% of veins and arteries. Since it is too complex to question whether the comparison is valid, McKibben convinces the audience to accept that clearing 1% of the forest is harmful.

McKibben persuades the audience to think that it is unwise and

Get Access