**5.1. Some examples and citations**

Former vice president of the USA and winner of Nobel Peace Prize, Al Gore, fought strongly for solving the climate crisis through the documentary film *An Inconvenient Truth* (2006). His creative rhetoric was probably as important as the data he presented. Another case of forceful rhetoric was seen in the Time Magazine of 13 September 2007. Here, Nancy Gibbs treated global warming under the heading GLOBAL WARNING, with these words:

*In a week when cable screens were split among solemn ceremonies, falling governments, the first serious congressional debate over a war now in its fourth year and an economy with a nervous twitch, it was even harder than usual to catch the sirens in the distance – to hear the sounds of ice melting, species vanishing and cities choking the people who live in them. You can't really cover a story that hasn't happened yet, but sometimes the news about the future is the biggest story of all.*

*This was a week for warnings. U.S. government scientists announced that the Arctic ice cap is melting even more rapidly than they had feared; by 2050, 40% of the ice cover in the Arctic Ocean could be gone, a loss that wasn't supposed to happen for 100 years. One scientist called the news "astounding." Since greenhouse gases linger for decades, even drastic reductions in emissions won't be enough to prevent further decline.*

Do we hear "the sirens in the distance"? Are we able to realise that "the news about the future is the biggest story of all"? The climate problem is not only a matter of collecting scientific data, but also a massive pedagogic challenge. Our motivation for action depends highly on a mental empathy for future consequences. We need concepts for debate, but sometimes even more powerful rhetoric for motivation – for mental change.

The American biologist Edward O. Wilson is known for several well-formed statements. His main concern is to preserve biological diversity. In 1980, professors within different disciplines at Harward University were asked to identify the most serious threats of the nearest future. Wilson answered:

*The worst thing that can happen during the 1980s is not energy depletion, economic collapse, limited nuclear war, or conquest by a totalitarian government. As terrible as these catastrophes would be for us, they can be repaired within a few generations. The one process ongoing in the 1980s that will take millions of years to correct is the loss of genetic and species diversity by the destruction of natural habitats. This is the folly that our descendents are least likely to forgive us [44].*

In his book "The Diversity of Life" [23], Wilson stated:

*In the United States and Canada more people visit zoos and aquariums than attend all professional athletic events combined. They crowd the national parks to view natural landscapes, looking from the tops of prominences out across rugged terrain for glimpses of tumbling water and animals living free. They travel long distances to stroll along the seashore, for reasons they can't put into words.*

**5. Rhetoric matters**

144 Environmental Change and Sustainability

*further decline.*

Wilson answered:

**5.1. Some examples and citations**

Former vice president of the USA and winner of Nobel Peace Prize, Al Gore, fought strongly for solving the climate crisis through the documentary film *An Inconvenient Truth* (2006). His creative rhetoric was probably as important as the data he presented. Another case of forceful rhetoric was seen in the Time Magazine of 13 September 2007. Here, Nancy Gibbs treated

*In a week when cable screens were split among solemn ceremonies, falling governments, the first serious congressional debate over a war now in its fourth year and an economy with a nervous twitch, it was even harder than usual to catch the sirens in the distance – to hear the sounds of ice melting, species vanishing and cities choking the people who live in them. You can't really cover a story that hasn't*

*This was a week for warnings. U.S. government scientists announced that the Arctic ice cap is melting even more rapidly than they had feared; by 2050, 40% of the ice cover in the Arctic Ocean could be gone, a loss that wasn't supposed to happen for 100 years. One scientist called the news "astounding." Since greenhouse gases linger for decades, even drastic reductions in emissions won't be enough to prevent*

Do we hear "the sirens in the distance"? Are we able to realise that "the news about the future is the biggest story of all"? The climate problem is not only a matter of collecting scientific data, but also a massive pedagogic challenge. Our motivation for action depends highly on a mental empathy for future consequences. We need concepts for debate, but sometimes even more

The American biologist Edward O. Wilson is known for several well-formed statements. His main concern is to preserve biological diversity. In 1980, professors within different disciplines at Harward University were asked to identify the most serious threats of the nearest future.

*The worst thing that can happen during the 1980s is not energy depletion, economic collapse, limited nuclear war, or conquest by a totalitarian government. As terrible as these catastrophes would be for us, they can be repaired within a few generations. The one process ongoing in the 1980s that will take millions of years to correct is the loss of genetic and species diversity by the destruction of natural*

*habitats. This is the folly that our descendents are least likely to forgive us [44].*

global warming under the heading GLOBAL WARNING, with these words:

*happened yet, but sometimes the news about the future is the biggest story of all.*

powerful rhetoric for motivation – for mental change.

In his book "The Diversity of Life" [23], Wilson stated:

In the same book, Wilson coined the concept "eremozoic age", or "eremozoikum", – the age of loneliness – to which we may be heading. If ecosystems collapse and the diversity of species disappear around us, humankind is getting more and more lonely on the planet. In this context, it is a paradox the some of the most threatened species are our closest relatives, the gorilla, chimpanzee and orangutang.

Wilson is a reputated synthesizer, and has come up with several basic hypotheses and concepts. The following statement is relevant for sustainable thinking, where information should be transformed to wisdom:

*We are drowning in information, while starving for wisdom. The world henceforth will be run by synthesizers, people able to put together the right information at the right time, think critically about it, and make important choices wisely. [45].*

Norton [46] presented the following formulation about the mental value of contact with nature:

*To be moved by the beauty of organisms and whole, healthy ecosystems, to experience a sense of wonder and awe in the face of nature's inexhaustible marvels, is to become a better person.*

The conservation biologist Soulé asked for a stronger engagement among biologists about attitudes and ethics [47]. He refuses the viewpoint that we should leave speeches to the politicians, morality to the priests, and ethics to the philosophers: *Few of them can speak with authority and familiarity about the exquisite detail and amazing diversity of life.* He concludes: *Who are more capable than biologists to spread the word that it is wrong to terminate evolutionary lines, and that it is wrong to wipe out entire communities?* He also touches the human pain from the destruction of biodiversity: *The planetary tragedy is also a personal tragedy to those scientists who feel compelled to devote themselves to the rescue effort. It is painful to witness so much termination*. This is powerful rhetoric, where Soulé manages to communicate both the duties biologists have to fight for biodiversity, and also his personal pain in witnessing biodiversity loss.

The rhetoric of the American expert in atmospheric physics, James E. Hansen, is also well worth to listen to [30]:

*It is worth imagining how our grandchildren will look back on us. The picture that I fear has the polluters, the utilities, and automakers standing in court demanding the right to continue to emit carbon dioxide for the sake of short-term profits. The disturbing part is that we, through our national government, are* *standing alongside the polluters, officially as a hulking amicus curiae (friend of the court), arguing against limitations on emissions. Is this the picture of our generation that we want to be remembered by? We live in a democracy, and policies represent our collective will. If we allow the planet to pass tipping points, it will be hard to defend our role. The state of the wild is in our hands, and we can still preserve creation and serve humanity worldwide. A drive for energy efficiency and clean energy sources will produce high-tech jobs. Restoration of clean air will be universally beneficial. Rural life and the planet can benefit from intelligent development of biofuels and renewable energy. At the front lines, observing the changes in the wild, conservationists serve as a voice for the plants and animals that have already started reacting to climate warming. To conserve as much biodiversity as we can, conserva‐ tionists must unite with many others to push for a far more radical reduction in carbon dioxide emissions than has hitherto been considered practical. Otherwise, alpine and polar species, coral reefs, and species living in areas that become arid will be lost over the next century.*

In Norway, the biologist, Magnar Norderhaug (1939-2006) was well-known for his formula‐ tions in a number of books, articles and speeches about nature conservation. One formulation he used in order to wake up an audience was: *The future is no longer what it used to be*. Another formulation which was meant as a final inspiration was: *We must make the necessary possible*. The environmentalist and eminent speaker, Øystein Dahle, presented the following formula‐ tion about the need to deviate from "business as usual" on our journey into the future: *Our destination should not be where we are heading.*

Even the graffiti genre may deliver forceful formulations. The statement: *The future is cancel‐ led* is strongly negative and illustrates that rhetoric is a weapon that can be used in many ways. A more constructive formulation is: *Good planets are hard to find.* This is true, and could motivate us to rescue the one we have.
