“Fuel For Thought: All Biofuels Are Not Created Equal” Rhetorical Analysis With fuel and food prices rising and the effects of climate change being more evident, authors David Tilman and Jason Hill present their research in the article “Fuel For Thought: All Biofuels Are Not Created Equal.” David Tilman, a Professor of Ecology at the University of Minnesota and Jason Hill, an Assistant Professor of Bio products and Bio Engineering, give insight to the dangers that biofuel production can create for our most fundamental needs. Tilman and Hill make a subtle call to slow biofuel production in order to develop alternate means of production. Unfortunately, they’re lack of appeals to pathos and an understated call to arms weaken the argument and make this article feel informative instead of actionable. Writing for the Seattle Times, Tilman and Hill are interacting with the general public. By speaking casually Tilman and Hill effectively show the conflict between biofuel production, our food resources and the ability to maintain a sustainable environment. With logic and reasoning the authors easily persuade their audience to consider the repercussions of biofuel production and view alternate methods than what are currently being campaigned. Although the target audience is general, there is an underlying motive to decelerate political proponents and wake them from their “ethanol induced euphoria.”(571,par.2) The authors avoid the scientific community and the overuse of statistics to stay engaged with their core readership. They wisely keep the chemistry reserved for a scientific journal and make this article understandable for newspaper patrons.
Tilman and Hill open with the current understandings and known benefits of biofuel production but quickly change direction and offer that biofuel causes a direct conflict between three of our most fundamental needs- food, energy and a sustainable environment. The authors clearly state the minimal gains in clean energy through statistical analysis and the dangers of haphazard production and their influences on the environment. The authors make strong appeals to logos with valid logic in a claim-argument format. Using narratives and the only real appeals to pathos, the conflict between food and fuel are introduced. The obscure negative environmental affects of biofuel production are highlighted and discussed at length. They conclude that intelligent and thoughtful biofuel production can net positive results.
This is an informative evaluation of biofuels as an alternate and clean energy source. By following each claim with a logical argument and strong appeals to logos, Tilman and Hill explain the sparse benefits of biofuels to our energy production. The fact that if every acre of corn produced in 2006 were used for ethanol “the new energy gained would be…just 2.4 percent of the market” is disquieting. They further enlighten the audience that simple tune-ups and correct tire pressure would save more energy. (571,par.7) With the minimal effects of energy being declared, Tilman and Hill bring to light the immense effects biofuel production has on the environment. This is a logical shift showing that maximum gains are in fact arbitrary and the impacts on the environment are monumental. The benefits of burning biofuels already known, the authors shift to the dangers of producing such fuels in that the clearing of tropical woodland, for ethanol producing crops, releases greenhouse gases fifty percent greater than producing and using the same amount of gasoline. (572,par.16) In introducing positives such as the benefits of sugar-produced ethanol before the discussion of the unknown negatives the authors build their appeals to ethos with a sincere view on biofuel production.
Even though Tilman and Hill’s credentials are undeniable it is they’re subtle appeals to ethos that are the most effective in creating trust. While not directly attacking any methods of bio production and exhibiting fairness in each claim the authors build our trust in their argument. The authors are seen as fair because of their acknowledgement of positives such as; Brazilian refineries burning cane sugar residue for power, recycling carbon from the atmosphere and production of sugar ethanol on already developed lands releasing eighty percent less greenhouse gases than gasoline. (572,par.13) Their ethos is further strengthened by avoiding directly attacking any one form of biofuel production but instead offering the benefits of others. The authors offer that “biofuel crops can be grown with much less energy and chemicals than food crops...they can be grown on less fertile land that has been degraded by farming”(572,par.20) Again without directly attacking other forms of biofuels they now introduce alternatives in a positive way. This type of introduction already has the reader disarmed of preconceived notions and leaves them open to a seemingly fair and logical idea. The whole tone of this article is passive and logical, however, their lack of appeals to pathos and no real call to arms may leave the readers disconnected from the actual argument.
Tilman and Hill’s lack of appeals to pathos fail to connect with their audience. A short narrative that highlights the food and energy conflict by using the soaring corn prices and how “tens of thousands of Mexico City’s poor recently protested…in the streets”(571,par.8) is a meager attempt at emotional appeal. The rising cost of tortillas and the affects on Mexico’s poor does not connect with their average reader in Seattle. This I where I feel one of two major weaknesses appear.
The only real vulnerabilities of this article is the authors’ choice in audience and lack of counter arguments. This message could have made a deeper connection with the dairy, poultry and livestock industries, which rely on corn as a principle animal feed”(571,par.9) or with the readers directly by connecting the raising cost of food to ethanol production. Instead the only attempt at emotion is based on an assumed connection the Seattle times readers have with the poor of Mexico. Furthermore, because of their very passive nature, no real counter arguments are made. Every new alternative appears to complement the information about the last. “Ethanol from corn does increase greenhouse gases, and this increase is only about 15 percent less than an equivalent amount of gasoline…soybean is about 40 percent less…sugar cane about 80 percent less. (572,par.12) No real statement about the minimal gains of one over another. As far as energy gains are concerned, each method of production appears beneficial the argument becomes unclear to the readers. I feel their final attempt at engaging readers in a call to act is too remiss to make a strong connection.
This article seems to be more informative and not a direct call to action until the conclusion. Tilman and Hill end by asserting their ethos through fairness and proclaiming, “Biofuels, if used properly, can help us balance our need for food, energy and a …sustainable environment.”(573,par27) They make their only real appeal for action in stating that we need national policies and mandates for biofuel production. No mater how logical and logos based this article is, ultimately the lack of pathos and the understated call to arms weakens the argument and make it feel informative instead of actionable. Works Cited
Tilman, David; Hill, Jason. “Fuel For Thought: All Biofuels Are Not Created Equal.” Writing Arguments: A Rhetorical With Readings 9e. Eds. John D. Ramage; John C. Bean and June Johnson. Upper Saddle River: Pearson Education. 2004. 570-573. Print