Later this month, a mixed-rank group of scholars from different institutional locations will come together in Seattle for a roundtable session to reflect upon the theme of this year’s Rhetoric Society of America convention (responsibility) and its relationships to environmental rhetorics and environmental advocacy.

As outlined in this year’s call for proposals, panelists were invited to

… come together in Seattle, therefore, to consider The Responsibilities of Rhetoric. How can the study and practice of rhetoric contribute to social progress? What does rhetoric offer as means of understanding and coping with globalization, particularly at a time when “global” is associated with “terror” and “exploitation”? What do rhetorical studies have to offer in a presidential election year when political discourses and popular fundamentalisms are polarizing, confrontational, divisive? How do new media affect civic participation and the conduct of argument half a century after The New Rhetoric, The Uses of Argument, and The Rhetoric of Motives? How can rhetorical studies contribute to scientific exchange, technology transfer, and risk management–all in the interest of public and disciplinary good, and particularly on environmental issues? In a nation suspicious of difference, concerned with security, and newly armed with snooping technologies, can rhetorical pedagogies nevertheless protect civil liberties, sustain civic cooperation, and promote understanding and identification? And how can our professional society be sure that our scholarly methodologies and assumptions are themselves highly ethical?

In light of the conference theme and its timely location in the Pacific Northwest, this panel brings together a diverse collectivity of scholars to engage in discussion and debate about the “responsibilities of rhetoric” and the “rhetorics of responsibility” as they pertain to environmental issues and their attendant social, political, economic, and cultural controversies. Together, we will address this complexity (and some of the contradictions that emerge) by discussing particular case studies, situated material and discursive practices, and the ethics of praxis, intervention, pedagogy, and critique.

Our panelists bring a wide range of experience, diverse intellectual and political commitments, and an in-depth knowledge of both rhetoric and environmental issues to the table. Our aim is to spark, stimulate, and encourage a conversation that gets at the heart of the first principles which seem to underlie the conference theme: the responsibilities of rhetoric. We are also interested in thinking about the “rhetorics of responsibility” that emerge in historical and contemporary environmental discourse and practices.

Because this panel is organized around the principles of collaboration and dialogue, each participant has agreed to share a brief position statement that responds to the broad questions outlined above. We have shared them here in order to stimulate discussion, debate, and audience participation. If you are unable to attend the convention in Seattle, please contribute your thoughts, questions, and/or provocations here by using the comments function or by contacting the author(s) directly.

This roundtable session was planned and organized by Cindy Spurlock and Jeff Motter, and it will be moderated by Phaedra Pezzullo.

Position Papers:

Treating Equals Unequally: Rhetorics of Responsibility in an Age of Global Climate Change by Richard Besel, Assistant Professor of Communication at California Polytechnic State University

Joss Whedon’s Angel, Time Magazine’s Greenest Generation, and the Responsibilities of Environmental Rhetoric or, What’s the catch? Angel(s) in the Belly of the Beast by Pete Bsumek, Assistant Professor of Communication and Director of the Center for Constructive Advocacy and Dialogue at James Madison University

Responsibility, Rhetorical Accountability, and the Techne of Environmental Communication by Jim Cantrill, Professor of Communication and Performance Studies at Northern Michigan University

The Role of the Critic in the Rhetoric of Natural Resource Planning by Damon M. Hall, Boone & Crockett Ph.D. Fellow at Texas A&M University

A Reflection by Jennifer Peeples, Associate Professor of Speech at Utah State University

The Responsibility of Fools by Tarla Rai Peterson, Boone and Crockett Chair of Wildlife & Conservation Policy at Texas A&M University

Magic as an Alternative Symbolic: Learning to See Nature as an Interconnected Place by Julie Kalil Schutten, Lecturer in the School of Communication at Northern Arizona University

FROM EVENT TO Diffuse by Dylan Wolfe, Assistant Professor of Communication at Clemson University

Random Amanda Lewis Fact: Ever since reading Tom Wolfe’s The Electric Kool-Aid Acid Test, I have secretly wanted to be a Merry Prankster.

Because of this desire, I found myself drawn to the 200 documentary Go Further.

Image Courtesy of http://www.hempreport.com/2005/04/go-further-on-dvd.html

See, Woody Harrelson secretly wants to be a Merry Prankster too! Inspired by Ken Kesey (the leader of the Merry Pranksters), Harrelson travels from Seattle to Santa Barbara on a biodiesel bus known as the “Mothership” as part of the SOL tour. SOL= simple, organic living. The purpose of the SOL tour is to educate folks about both the effects that their choices have on the environment and the changes they can make to leave a “light footprint” on the Earth.

But no road trip is complete without friends, and Harrelson realizes this, bringing along an eccentric group of people known as the Merry Hempsters (so witty!). Harrelson’s buddies include: a raw food chef, a yoga teacher, a doctor, his publicist, and a production assistant that moonlights as a junk food addict. Not only does the Mothership crew talk the environmental talk, but they also walk the environmental walk (with light footsteps, of course). While on the bus, the group only eats raw, organic foods. The bus runs on hempseed oil, and solar panels provides all the electricity used on the bus. Furthermore, all fabric on the bus is derived from hemp, while the floors are made of cork.

Along the way, Harrelson and his posse make numerous stops. The majority of these are at universities, where Harrelson speaks to the young folks about the SOL way. The Mothership also makes a few other detours, all of which allow the viewer to observe activities that advocate a sustainable lifestyle. The itinerary for the Mothership included:

-The Living Tree Paper Company. Produces fine paper products from nonwood and recyclable sources.

-Earth Day Celebration in Eugene, Oregon. They had hemp burgers. Who knew you could eat hemp?!?

-Worm Ranch. Located in Garberville, California, known as “The Worm Capital of the World.” The ranch used red wigglers to compost trash. They also sold worm tea, a natural fertilizer made out of worm waste.

-Ruckus Society Activist Training Camp. Taught campers how to nonviolently protests environmentally unfriendly practices

These are just a few of the pit stops made.

This documentary was made in 2001, long before Al Gore brought environmental issues to the masses. And while I really enjoyed watching it, I feel like its message would be lost on a nonenvironmentalist. The diet the Merry Hempsters followed was so restrictive that it would be hard for a normal person to follow. In addition, the Merry Hempsters featured in the movie are yoga-exercising, pot-smoking, dancing-naked-on-the-beach hippies, which invokes engrained stereotypes that are hard not to apply. Therefore, I believe that a common moviegoer would not be able to relate to the people on the bus. Because the Merry Hempsters live such an alternative lifestyle, the documentary takes on the hippie vibe, complete with interjections of musical performances in nature. At one point, Natalie Merchant sings a somber song in a forest. Later on in the documentary, an Anthony Kiedis song plays while Kiedis stands on the beach holding a sign saying “Transforming the World Together.” These scenes had a dual effect on me. On the one hand, it made me roll my eyes because it was so over the top. On the other hand, it made me want to want to take LSD. Fret not, I didn’t. But I say this because that, at some points the documentary is so random that it feels like the only way to understand it is to be in an altered state.

Sidenote: Other things that invoke this feeling in me include Jimi Hendrix’s Band of Gypsys and The Who’s Tommy.

Although I mostly enjoyed Go Further, I think that it will not have a huge impact on those viewers that are not already environmentally conscious. The eccentricities of the documentary limit the audience that would find this movie appealing.

I’m still on the bus though!

If you had told me three years ago that I would become an environmentalist, I would have asked you where you landed the mother ship. At that time, I operated under the assumption that all environmentalists were hippie tree-huggers, preferring Birkenstocks and home-baked vegan cookies to the pretty ballet flats and mass-produced Oreos that I enjoyed. The world was doomed no matter what I did, so I tried to float along, unconcerned with the fate of the planet.

My opinion of environmentalists began to change one afternoon toward the end of my second year at UNC. It was one of the first warm days of spring, which always bring a perceptible buzz of hope and excitement to campus. With the dogwoods in bloom, the students sprawl on the quad, playing Frisbee and studying, while prospective Carolina students and parents roam wide-eyed with tour guides. Without exception, on these days I feel inexplicably happy.

That particular day I sat at the kitchen table of my boyfriend’s apartment, looking out the window when a beige sedan parked nearby. I watched as the passengers got out and the driver began tossing empty water bottles, Daily Tar Heel newspapers, Wendy’s bags and other garbage from his backseat onto the pavement.

Before I knew it, I heard someone say, “Excuse me, are you going to throw those things away?” The driver immediately turned and stared at me, making me realize that somehow in the moment between watching the driver litter and hearing the voice, I had moved from the chair to the window and, at that instant, was hanging out the open second story window. My cheeks burned when I understood that the person who shouted down to the parking lot was actually me.

This event probably would have been only a blip on the radar screen of anybody else’s life but mine. At the time, it was an uncharacteristic act. I thought that I was the kind who minded her own business and didn’t bother strangers. At that point, I felt that littering, similar to other actions like speeding and binge drinking, was against my code of conduct and ethics, but I didn’t care either way if others followed my standards. On that particular afternoon, however, everything changed. I had what Oprah calls my “aha moment.”

Now, I understand that I didn’t become an environmentalist in an afternoon and yelling at one person who littered didn’t make me one. My values evolved for years and still continue to change, and many other factors - from my mother to my courses - influenced where I am today. However that experience made think more critically about what I valued.

While in certain respects I valued the environment all along (I made a point to take short showers, walk when possible, recycle, and so on), before my “aha moment,” the environment sat low on my list of things to worry about. Today, however, as a result of my subsequent foray into environmental issues, this recognition serves to inform the majority of my decisions, from what I eat to which companies I support and from what subjects I study to where I volunteer my time in the community. Sustainability structures my lifestyle and value system.

Following the littering incident, I set out to discover the various avenues in which I could translate my passion into action more successfully than harassing the odd litterbug, which, by the way, I quickly learned is a bad tactic after the driver responded by picking up only half his trash. I constantly investigated ways to most effectively and significantly contribute to the search for a solution, and my journey ultimately compelled me to explore environmental law and policy. I consequently found that contrary to my previous perception, environmentalists don’t necessarily have an affinity for hemp bracelets and hackey sacks. In fact, most were just like me with pink-painted toenails and fossil fuel-burning cars.

Most significantly, I evolved from believing that my personal actions were all I could control to knowing that it was wrong to sit and watch while others degraded the environment. I learned that by using the legal system as a conduit for change, I could transition from being a bystander to constructively contributing to the solution.

And it all started with a beige sedan and a Wendy’s bag on a beautiful spring day.

Several months ago the toner cartridge for my Lexmark printer ran dry. I eventually brought myself to pony up the ninety dollars for a new cartridge from UNC Student Stores. I sure hope it lasts longer than my last one did. Despite the arm and a leg that must be sold in order to obtain a new toner cartridge, I was very impressed with the environmental efforts of Lexmark. When I opened the box containing the new cartridge, along with the installation manual was a booklet on recycling printer materials and a prepaid return address label to put on the re-sealable box after I had switched the new cartridge with the old.

E-waste is a large problem. As most people reading this blog know, technology is constantly being outdated by some newer essential piece of hardware. Thus the turnover rate for computers is a very short time period. Many of the valuable metals and materials in e-waste such as gold and platinum in motherboards can be extracted and reused. Printer toners and cartridges are often comprised in part of cadmium and carbon black. Many of these substances will leach out of landfills and make their way into adjacent watersheds as toxins. It is imperative that strict recycling measures are taken because of the inherently harmful nature of the materials that comprise electronics and the fact that there is such frequent disposal of outdated technology.
Unfortunately I am not an extremely organized individual. I consider myself a type B personality who overloads his schedule so much as to superimpose a type A stress level. As I pulled out the Lexmark box containing the used cartridge so I could find out more information for writing this blog, I realized I had never stuck the address label on the box (let alone mailed it) and it had now disappeared. I was distraught because I thought my options were to either throw it away, pay for my own postage, or tote it home with me and make my parents pay for the postage – none of which seemed remotely appealing. However when I visited the Lexmark recycling home page I found that I could easily print a new prepaid address label.
At the bottom of the website flashed various statistics as a result of Lexmark’s recycling collection program. These included facts such as “Lexmark recovers millions of used cartridges every year” and the “longer lasting yields of Lexmark’s high yield cartridges” allow longer turnover periods. Two more things on the webpage caught my attention. First was that they had three categories of recyclables including inkjet cartridges, toner cartridges, and hardware. Thus not only were cartridges being recycled, but every product that Lexmark manufactured for printing was included in the collection program. The second thing that caught my attention was the drop down box that asked you to select your country. I found that Lexmark has recycling collection programs in over 50 countries around the world.
It is imperative that manufacturers take a responsibility for the reuse and recycling of the goods that they place on the market. If there is no accountability on a higher level for the plethora of waste products that flood every Wal Mart Supercenter then we will never begin to approach a sustainable model of consumerism. Hence while my left back pocket felt very lonely after the purchase of my Lexmark toner cartridge, I felt satisfied with my acquisition because I knew that the company was doing its part. Time for me to do mine – attach the return label.

A day or two ago sitting in my lonely cubicle in Davis I opened up my web browser to my homepage USA Today.   Not being able to resist the urge to procrastinate I clicked the link to an article titled, “Marketing Efforts May End Up in Green Blur.”  After reading the article I could hardly believe that my seemingly irresponsible time management had led me to a topic for my (tear) final blog post.

The article reviewed the recent slew of green advertisements that seemed to pop up everywhere this past Tuesday April 22, 2008, Earth Day.  They ranged from Mattel’s Barbie sector touting a new line of accessories that are made from scraps from the Barbie clothing department, to a gourmet pretzel business that will plant a tree for every person who joins their pretzel club, free of charge.  This all sounds pretty exciting until we understand the realities of most of this green advertising.

For many of these ads their green efforts, if even legitimate, do not last past this one-day promise.  As the article points out, it takes a lot more effort to fund, plan, and execute a real environmentally responsible strategy than to just say you will do it.  The tragedy in this story is two-fold.  First of course it is unfortunate that companies are able to market themselves as “green” enabling them to charge a premium for their phony value-added products.  They reap all the benefits with none of the sacrifice or commitment to the planet.  And secondly when companies all start jumping on the green advertising bandwagon it is nearly impossible to distinguish frauds from honest companies.

All is not lost however; I came across a BBC article about how although greenwashing is a prevalent problem its time is limited.  As consumers become more eco-savvy the truth will come out separating the companies that are actually doing the right thing from ones that are not. I was left however wondering long this change will take, and if it will be one that consumers can really see.  Hopefully as environmentally conscious consumers we can start this trend of demanding companies prove that they changes they promise really happen.

On April 23, 2008 the local campus paper, UNC’s Daily Tar Heel, published an article entitled “Waste has impact”. The article elucidates the story of Chapel Hill residents like Gertrude Nunn, who must live as a “next door neighbor” to the orange county landfill. The local neighborhood environment surrounding Rogers Road has been polluted in both smell, sight, and now taste by the county’s trash. The dump can be smelled when outdoors, buzzards disfigure an idyllic landscape, and now even the local wells are being contaminated by the rotting refuse.

Check out the Daily Tar Heel Video

The landfill has been around since 1972, when despite community meetings the orange county landfill was placed near this “historically black, low income neighborhood”. Just this January, residents signed an environmental racism complaint which has been submitted to the Environmental Protection Agency’s Office of Civil Rights. This branch of the EPA operates under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 which says : “No person in the United States shall, on the ground of race, color, or national origin, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.” In addition Executive Order 12898 generally calls on each federal agency to achieve “environmental justice … by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects of its programs, policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income populations….”

According to the residents of Rogers Road who signed the complaint, the landfill has been a public act of environmental racism. Local government leaders do not agree, but are their historic homes right next to a landfill?

I feel it is ironic that Chapel Hill, which many believe to be a pretty “green” place, also contains a site that may be determined by the EPA to be an example of environmental racism. This makes me want to visit, to see the damage done, to find out what happened in my own local community. One could consider this site be of interest in a toxic tour, perhaps one illustrating local pollution and degradation of the environment.

As we travelled through North Carolina to go to our three farms during our farm tour, I saw how evident development is occurring in the state of North Carolina. It was really hard to believe that a fifteen minute drive from Chapel Hill could take you to several rural farms in the area.

In 2005, North Carolina ranked fifth in population growth. Majority of the growth is only restricted to large cities such as Raleigh, Cary, and Charlotte. The smaller towns and rural areas are suffering from loss of population. Many of the small towns in North Carolina have their economy based on tobacco, textile, and furniture industries, but as some of these businesses close down due to competition from overseas the people in small towns are moving to find jobs elsewhere.

With the ever increasing population concentrated in certain cities, there is an increasing demand for development. Areas near Raleigh or Charlotte are being forced to become suburbanized. As we talked about issue of sprawling with Farmer Pfann in Celebrity Dairy at Chatham County, it is evident that these farms in areas near the Triangle are being threatened by housing development.

One of the main concerns of increasing growth in counties such as Chatham is meeting the demands of the population while maintaining its natural landscape. It’s impossible for farmers in the area to not feel the pressure of selling their land to housing developers. As children of farmers grow up, many decide to leave the town they grow up in to pursue other opportunities. Without anybody to take care of their land, what options do farmers have but to sell? As the population growth in North Carolina continues, sprawling will eventually lead to greater environmental as well as health issues.

In a couple of years Chatham County may not look quite the same. With population growth and suburban sprawl, we will also have to confront with the issue of water shortage in the years to come. If you thought this year’s drought was horrible what would it be like next couple of years when the population increases and the demand for water supply also increases?

Some of you may have noticed recent articles in the Daily Tar Heel about the Orange County Landfill and the proposed waste transfer site. This issue is a classic example of the complexities associated with environmental racism cases.

First, Let me give some background. The Orange County Landfill has been operating near the small, low income, predominantly African American community of Rogers Road since the early 1970s. The residents claim that they were originally promised that the landfill would be closed 10 years from its opening and turned into a park. Thirty plus years later, Howard Lee, the mayor in 1972, said those promises were merely ideas of his from speeches rather than promises made to community members.

Residents thought their nightmare would finally be over as the landfill is expected to be full and capped in 2010. Instead, the former landfill site is being considered as one of 3 possible sites for a possible waste transfer site. Many of you may not be aware of this, but Chapel Hill is planning to ship its waste to another community as soon as the current landfill is full. The waste transfer site would be a large warehouse where garbage is transferred from garbage trucks to eighteen wheelers. City officials claim that this will be a much less intrusive process than the landfill as it will be indoors.

The citizens of Rogers Road have formed a coalition to stop the waste transfer site from being placed at the old landfill. On January 8 of this year, the residents of the Rogers Road community filed a complaint alleging environmental racism with the EPA’s division of civil rights. If the case passes review it will be investigated further. City governments have a history of saddling small minority communities with unwanted facilities. In the Claiborne Enrichment Center Case of 1997, environmental racism was found to have influenced the siting process of a nuclear enrichment facility.

It may seem like this is a clear cut and dry case of environmental racism. These people don’t even have city water or sewer lines or access to fire and emergency services and yet we burden them with the products of our wasteful lifestyle. The question remains, where do we put our waste if not here. Its great to say we shouldn’t put our trash near these kind of neighborhoods, but its gets much more difficult when you need to explain to the new waste site why exactly they were chosen. The sad fact is that the cheapest land is usually near these neighborhoods and they tend to offer less resistance. I don’t have a solution for this situation, but I think we need to consider both sides of the issue before demonizing city officials. We need to think about the amount of waste we are producing and where it is going. We either need to reduce our waste our find a better disposal method or both. In the meantime, I think we should at least provide this community with at least the basic services we all take for granted. Its the least we can do for the last 30 years.

The Leave No Trace Center for Outdoor Ethics is a non-profit organization dedicated to educating outdoor enthusiasts about their environmental impact. For back-country and front-country travelers, the Leave No Trace principles serve as a guide to reducing and avoiding this impact. The principles, which aim to preserve a natural experience for other visitors and a natural habitat for the plants and animals, are as follows:

• Plan Ahead and Prepare
• Travel and Camp on Durable Surfaces
• Dispose of Waste Properly
• Leave What You Find
• Minimize Campfire Impacts
• Respect Wildlife
• Be Respectful of Other Visitors

Despite what many like to think, tourism is not inherently bad. Phaedra Pezzullo, in her book Toxic Tourism: Rhetorics of Travel, Pollution, and Environmental Justice, assures her audience that tourism can be harmless and at times even beneficial. For example, toxic tourism can mobilize awareness and action to counter the roots of pollution and toxic assaults on struggling, helpless communities. Even when the actual experience of tourists is not directly beneficial to their destination, as is nearly always the case, responsible tourism exists. Pezzullo outlines how tourists can be respectful and responsible and actively try to not be hated. For example, when tourism is “motivated by [tourists'] more admirable desires for fun, connection, difference, civic spirit, social and environmental change, and education,” tourists can be responsible by being present and being mindful of what they are doing, seeing, and interacting with.

Being aware of and adhering to the Leave No Trace principles is an ideal way for travelers to be the responsible tourists that Pezzullo envisions. I contend that even though the Leave No Trace Principles are intended for wilderness travel and and other typically outdoor experiences, they can (and should) be applied to any type of tourism.

All tourists must first realize that all of their actions (and inaction) have an effect on the environment, the locals, and other tourists. How the Leave No Trace guidelines are interpreted and applied to one’s travel depends on where the tourist is going, what the tourist is doing, etc. But here, I will give a few examples to get you on your way to being a more respectful (and respected) traveler.

Before you travel, Plan Ahead and Prepare. By taking some extra time (or clicking another button on your Navigation System) to ensure the most efficient route for a roadtrip, you can spare some greenhouse emissions. By not forgetting your toothbrush and bringing a rain jacket, you can save save an extra trip to the store and the resources/by-products involved in producing their replacements. Last but not least, by learning the culture of your destination, you can avoid offending the locals.

A little more of a stretch but important nonetheless, Travel and Camp on Durable Surfaces. In other words don’t go places or do things that will leave a lasting (undesirable) impact on the community or environment. Stay off the sand dunes, and make sure you give your business to companies that maintain a sustainable relationship with the local community.

You get the idea; the rest of the principles are applicable in the same fashion. So be sure to familiarize yourself with Leave No Trace’s mission and outreach, and Happy (responsible) Travels!

Perhaps I’ve been under a rock all my life, but I never knew that we had a trash problem in outer space. When I think about space I see this:

NOT this, which is what it looks like with all the trash:

I found that image on Treehugger, and I had to do a double take. Is somebody kidding me? Is this an illustration? Huh?

Unfortunately, I think they’re telling us the truth. According to Wikipedia, space debris is something created by humans that is no longer useful, such as parts of space ships or stations that take up too much space in a spaceship to haul back to Earth. There are more than 10,000 pieces of documented debris and more than 50,000 pieces of undocumented debris flying around the Earth at a speed more ten times faster than a bullet.

Scary to think about, but even scarier for astronauts! According to the European Space Agency, the most threatening bits are the ones that are between 1 and 10 centimeters long because they are light enough to travel at high velocities but heavy enough to do some damage. Now space ships have extra heavy-duty shielding to protect them, but sometimes it isn’t enough.

The other issue here is space is filling up. Dodging the debris has become increasingly difficult, despite the lasers and satellite positions used to determine where they are. This makes space travel more and more dangerous.

So far, prevention measures have been taken to avoid collision (tracking the large pieces of debris or sweeping them into “graveyard orbits where space ships won’t travel) and also eliminate the need to create space debris (changes in spaceship construction), however, this is not enough. What really needs to happen is the creation of an international code of conduct for space debris. As far as I could find, in2003 the Inter-Agency Space Debris Coordination Committee (IADC) had just published mitigation guidelines, but I’m not certain on what’s happened from there.

The last issue is pollution. One of the IADC’s reasons for creating guidelines on space debris was to keep space clean for future generations. This argument is similar to many that we hear for pollution on earth. According to a 2003 Foreign Policy article, the U.S., the former Soviet Union and China are the worst polluters. Sound familiar? I think we need to start cleaning up our act.