Abstract
“Coal Under Pressure” stages the authors’ investigation of rhetorical strategies used by the US coal industry to advance its interests in the face of growing economic and environmental pressures. The authors identify five rhetorical strategies in coal industry advocacy: industrial apocalyptic, corporate ventriloquism, technological shell game, hypocrite’s trap, and energy utopia. They argue that the corporate advocacy of the coal industry appeals to and reinforces neoliberalism, a discourse and set of practices that privilege market rationality and individual freedom and responsibility above all else. The chapter explains why attention to neoliberalism is essential to understanding the rhetoric of the coal industry’s opposition to environmental policy and regulation, and it situates the authors’ research relative to other scholarship on environmental communication and corporate advocacy.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.
Buying options
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Learn about institutional subscriptionsNotes
- 1.
Not all are in agreement regarding the amount of pressure being enacted on the coal industry. Jonathan Thompson (Thompson, 2012) questions whether coal companies are being as negatively impacted by the new political and economic situation as they contend. In response to Peabody Coal’s announcement that it is laying off 1000 workers in the US and Australia, Thompson writes,
“Peabody, it turns out, is not hurting at all. In fact, the same story about the layoffs notes that its earnings during the third quarter of this year were higher than last year. Peabody has thrived during the alleged war waged by the Obama administration. It’s had higher profits for each of the last four years than it did in 2007” (Thompson, 2012).
- 2.
Neoliberalism can be distinguished from classical liberalism in three important ways. First, according to neoliberal rationality, market competition is normative, not natural; thus, the role of government shifts from respecting a zone of non-intervention, the laisser-faire market, to facilitating and enabling market competition (Foucault, 2008).
Second, for the neoliberals, “the basic element to be deciphered by economic analysis is not so much the individual, or processes and mechanisms, but enterprises” (Foucault, 2008, p. 225). Neoliberalism then sees an economy and a society “made up of enterprise units,” in which the individual subject takes on the generalized form of the enterprise and becomes “human capital.” Thus, the entrepreneurial self, or subject, is the result: each individual is the source and being of her own capital, and in turn, a market comprised of competitive enterprise units: The individual subject becomes an enterprise, the enterprise becomes an individual actor. Furthermore, the generalization of the enterprise form also functions to extend the economic model, so “as to make it a model for social relations” (Foucault, 2008, p. 242). As Wendy Brown (Brown, 2015) argues, “To speak of the relentless and ubiquitous economization of all features of life by neoliberalism is thus not to claim that neoliberalism literally marketizes all spheres,” rather “the point is that neoliberal rationality disseminates the model of the market to all domains and activities” (p. 31).
Third, the generalization of the enterprise form and the market reverses the relationship between the state and the market. If laisser-faire was originally conceived of as a “principle of government’s self-limitation,” then according to the logic of neoliberalism, the market becomes “a principle turned against [the state]. It is a sort of permanent economic tribunal confronting government” (Foucault, 2008, p. 247). In other words, in neoliberal terms, market principles such as competition and efficiency become the means for assessing governmental activity. Thus, where liberals saw government policy as a counterweight to unrestrained markets, neoliberals believed “social policy should support economic policy, rather than operate as a counterweight to it” (Flew, 2012, pp. 55–56).
References
Antonio, R. J., & Brulle, R. J. (2011). The unbearable lightness of politics: Climate change denial and political polarization. Sociological Quarterly, 52(2), 195–202. doi:10.1111/j.1533-8525.2011.01199.x.
Black, R. (2009, December 22). Why did Copenhagen fail to deliver a climate deal? BBC. Retrieved from http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8426835.stm.
Black, G. (2014, December 2). Pivoting the climate debate from oil to coal. Retrieved May 21, 2015, from http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/pivoting-climate-debate-oil-coal.
Bricker, B. J. (2014). Feigning environmentalism: Antienvironmental organizations, strategic naming, and definitional argument. Western Journal of Com-munication, 78(5), 636–652. doi:10.1080/10570314.2013.835065.
Broder, J. (2012, March 23). Court reverses EPA on big mining project. The New York Times. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/24/science/earth/court-reverses-epa-saying-big-mining-project-can-proceed.html.
Brown, W. (2015). Undoing the demos: Neoliberalism’s stealth revolution. New York: Zone Books.
Brulle, R. J. (2013). Institutionalizing delay: Foundation funding and the creation of U.S. climate change counter-movement organizations. Climatic Change, 122(4), 681–694. doi:10.1007/s10584-013-1018-7.
Brulle, R. J., Carmichael, J., & Jenkins, J. C. (2012). Shifting public opinion on climate change: An empirical assessment of factors influencing concern over climate change in the U.S., 2002–2010. Climatic Change, 114(2), 169–188. doi:10.1007/s10584-012-0403-y.
Bsumek, P. K., Schneider, J., Schwarze, S., & Peeples, J. (2014). Corporate ventriloquism: Corporate advocacy, the coal industry, and the appropriation of voice. In J. Peeples & S. Depoe (Eds.), Voice and environmental communication. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Ceccarelli, L. (2011). Manufactured scientific controversy: Science, rhetoric, and public debate. Rhetoric & Public Affairs, 14(2), 195–228. doi:10.1353/rap.2010.0222.
Chaput, C. (2010). Rhetorical circulation in late capitalism: Neoliberalism and the overdetermination of affective energy. Philosophy and Rhetoric, 43(1), 1–25.
Couldry, N. (2010). Why voice matters: Culture and politics after neoliberalism (1st ed.). Los Angeles: Sage.
Cox, J. R. (2012). Environmental communication and the public sphere (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Depledge, J. (2005). Against the grain: The United States and the global climate change regime. Global Change, Peace & Security, 17(1), 11–27.
Doolen, J. (2012, April 26). Lack of leadership on climate creates a “new normal”. Retrieved from http://www.yaleclimateconnections.org/2012/04/lack-of-leadership-on-climate-creates-a-new-normal/.
Endres, D. (2014). Response essay: The (im)possibility of voice in environmental advocacy. In S. Depoe & J. Peeples (Eds.), Voice and environmental communication (pp. 110–124). New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Flew, T. (2012). Six theories of neoliberalism. Presented at the emerging and enduring inequalities: The annual conference of the Australian Sociological Association 2012, University of Queensland, Brisbane. Retrieved from eprints.qut.edu.au/58620/.
Foucault, M. (2008). The birth of biopolitics: Lectures at the Collège de France, 1978–1979. New York: Picador. (Reprint edition).
Greene, R. W. (2007). Rhetorical capital: Communicative labor, money/speech, and neo-liberal governance. Communication and Critical/Cultural Studies, 4(3), 327–331.
Hajer, M. (1995). The politics of environmental discourse: Ecological modernization and the policy process. Oxford, England: Clarendon Press.
Hall, S., Massey, D., & Rustin, M. (2013). After neoliberalism: Analysing the present. Soundings: A Journal of Politics and Culture. Retrieved from http://www.lwbooks.co.uk/journals/soundings/pdfs/manifestoframingstatement.pdf.
Hanan, J. S. (2013). The ecology of empire: Wal-Mart’s rhetoric of environmental stewardship and the constitutive power of the multitude. Environmental Communication, 7(4), 529–547. doi:10.1080/17524032.2013.822011.
Hanan, J. S., & Chaput, C. (2013). Stating the exception: Rhetoric and neoliberal governance during the creation and passage of the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008. Argumentation & Advocacy, 50(1), 18–33.
Harvey, D. (2005). A brief history of neoLiberalism. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
Holtrup, P. (2003). The lack of U.S. leadership in climate change diplomacy. In B. May & M. H. Moore (Eds.), The uncertain superpower (pp. 185–207). Wiesbaden: VS Verlagfür Sozialwissenschaften. Retrieved from http://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-663-11631-8_14.
Kendall, B. E. (2008). Personae and natural capitalism: Negotiating politics and constituencies in a rhetoric of sustainability. Environmental Communication, 2(1), 59–77. doi:10.1080/17524030801945583.
Lange, J. I. (1993). The logic of competing information campaigns: Conflict over old growth and the spotted owl. Communication Monographs, 60(3), 239–257. doi:10.1080/03637759309376311.
Layzer, J. A. (2012). Open for business: Conservatives’ opposition to environmental regulation. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Lipton, E., & Krauss, C. (2012, September 4). Fossil fuel ads dominate TV in campaign. New York Times. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/14/us/politics/fossil-fuel-industry-opens-wallet-to-defeat-obama.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0.
Lyne, J. (1990). Bio-rhetorics: Moralizing the life sciences. In H. W. Simons (Ed.), The rhetorical turn: Invention and persuasion in the conduct of inquiry (pp. 35–57). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Mann, M. E. (2013). The hockey stick and the climate wars: Dispatches from the front lines. New York: Columbia University Press.
McCright, A. M., & Dunlap, R. E. (2003). Defeating Kyoto: The conservative movement’s impact on U.S. climate change policy. Social Problems, 50(3), 348–373.
Miller, B. M. (2012). Marketplace advocacy campaigns: Generating public support for business and industry. Amherst, NY: Cambria Press.
Miller, B. M., & Lellis, J. (2015). Audience response to values-based marketplace advocacy by the fossil fuel industries. Environmental Communication, 10(2), 1–20. doi:10.1080/17524032.2014.993414.
Oreskes, N., & Conway, E. M. (2010). Merchants of doubt: How a handful of scientists obscured the truth on issues from tobacco smoke to global warming. New York: Bloomsbury Press.
Peck, J. (2010). Constructions of neoliberal reason. New York: Oxford University Press.
Peeples, J. (2005). Aggressive mimicry: Wise use and the environmental movement. In S. Senecah (Ed.), Environmental communication yearbook (Vol. 2, pp. 1–18). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Pezzullo, P. C. (2003). Resisting “national breast cancer awareness month”: The rhetoric of counterpublics and their cultural performances. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 89(4), 345–365. doi:10.1080/0033563032000160981.
Phelan, S. (2014). Neoliberalism, media and the political. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Plec, E., & Pettenger, M. (2012). Greenwashing consumption: The didactic framing of ExxonMobil’s energy solutions. Environmental Communication, 6(4), 459–476. doi:10.1080/17524032.2012.720270.
Quinn, E., & Young, C. (2015, January 15). Who needs lobbyists? See what big business spends to win American minds. Retrieved May 21, 2015, from http://www.publicintegrity.org/2015/01/15/16596/who-needs-lobbyists-see-what-big-business-spends-win-american-minds.
Ricketts, B. (2015, February 27). Coal industry stands for progress and prosperity [Text]. Retrieved June 24, 2015, from http://www.euractiv.com/sections/energy/coal-industry-stands-progress-and-prosperity-312473.
Schlichting, I. (2013). Strategic framing of climate change by industry actors: A meta-analysis. Environmental Communication, 7(4), 493–511. doi:10.1080/17524032.2013.812974.
Singer, R. (2010). Neoliberal style, the American re-generation, and ecological jeremiad in Thomas Friedman’s “Code Green”. Environmental Communication, 4(2), 135–151.
Smerecnik, K. R., & Renegar, V. R. (2010). Capitalistic agency: The rhetoric of BP’s Helios power campaign. Environmental Communication, 4(2), 152–171. doi:10.1080/17524031003760879.
Springer, S. (2012). Neoliberalism as discourse: Between Foucauldian political economy and Marxian poststructuralism. Critical Discourse Studies, 9(2), 133–147. doi:10.1080/17405904.2012.656375.
Thompson, J. (2012, November 7). King Coal is still king: Peabody Energy will cut 1,000 jobs, but it is not because of hard times. High Country News. Retrieved from http://www.hcn.org/blogs/goat/king-coal-is-still-king.
US Energy Information Administration. (2015, May). Short-term energy outlook. Retrieved from http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/steo/archives/may15.pdf.
Vietor, R. H. K. (1980). Environmental politics and the coal coalition. College Station, TX: Texas A&M University Press.
Vivian, B. (2006). Neoliberal epideictic: Rhetorical form and commemorative politics on September 11 2002. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 92(1), 1–26.
Wickman, C. (2014). Rhetorical framing in corporate press releases: The case of British Petroleum and the gulf oil spill. Environmental Communication, 8(1), 3–20. doi:10.1080/17524032.2013.816329.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Copyright information
© 2016 The Author(s)
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Schneider, J., Schwarze, S., Bsumek, P.K., Peeples, J. (2016). Under Pressure. In: Under Pressure. Palgrave Studies in Media and Environmental Communication. Palgrave Macmillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-53315-9_1
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-53315-9_1
Published:
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, London
Print ISBN: 978-1-137-53314-2
Online ISBN: 978-1-137-53315-9
eBook Packages: Literature, Cultural and Media StudiesLiterature, Cultural and Media Studies (R0)