More Than a War of Words: Gas Industry Plays Fracking Victim

authordefault
on

Evoking an emotional response in oneโ€™s audience is a rhetorical means of persuasion well documented since Aristotle. But like Aristotle writes in his Rhetoric, if the reliable character of the speaker isnโ€™t enough to convince a crowd, an emotional appeal might be the next best route to getting what you want โ€“ a strategy that is evidently well suited to a powerful but untrustworthy voice, like that of the gasย industry.

The oil and gas industry’s chief spokespeople have become rhetorical masters, the veritable trailblazers of the devolution of public relations into spin and misinformation campaigns. They probably have a thing or two to teach Aristotle about the art of persuasion and conjuring. Take climate science for example, where the industry has conjured up a โ€˜climate change debateโ€™ out of thin air, or warming air for that matter. With a few flicks of the rhetorical wand a โ€˜debateโ€™ over the anthropogenic warming of the climate began, despite an overwhelming consensus on the matter from the worldโ€™s leading scientists.ย ย 

But weโ€™ve long passed the point where we take industry at its word. We have become too skeptical to trust the โ€˜character of the speakerโ€™ and the industry knows this all too well. Hence the blatant emotional play at work in so much oil and gas industry publicย relations.ย 

Most recently the gas industry has chosen to play victim in a rather surprising aspect of the fracking controversy โ€“ its language.

It isnโ€™t fair, they say, to refer to hydraulic fracturing as โ€˜frackingโ€™ because that makes people think of a similar, ill-reputed four letter word. Fracing or fracโ€™ing are the industry preferred abbreviations of hydraulic fracturing, and gas lobbyists would have us believe the term has been maliciously hijacked by the environmental movement to mischaracterize the process as somethingโ€ฆunseemly. Of course no mention is made of how water contamination, industrialization or air pollution have in their own way contributed to frackingโ€™s reputation.
ย 
The disputed โ€˜kโ€™ in the frack controversy was allegedly added by the mainstream media to clarify the words pronunciation and was later commandeered by the environmental movement to evoke a plethora of play on f-words. For example, ‘Don’t frack with New York State.’
ย 
According to the Associated Press, a communications firm in Pennsylvania found fracking to be worse off in public opinion that strip mining. A public relations firm representative Gregory Matusky says the only less desirable terms are longwall mining, offshore drilling and Gulf drilling. For Matusky the only answer for the gas industry is to stop using the term, replacing it with more favorable alternatives like natural-gas drilling or horizontal drilling, both of which generate more positive associations.

The gas industry, it appears, is on the wrong side of the emotional struggle and needs to redraw the battle lines. As Matusky writes: โ€œA better, more positive term is warranted. The industry needs to identify negatively charged words and replace them with positive language.โ€

Complain as the industry might, they have long had a strong hold on the language shaping public perception of fracked gas. โ€œNatural gas,โ€ perhaps the most insidious and misleading fossil fuel title after โ€˜ethical oilโ€™ or โ€˜clean coal,โ€™ is an industry favorite, playing into the fuelโ€™s misrepresentation as a โ€˜cleanโ€™ โ€˜alternative,โ€™ two other commonly misused descriptors. Shale gas and unconventional gas are also newly coined terms used to describe what is essentially gas recovered through fracking.
ย 
Trying to rework the language, however, might be a move in the wrong direction. According to Edward Tenner of The Atlantic, the industry best be careful in its next steps. โ€œEuphimisms,โ€ says Tenner, โ€œare usually counterproductive by calling attention to controversy.โ€ A rose by any other nameโ€ฆย 
ย 
The industry’s pitch for sympathy is perhaps most offensive for its detraction from the true victims of fracking. Instead of playing semantic games perhaps the industry should focus on increased transparency or improved operating procedures. These, after all, would be more direct solutions to fracking’s dirty connotations.ย 
ย 
For the industry, however, the concerns generated by a decade of poor industry practices are just environmental hysteria misdirected at fracking. โ€œIt also caused the Great depression, the Black Plague, the October Revolution and the breakup of the Beatles,โ€ says Chris Tucker, spokesman for Energy in Depth, the gas industry front group.ย 

Related Posts

on

Carrboro, N.C., accuses Duke of knowingly fueling the climate crisis for decades with harmful emissions, deception, delay, and "greenwashing."

Carrboro, N.C., accuses Duke of knowingly fueling the climate crisis for decades with harmful emissions, deception, delay, and "greenwashing."
on

Campaigners warn that the UK will face โ€œpressure from American fossil fuel interestsโ€ to slow its energy transition.

Campaigners warn that the UK will face โ€œpressure from American fossil fuel interestsโ€ to slow its energy transition.
Analysis
on

Oil patch advocate Lisa Baiton called for more extraction and less regulation at Vancouver address that didnโ€™t once mention climate change.

Oil patch advocate Lisa Baiton called for more extraction and less regulation at Vancouver address that didnโ€™t once mention climate change.
on

PA-based CEO Toby Rice hobnobbed with Donald Trump at Mar-a-Lago. Now heโ€™s poised for pipelines, exports, and profits.

PA-based CEO Toby Rice hobnobbed with Donald Trump at Mar-a-Lago. Now heโ€™s poised for pipelines, exports, and profits.