Burlew 1 The Decline of Global Warming With over 150 million dollars spent in America on advertisements in 2008, as well

as support from key leaders such as Al Gore, havent environmental activists at least made an impression of the seriousness of global warming on the public (Lipton and Krauss 7)? Yet, in Eric Lipton and Clifford Krausss article Fossil Fuel Ads Dominate TV in Campaign, the deterioration of concern for global warming is demonstrated through the drop from over 150 million to barely over 40 million dollars spent in advocating through advertisements, as well as a lack of public concern (6-7). What caused such a drastic change? In Malcolm Gladwells book The Tipping Point, he describes the theories that are responsible for and that can make sense of change as the Stickiness Factor, the Power of Context and the Law of the Few (28). The theories respectively describe how effective a message is, that change is dependent on the environment, and that certain individuals are primarily responsible for change. In applying Gladwells theories of change to articles regarding global warming, it is possible to explain why the topic has declined and conclude what needs to be corrected in order for reform to ensue. As Malcolm Gladwell would question, is the lack of current concern a result of the message not sticking in the publics mind? In 2006, msnbc detailed Governor Schwarzeneggers Global Warming Solutions Act through an article entitled Schwarzenegger takes center stage on warming. In the article, they contained two pictures, one of Schwarzenegger signing a bill and the other of him standing by a Hydrogen Hummer. The images provide proof of not only a politician, but a celebrity, endorsing environmental reform. Furthermore, Schwarzenegger is extensively quoted on how he believes the new laws will change the course of history (qtd. in msnbc 6). The visual evidence and the endorsing quotes from a popular figure build the readers logos, or the belief of the argument that environmental

Burlew 2 reform should be universal. Additionally, msnbc displays pictures in which Schwarzenegger is smiling. This plays a crucial subconscious effect on the readers pathos: the happy feeling seen in the photo resonates in the reader, making them feel that new laws are indeed wonderful steps forward. Fast forward more than four years later. Elisabeth Rosenthal, a skilled reporter of environmental issues for The New York Times, is struggling to recapture the support for countering global warming in her article Where did Global Warming Go? A key technique of Rosenthals, as well as a differentiation in both articles, is her choice in pictures. Rosenthal displays two images: first is an inverted depiction of hidden depths (an iceberg whose mass is mostly under water) and the second shows signs spelling the word yes in a field for the support of passing of environmental laws. Both deeply affect the readers pathos: the first invokes the reader to think that the hidden depths of global warming are obvious, but unfortunately ignored. The dagger-like shape of the iceberg sends a subliminal shiver into the reader that global warming poses several threats. The latter image appears to serve merely as a logos appeal that shows group support for global warming. However, the juxtaposition of the image after the former one causes the reader to fail to notice the subliminal message of the image in the shadow of its predecessor. The word yes in the image is a subconscious message that aims to trick the reader into perceiving the message of the article more positively. As effective as Rosenthals techniques are, her article has revived no machines of reform, but lies amongst the archives. In analyzing both articles, the images provide a valuable insight to the change that occurred over the years. The images of Schwarzenegger were simplistic to deconstruct and provided universal understanding that global warming had serious support. In contrast, Rosenthals pictures are elaborate and try to pull the reader into the text. If the images

Burlew 3 of Schwarzenegger were so effective, why would Rosenthal, an expert reporter on environmental issues, alter a proven strategy? Up until September 9, over 41 million dollars were spent in 2012 in order to promote clean energy and conservation and to criticize oil companies by far the lowest in the last four years (Lipton and Krauss 6). Despite spending that much money on advertisements, the ads lie forgotten in public mind, just as Rosenthals article is. Rosenthal, along with other marketers, must be aware that the messages of 2006 are no longer effective. Gladwells theory states that for change to occur, one of the factors, such as the Stickiness Factor, has to change (Gladwell 20). Yet, it is clear from Rosenthals article that she is implementing alternative strategies, and it would be difficult to believe that hundreds of millions of dollars and reporters like Rosenthal have failed to produce an effective message. So, if the answer is not message effectiveness, what is the limitation that is holding back change in environmental reform? Malcolm Gladwells theory of The Power of Context, in which people are a lot more sensitive to their environment than they may seem, appears to serve as an excellent answer, addressing both global changes and the groups involved in the issue (28). Schwarzenegger received severe criticism for the Global Warming Solutions Act due to potential negative effects on the economy of California. However, the University of California at Berkeley predicted the generation of 89,000 jobs due to the new regulations (msnbc 19). This provides the justification to the public that the act is beneficial by building their logos. Despite economic difficulties in America, the act is continuing to progress, which seems to disagree with Gladwells theory. These severe economic difficulties, as well as a harsh Northeastern 2010 winter are reasons that Rosenthal acknowledges that could respectively distract and deter people from countering global warming (11). However, after this use of ethos, Rosenthal contrasts America

Burlew 4 with foreign nations. She details the European Union as on track to meet their aggressive emission reducing goals and Britains low-carbon manufacturing section as a growing market in tough economic times (12-14). The reader is more inclined to believe this logos fueled argument because of the connection Rosenthal made to the reader through her appearance of being caring and understanding of personal difficulties immediately preceding the revelation. In a larger sense, Rosenthals critical evidence, along with the longevity of Schwarzeneggers act, eliminate the ability of the first aspect of the Power of Context in answering the decline in concern for global warming: despite all the variables affecting the global landscape, environmental reform is able to succeed. Despite the ineffectiveness of part of Gladwells theory to solve the global warming issue, The Power of Context also appears to address another serious issue: the divide in Americas political agendas due to the Republican and Democratic parties. Rosenthal describes the Republican Party as having turn[ed] skepticism about man-made global warming into a requirement for electability (17). By providing statistics of extreme Republicans from an in-text citation in the same section, Rosenthal is able to support her claim with evidence and prove that she is credible, building the readers logos and ethos, respectively. Rosenthal even subliminally expresses the general disdain for Republicans in the beginning of her article: in criticizing the inaction of the Republican Party before Obama, the syntax of blaming the Republican Party first appears to be most easily accepted by readers. Lipton and Krauss write that the oil industries advertisements echo the stance of all Republicans (17). The articles negative tone toward inaction of environmental regulation builds disdain in the party for their lack of environmental regulations. Lipton and Krauss attack Republicans by providing statistics that the party has received 12 million dollars more than

Burlew 5 Democrats from oil companies (25-26). This implies a feeling that the Republican Partys opinions have been corrupted by businesses. Lipton and Krauss, as well as Rosenthal, portray Republicans to be the anti-Christ of countering global warming. Doesnt that seem a bit too extreme? Consider the case study of Schwarzeneggers previously mentioned Global Warming Solutions Act. Governor Schwarzenegger, a member of the Republican Party, began what he described as a global warming initiative that sparked environmental laws that were and still are stricter than any other in the nation (qtd. in msnbc 1). On top of the act, Schwarzenegger signed three bills in order to reduce pollution (msnbc 26). According to Lipton and Krauss and Rosenthal, this case sounds like a fictitious anomaly, yet Schwarzenegger, a Republican, has succeeded where Democrats have failed. The Power of Context is unable to explain this occurrence because the theory doesnt consider multifaceted groups. Political parties have so many goals that a person may be deceived into believing that groups create change, yet it is the people within those groups that create change. Groups are only attributed with vast powers because they provide support for people who want to act. Therefore, people who make a difference are typically members of groups in order to gain additional support for their actions. By defying political party boundaries, Governor Schwarzenegger proves to be an exceptional individual. The last piece in Gladwells theory, the Law of the Few, serves as an explanation for Schwarzeneggers influence. His theory states that there are three types of individuals, Connectors, Mavens, and Salesmen that create change; a crucial example is Paul Revere, who Gladwell claims to be the latter two from his extensive knowledge and political ties (66). Schwarzenegger is clearly a unique individual, but which of the traits of Gladwells Law of the Few does he hold?

Burlew 6 Schwarzenegger has the high-end political connections with people who have power to create change, such as Prime Minister Tony Blair, who assisted Schwarzenegger with clean technology development (msnbc 3). Schwarzenegger has resources in his office that provide him with undefeatable knowledge, such as using the reputable study that claimed that 89,000 jobs will be generated in order to contend with opposition the act (msnbc 19). He even gives a good pitch, by aligning himself with General Motors to present how the act will make a difference. Maven, Connector and Salesmen, Schwarzenegger proves himself a force to be reckoned with. But, isnt this power commonplace in political figures? So what can be concluded from Schwarzeneggers influence? Not only does Schwarzenegger possess all three characteristics, but every politician can have the same characteristics and thus have the same great effect on others. A logical question to then ask is what the correlation between political power and influence may be? It can be inferred through the arguments of Rosenthal and Lipton and Krauss that the correlation is that of an exponential. Rosenthal concludes her article with a criticism of President Obama by questioning his inaction (24). Rosenthal uses the question to affect the readers pathos by filling them with dissent of Obama due to the negative tone in the article to inaction. By its placement at the end, the criticism will be the last things the readers see, and therefore one of the most memorable points. Rosenthal intended the question to spur action for higher government, in particular Obama, because their power must hold particular significance. Lipton and Krauss believe in an even larger exponential correlation: They cite that Obamas decisions to favor offshore drilling and the expansion thereof left many fossil fuel critics disillusioned and unwilling to do much to support the president (8-9). This diction that Lipton and Krauss use conveys the feeling that Obama alone crippled support for global warming. Furthermore, Lipton and Krausss graphs, which depict a decline of advertisements

Burlew 7 promoting clean energy, serve as the logos, or the evidence that support their claim. Lipton and Krauss never directly assert that the decline is Obamas fault, but their evidence only requires one to make minor connections to infer that Obama caused advertisements to plummet. Do few people like the president really hold this God-like power of conviction? In analyzing Lipton and Krausss article more carefully, there are subtle things that they put little emphasize on in order to keep Obama in the spotlight. Consider, for instance, the enormous contribution that the Alliance for Climate Protection once had. Only after citing countless figures do Lipton and Krauss state that the Alliance for Climate Protections contribution toward advertising was 32 million dollars in 2008; this syntax eliminates the importance of the data to the reader. This figure is actually one-third of all contributions that year (13). That figure is currently zero. The organization was but not anymore headed by former Vice President Al Gore, an instrumental figure in spreading knowledge of global warming. Just as there was a cause to the difference in the images in the msnbc article and Rosenthals due to the changing times, there is an explanation for the Alliance for Climate Protections spending shift. This difference, however, is stark: the decisions of the new leaders of the Alliance for Climate Protection to change their focus to other objectives assisted in allowing big oil to overwhelm renewable energy messages. The larger conclusion that results from this analysis is the correlation between power and influence. Does President Obama hold power and is thus blameworthy in the eyes off environmental activists? Rosenthal and Lipton and Krauss are correct in this conviction, but this power is not as divine and his actions are not alone to blame. From the case study of the Alliance for Climate Protection, it appears that in this case, the Law of the Few implies not literally two or three people, but implies a more abstract value. This quantity is a few in a national context, yet

Burlew 8 encompasses hundreds or thousands: political leaders, including both Democrats and Republicans, such as Obama and Schwarzenegger; decision makers in environmental groups like Al Gore; and industries such as General Motors. Rosenthal failed in her efforts to revitalize the machine needed to combat global warming despite her ingenious images. Even hundreds of millions of dollars in advertising have failed to recapture a successful message to revitalize the topic. Economic challenges can create opposition to the cause, yet environmental changes can still be enacted. Other opposition is blamed on groups of politicians, particularly Republicans. However, the obstruction only arises from key members; others are able to maintain their autonomy and act to help prevent global warming. The power for creating change in attitudes for global warming comes from these decision makers, not only in politics, but in key decision making and influential positions as well. This power doesnt arise from a single individual, but a multitude. The executive for the Alliance for Climate Protection states Whatever we would spend, it would just be washed away in this sea of fossil fuel money (qtd. in Lipton and Krauss 14). If the once-largest clean energy advertiser is unable to make a stand, then who is?

Burlew 9 Works Cited Gladwell, Malcolm. The Tipping Point: How Little Things Can Make a Big Difference. New York: Little, Brown and Company, 2002. EPUP File. Lipton, Eric, and Clifford Krauss. Fossil Fuel Ads Dominate TV In Campaign. The New York Times 14 Sept. 2012. Print. Rosenthal, Elisabeth. Where Did Global Warming Go? The New York Times. The New York Times Company, 15 Oct. 2011. Web. 12 Sept. 2012. Schwarzenegger takes center stage on warming.msnbc. NBCNews.com, 27 Sept. 2006. Web. 21 Sept. 2012.