Goodburn 1

Pulling Down the Shade on The Sunshine Project

On March 17, 2021, Rep. Raul M. Grijalva, Chair of the House Natural Resources
Committee, and Rep. A. Donald McEachin, U.S. Representative for Virginia’s Fourth
congressional district, wrote to President Biden regarding the construction of a new
petrochemical facility (ironically titled “the Sunshine Project”). Formosa Plastics (“Formosa” or
“the Company”) had recently received construction permits from the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers (“the Corps”) to build this new petrochemical complex in the depths of Louisiana’s
Cancer Alley. Cancer Alley is located in St. James Parish, Louisiana. It is an “industrial hub” 1
with nearly “150 oil refineries, plastics plants, and chemical facilities”1 that dramatically increase
the risk of contracting cancer to those who live and work in the area. St. James Parish is
populated predominantly by people of color and low-income households; both of these
demographics have fewer resources to push back against companies and policies that harm them.
This is a case of environmental injustice in terms of human well-being and environmental
destruction. In their letter, Reps. Grijalva and McEachin lay out a compelling case in support of
the revocation of Formosa’s construction permit. They utilize powerful facts obtained from
trusted sources, weaving their arguments into the context of current events in a way that will
doubtless be convincing to President Biden.

Logos
Logos is the use of credible data to support an argument. Reps. Grijalva and McEachin
effectively utilize logos to drive home their message. They cite Environmental Protection
Agency (“EPA”) data establishing that “seven out of the ten U.S. census tracts with the highest
cancer rates are along this portion of the river. With a majority Black and low-income
population, St. James Parish alone has 12 refineries within a 10-mile radius”2. These facts are
purposefully placed in order to evoke a sense of alarm in the reader. The representatives follow
up with more statistics regarding cancer rates in the St. James Parish community. The Formosa
site has “[m]ore toxic cancer-causing chemicals than 99.6% of industrialized areas of the
country”2. They add that the permit application itself states that “the complex would release an
additional 26 million tons of cancer-causing chemicals annually”2. These statistics are painful to
read and emphasize the destruction that the Company will cause if permitted to expand its
operations. Grijalva and McEachin effectively present data that proves how detrimental this
project would be to human health.
Grijalva and McEachin also provide information concerning the more general
environmental effects of the project. The proposed Formosa complex is expected to “exceed 13.6
million tons per year”2 in greenhouse gas emissions which are “the equivalent of more than three
coal-fired power plants”2. Because coal is the dirtiest and most unsustainable source of energy
currently in use, the comparison puts the complex’s emissions into perspective in order to
illustrate exactly how detrimental it would be for the environment. Grijalva and McEachin
remind the reader that the area of St. James Parish already has a microplastic pollution problem
and the Formosa complex would heighten the issue by “discharging plastic pellets into the
Mississippi River”2. Additionally, the construction of the plant would “destroy wetlands that
 Goodburn 2

currently help protect the region from hurricanes, which are intensifying with climate change,
and replace a sugar cane field essential for storm drainage and flood control”2. In order to
increase its profits, Formosa would destroy an indispensable environmental resource that helps to
protect an area already susceptible to environmental disaster. These facts reveal that Formosa
prioritizes capitalist gain over the health of American citizens.

Kairos
Kairos refers to the timeliness of an argument. Grijalva and McEachin’s use of kairos is
best demonstrated in their statement that “preliminary studies indicate air pollution is also linked
to higher COVID-19 death rates”2. Amid the nation’s chaotic and disjointed response to
COVID-19, this consideration heightens the reader’s emotional response, playing off the sense of
uncertainty and danger that the pandemic instilled in an unprepared American public. The
COVID-19 pandemic is at the forefront of most citizens’ concerns; providing credible data that
connects COVID-19 death rates to highly polluted air effectively provokes alarm and fear in the
reader.

Ethos
Ethos is reliance on the credibility of the person making an argument; Grijalva and
McEachin use ethos throughout their letter. They cite the EPA, a trusted source of information
and guidance, to establish a solid factual basis for their arguments. The most powerful use of
ethos is embodied in their statement that “[t]he facts are clear, and environmental justice leaders,
environmental non-profits, and community members all agree that this project must be
terminated”2. This sentence showcases the existence of a broad consensus with Grijalva and
McEachin. The statement “the facts are clear” appeals to logos as well. Logos and ethos work
together to prove that their stance is undeniably valid, logical, and popular.
Even the signature block at the very end of the document functions to establish them as
authorities on the issue: “Raul M. Grijalva Chair Committee on Natural Resources” and “A.
Donald McEachin Member of Congress”2. These are highly regarded government positions, and
it is implicitly understood that individuals holding them have, as their overarching goal, the
betterment of the American people and the United States of America as a whole. Their position
on the Formosa Plant is formed solely on their goal to preserve American’s well-being and to
promote environmental sustainability.

Ethos & Logos Working Together

After Grijalva and McEachin establish that their position on this issue is shared among
the environmental community, they share that on “July 24, 2020, RISE St. James, the Center for
Biological Diversity, Louisiana Bucket Brigade, and Healthy Gulf filed an injunction… to block
construction”2. They argue that when the Corps granted Formosa construction permits, it failed
to consider the “cumulative impacts of chemical releases, wetland destruction, and gravesite
desecration”2. They go on to explain that the “Army Corps’ environmental review had found no
significant impact to the community, and the agency therefore declined to complete a full
 Goodburn 3

environmental impact statement”2. Grijalva and McEachin provide this information to show that
this project’s consequences have not been fully considered, and if they were, those consequences
were deemed to be less important than the potential economic gain. The representatives added
that since then, the “Army Corps suspended the permit for re-evaluation and a federal judge has
dismissed the challenge”2. These sentences aim to show the target audience, President Biden, that
the environmental community has tried to derail this project but it is now out of their power.
President Biden, however, retains the authority to revoke the permits for the sake of the
environment. His administration claims to have a goal of reaching a sustainable environment and
this is in alignment with his agenda. Grijalva and McEachin show that the entire environmental
community recognizes how illogical the construction of this complex is and that the Army Corps
and the federal government have failed to take action because it is a “challenge”. They use ethos
and logos to communicate that President Biden can and should take action in revoking
construction permits permanently.

Discrediting Formosa
Grijalva and McEachin use ethos to discredit Formosa’s business model and practices.
The fifth paragraph of their letter is dedicated to proving how immoral Formosa is by employing
logos and ethos tactics. The representatives point out that Formosa has a “documented history of
disregarding human health and environmental safety, and 98 state or federal civil cases have
already been filed against”2 them. Every month since August 2009, one Formosa plant has
“failed to correct its Clean Air Act violations” 2 and was labeled a “serial offender”2 by a Texas
judge. The company paid $50 million2 for the damage it had done to the waterways in Texas;
“the largest Clean Water Act settlement in U.S. history” 2. Grijalva and McEachin also point out
that Formosa is solely responsible for “Vietnam’s worst environmental disaster;”2 in 2016, a
Formosa facility leaked cyanide into the South China Sea, causing “massive fish die-offs”,
“devastat[ing] local fishing communities, and impact[ing] more than 40,000 workers”2. The
representatives employ words such as “devastating,” “egregious,” and “serial offender” in order
to provoke an emotional response in the reader. This use of diction sets an alarming tone and
centers the reader’s attention on the urgency of the situation, thus making the case for timely
corrective action. Word choice and effective logos work together to show how unethical Formosa
is as a company, making it a poor partner for any other business and, most importantly, for the
United States government.

Structure
Grijalva and McEachin begin their letter with a clear and concise call to action: “to urge
your administration to permanently revoke the construction permits… for the Formosa Plastics
petrochemical complex… deep in Cancer Alley” 2. This request was purposefully placed as the
first sentence because it immediately captures the reader’s attention. The representatives are
direct in their petition because it reflects how critical this situation is. The addition of “deep in
Cancer Alley” also drives home their point of how plagued St. James Parish already is. This isn’t
just St. James Parish, it is Cancer Alley.
Following the call to action, Grijalva and McEachin state that the project must be stopped
because it “is an affront to environmental justice and contrary to your goals to reduce pollution in
 Goodburn 4

frontline communities”2. The usage of “your goals” turns the responsibility back to the President.
It pushes the point that, if President Biden truly cares about the goals he says he has, he will
revoke the permits. Placing this statement directly after the call to action adds emphasis on the
severity of the situation.
In the last three paragraphs, the authors’ particular use of structure functions as a
powerful closing argument. Grijalva and McEachin shift their focus to the Biden administration
and the President’s responsibility in all of this: “on day one, your administration clearly signaled
your resolve to combat the climate crisis and meaningfully address environmental
injustice…Ultimately, the Formosa Plastics project is a lead backward from your vision to build
back better. We are on the precipice of achieving racial justice and creating a sustainable and
green economy”2. They assert that allowing the project to continue will “cause irreparable harm
to the Black community”, “destroy the environment, and set back [the President’s] goals”2. The
constant reiteration of the President’s goals and promises puts immense responsibility on
President Biden to take action. The use of “we” adds emphasis on the fact that it is a collective
opinion that the Formosa Plastics project is detrimental in many ways. Together, these strategies
create an almost irrefutable argument for halting construction on the Formosa plant.
The letter begins and ends with direct addresses to President Biden. Because the
beginning of any argument sets the tone, the authors wisely allocate responsibility for action on
President Biden from the outset. Concluding the letter by reiterating that point is also effective
because it is this last and most prominent idea in the reader’s mind. The last sentence reads, “We
thank you for your immediate steps to progress climate policy, and we look forward to working
with you during your administration to achieve environmental justice for all”2. This sentence
demonstrates President Biden that Grijalva and McEachin want to work alongside him. They are
holding President Biden responsible and trying to draw him in as a partner, but not blaming him
for the outcome. They are showing that they want to work in unity to correct this issue. They
employ a reverent and matter-of-fact tone to put the President at ease while simultaneously
eliciting a feeling of responsibility from him. Because making President Biden take
responsibility was one of their main goals, this was a very effective way to get that message
across.

Conclusion
This letter was extremely effective in proving why the Formosa Plastics plant permit
should be revoked. The use of structure, logos, kairos, ethos and carefully chosen diction work
together to form a cohesive and persuasive argument. Grijalva and McEachin make smart
stylistic choices that solidify their argument. They prove that Formosa Plastics is not an ethical
company and that it does not have the country’s best interests in mind. Ultimately, Grijalva and
McEachin appear to have succeeded in achieving their goal: to make a cogent argument to
President Biden to assume responsibility without using an accusatory tone. Whether they will be
ultimately successful in stopping the Formosa project, of course, is a question that is still
unanswered.
 Goodburn 5

Citations
1. Environmental racism in Louisiana’s ‘Cancer Alley’, must end, say UN human rights
experts. News.un.org. 2021 Mar 2 [accessed 2021 Sep 16].
https://news.un.org/en/story/2021/03/1086172

2. House.gov. [accessed 2021 Sep 16].

https://naturalresources.house.gov/imo/media/doc/Grijalva%20McEachin%20Letter%20to%20B
iden%20on%20Army%20Corps%20Permit%20for%20Formosa%20Plant%20March%2017%20
2021.pdf