Chancellor Martin

ENGL 1010

Christopher Blankenship

11/4/21

A Rhetorical Analysis of “Don Gale: Solve Climate Change with Creativity, Not Fantasy”

The objective of this paper is to perform a rhetorical analysis on a work by Utah

journalist Don Gale, titled “Solve Climate Change with Creativity, Not Fantasy.” This is an

opinion piece written for the Salt Lake Tribune, a newspaper. The main audience for this piece

would be older people, as they are generally more likely to read newspapers (Conaghan), as

well as people more on the left of the political spectrum, as they are more likely to believe

climate change is man-made and something that we need to solve (Chinni). With this in mind,

the main purpose of this text is not to persuade an audience that climate change is real, but to

convince people that already believe this to adopt a different set of prescriptions for the

problem. Gale argues that “solar and wind power will not solve the problem of clean energy”

(Gale), so we need to consider other alternatives. He uses multiple rhetorical methods to

achieve this, and I will argue that in some ways, he falls short of being persuasive.

The first strategy that he employs is making claims of fact and value. This is the main

way that he attempts to bring the audience over to his side. In the second paragraph, Gale

claims that in theory we could generate enough energy from wind and solar power to meet our

needs, but in practice this isn’t possible. He argues “The sun shines only part of the time. And
the wind blows only part of the time” (Gale). When it’s windy we can generate a lot of power,

and when it’s sunny we can generate a lot of power, but since these two things aren’t constant,

we will always need to have other sources of energy, like fossil fuels, on standby for when solar

and wind won’t cut it. By making this claim he is attempting to show his audience that we can’t

simply change out our current energy sources for fossil fuels because they don’t work all the

time, which might lead one to begin considering other options.

He goes on to make another claim shortly after, that even if we wanted to use batteries

to store energy for these times when solar and wind energy weren’t enough, that it wouldn’t be

a good idea. Gale argues that batteries are highly flammable and notoriously dangerous to

dispose of properly. He claims that we already have a bunch of batteries lying around that we

haven’t dismantled because of the environmental hazard that they pose (Gale). He brings this

up to further illustrate that solar and wind present us with problems that can’t be worked

around, that we need to think up other clean energy sources to go along with them.

Near the end of the piece, Gale claims that demand for electricity will either double or

triple over the next few decades. He then says that we currently only generate about 10% of

our energy from solar and wind power, and that we could only get to 20 or 30% before we run

into the problems that he outlined above (Gale). He ends with this to show the urgency of the

problem. We are going to need a lot more energy as time goes on, and solar and wind cannot

get us anywhere close to the total amount that we are going to need. He spent the paper

leading up to this point mentioning the limitations of solar and wind power, so this is the logical

conclusion that Gale comes to and wants us to agree with. We have now finished looking at a
few different claims of fact that he makes, and now we will look at another rhetorical strategy

that he employs throughout the piece: his use of diction and tone.

He begins and ends with two very loaded and provocative statements that are meant to

grab the reader and leave a lasting impression. The opening paragraph reads “Let’s face it: Solar

energy and wind power cannot possibly solve the real problem of global climate change. Those

who give credence to that simple-minded solution should have paid attention in basic physics

classes” (Gale). This is a sweeping and declarative statement of fact, no shades of gray here. He

wants his audience to know that he knows what he’s talking about. The other thing he’s

attempting to do, whether he knows it or not, is to paint his opposition as people that have no

idea what they are talking about. He refers to them as having “simple-minded solutions,” which

isn’t exactly charitable. He’s stating that what he believes is so obviously correct, and everyone

else should have paid attention in school, which is quite condescending. This could be off-

putting for any reader that doesn’t already agree with him, and it might even drive some people

away before they get to the rest of the text. There might be a subsection of the population that

would find this persuasive, but probably not a large one.

The other quote we will examine comes from the closing paragraph: “Focused research

– lots of it – has a much better chance of solving the very real problem of climate change than

pie-in-the-sky fantasies such as solar power” (Gale), another authoritative claim being made.

This is very similar to the opening couple of lines, considering he also makes a not-so-charitable

claim about his opponents. By saying their belief in solar power is a realistic way to curb our

carbon emissions is “pie-in-the-sky,” he’s once again arguing that they have no idea what they

are talking about, that they are living in a fantasy of over-simplified solutions. If someone made
it this far in the piece then they weren’t too off put by the opening paragraph, but this still

might leave some readers with a bad taste in their mouths, and they might not want to

seriously consider the argument being presented.

Don Gale attempts to persuade his readers that wind and solar power are not realistic

solutions to our clean energy problem, and that there are other ways to solve it. He employs

some rhetorical strategies to achieve this, the two most prominent are his claims of fact and his

use of diction and tone. His claims of fact were quite convincing, but his tone and diction leave

something to be desired. As it stands, most of the people that made it to the end of this text

probably already agreed with him, which doesn’t serve his overall goal of persuading people

over to his side.

 Bibliography

Chinni, Dante. “Global Warming Perceptions by State: Most Americans Accept Human Fault.”

NBCNews.com, NBCUniversal News Group, 25 Apr. 2021,

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/meet-the-press/global-warming-perceptions-states-

more-americans-accept-fault-n1265213.

Conaghan, Jim. “Median Age of Newspaper Readers Are Well-Distributed.” News Media

Alliance, 29 Apr. 2021, https://www.newsmediaalliance.org/age-newspaper-readers-

platforms/.

Gale, Don. “Don Gale: Solve Climate Change with Creativity, Not Fantasy.” The Salt Lake

Tribune, 15 Oct. 2021, https://www.sltrib.com/opinion/commentary/2021/10/15/don-

gale-solve-climate/.