Close Reading (Nov. 18)

To Slow Warming, Tax Carbon

Most people agree that the natural environment around the world is steadily on the decline. Often, however, our goals are set too far out of reach, and we give up long before we begin. The high consumption of gas in the US is often looked down upon by environmentalists, but an oft-ignored fact, as noted by Dieter Helm, is that gas is a much cleaner source of energy than coal. Citing various details and applying diction and syntax, Helm makes his point--that companies around the world should be taxed on carbon emissions--to his audience with remarkable clarity.

Rather than getting distracted by all the facts bloated to disproportion by environmentalists, Helm exposes important details to his readers, returning things to their proper perspectives. For example, he reveals that, "between 1990 and 2005, Britain’s carbon production fell by about 15 percent — but its carbon consumption rose by 19 percent, when imports were counted." By the common standard, Britain has reduced its carbon production significantly, but Helm points out that, in reality, Britain has not only failed to reduce the overall carbon emissions, but increased its contributions to the problem. Another important detail is that, though Europe has "spent lots of money on wind farms and rooftop solar panels," the global environmental situation has experienced little to no change, even growing worse as a result.

Doom and gloom aside, Mr. Helm is very careful to pick his words carefully to reflect his tone and perspective in the article. His use of diction is most clearly seen in the first two paragraphs. In an effort to appear politically neutral, Helm unearths uncommon words like "lauded" and "faulted" to describe the presidential candidates, avoiding positive and negative connotation as best possible. When he does wish to reveal his standpoint, however, he describes the cries of the environmentalist groups with the word "lamented" which comes across as "overly exaggerated wailing." Helm wants the reader to understand that, though the US doesn't spend mountains of money on under-developed, inefficient, "clean" energy, it is the small step from coal to gas that has made all the difference no matter what the environmentalists claim.

To top it all, Helm uses excellent syntax techniques--most prominently, the em dash--to draw the reader's attention to punch lines and important ideas. For example, to start his discussion on causes of increasing carbon emissions, he writes, "The main reason emissions have been going up is the rise of coal — in China, in particular." By separating the last phrase with an em dash, he causes the reader to save it for later use while he finishes his thoughts about coal consumption. This gives the idea time to mill about in the reader's mind as he or she comes slowly to the realization that, as a result of Europe's deindustrialization, coal-consuming companies are moving to China, not finding alternative, clean energy like we had hoped.

Helm makes it abundantly clear that the US, in fact, is not as far behind Europe in the effort to reduce carbon emissions after all. The result of the taxes on coal in Europe have been more harmful than beneficial. By drawing the reader to details and using specialized words to make his point, Helm shows that, in order for any plan to "save the environment" to work, every country must work together, not apart from one another. A plan to benefit the whole earth must be agreed upon and followed through as one unified body.