The Rhetoric of Environmental Reasoning and Responses as Applied to Fracking

27(3) Journal of Environmental Law (2014) 325-334

13 Pages Posted: 13 Jul 2015

See all articles by Ole W. Pedersen

Ole W. Pedersen

Newcastle University - Newcastle Law School

Date Written: July 12, 2015

Abstract

This essay examines in detail the rhetorical means most commonly used in debates on environmental regulation. The article argues that debates on whether and how to regulate in the context of the environment often take the form of a predictable toing and froing between participants in such debates. The primary reason for this is found in the all too common reliance of participants on ready-to-hand arguments. These include: the pertinent point in time argument; the unripe point in time claim; the singular point of response argument; the sufficiency of existing structures claim; the presence of a particular risk argument; the one final measure argument; and the been here done that claim. By way of illustration, the article makes use of debates surrounding hydraulic fracturing in the UK in the form of the recently enacted Infrastructure Act 2015. The article concludes that the reliance on predictable means of rhetorical moves runs the risk of taking place at the expense of attempts to find a constructive middle-ground.

Keywords: Hydraulic fracturing, environmental law, environmental regulation, rhetoric, legislation

Suggested Citation

Pedersen, Ole Windahl, The Rhetoric of Environmental Reasoning and Responses as Applied to Fracking (July 12, 2015). 27(3) Journal of Environmental Law (2014) 325-334 , Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2629760

Ole Windahl Pedersen (Contact Author)

Newcastle University - Newcastle Law School ( email )

21-24 Windsor Terrace
Jesmond
Newcastle upon Tyne, England NE1 7RU
United Kingdom

HOME PAGE: http://www.ncl.ac.uk/nuls/staff/profile/ole.pedersen

Here is the Coronavirus
related research on SSRN

Paper statistics

Downloads
77
Abstract Views
542
rank
355,071
PlumX Metrics