As the world struggles with climate change and the need for clean, reliable energy, it is possible that the world could tap into the huge deposits of economically recoverable coal and methane gas that lie deep underground. As many as three trillion tons of coal can be mined using the traditional technologies, and even more, coal deposits that could not be mined in the past can now be accessed by setting them on fire and then trapping the methane gas that is released as a result. The process of burning coal and capturing gases that are released is known as underground coal gasification (UCG), and the article compares the potential benefits that the UCG could bring, but argues that the effects of this technology on the planet could be reduced. Fred Pearce’s article “Beyond fracking: Underground coal gasification” is a masterfully written paper that succeeds in using several rhetorical tools (including metaphors, logos, pathos, critical thinking, and comparison) in order to reach the audience.
Pearce’s use of metaphors is easily one of the most effective in this writing. Metaphors suggest direct or indirect comparisons between things or meanings to show how they are the same or different in a figurative way. Pearce titles the discussion on the benefits and disadvantages of UCG as a burning dilemma, in reference to the fire involved, the urgency, and difficulty of the decisions. He goes ahead to show that coal power is a very old and harmful technology by referring to the engineers working on these projects in Uzbekistan as “Stalin’s engineers and their successors”. This is even clearer in his reference to the UCG technology as primitive, and the fire that it causes below the ground as a Dantean inferno to compare the fire to the descriptions of hell in poems by Dante. The author also argues that the technology to control pollution that UCG causes as well as ensure the environment is protected e.g. by shutting down the operations in a safe manner. To show that these technologies are unclear, strange and harmful, Pearce refers to them as black arts. He also says the pipeline that carries the methane gas from the field to the gas station “snakes across the countryside”, which not only shows the way that the pipeline looks like a snake, but also shows the pipeline carries a dangerous gas that harms the planet.
The article also uses logos or facts/logical/critical thinking to support the arguments made. One of the most effective ways this is done is by citing statistics and reliable sources. According to Pearce (2014), the World Energy Council estimates that up 20% of the world’s coal deposits are recoverable, but Gordon Couch, an expert with the International Energy Agency estimates that up to 18 trillion tonnes of coal are recoverable. Similarly, 400m3 of “recoverable methane lies trapped in coal and shale beds around the world”. Pearce (2014) also makes clear and logical argument that begins with important background information about UCG, the current UCG projects, the concerns about environmental sustainability, and how this technology’s potential could destroy the climate. Throughout the article, the writer includes factual information about UCG, coal, methane gas, and other factors related to the topic, which makes the audience to better undestand the issues about the topic, and the arguments being made in the paper by different people. This includes a final segment titled “chemical toolkit”, which ummarizes the scientific or technical aspects related to how coal and methane are used to fuel that can be used to make electrictiy or drive cars. Even most importantly, Pearce (2014) includes perspectives from both sides of the argument to enable readers to make a clear and informed decision. The logical arguments and use of factual evidence helps to create a perception that the author, and the article are not biased, and thus more trustworthy.
Coal has been a leading source of energy in the past, but its effects on the planet, as well as the effects of other fossil fuels are increasingly becoming a concern. The possibility of mining trapped coal deposits and methane gas deep underground using UCG technology may help the planet meet its energy needs for a 1000 more years, but the effects on the same would be many. Fred Pearce’s article makes these facts very clear, by using different rhetorical tools. The article makes a successful argument that while the UCG technology has a lot of potential, its effects on the planet is not sustainable.
References
Pearce, F. (2014, Feb 15). Beyond fracking: Underground coal gasification. New Scientist , 221 (2956).
