Whew! I really enjoy these course readings because they give me the opportunity to look at something I study as a geology student but from a completely different perspective. It is worth saying again– completely different perspective! And the phrase ‘fossil-soaked lifestyles’ is so good. 

From our weekly reading, I chose to dig into the quote from page 32 of “Petro-masculinity” by Cara Dagget. Daggett writes, and I agree that for a long time, American culture has revolved around whiteness and masculinity. From there, she digs into how fossil fuels and car culture are part of this structure. She continues with the claim: “For many, extracting and burning fuel was a practice of white masculinity, and American sovereignty, such that the explosive power of combustion could be crudely equated with virility.” Her citations around this quote are from a book on how American oil companies operated in foreign nations, so I thought we could come up with some arguments to support or contradict the quote. 

To build additional support into the piece, Daggett could cite reviews of relevant studies of ad practices of car companies for the previous century. Advertisements for cars and “fossil-soaked lifestyles are going to give solid support of incorporation of fossil fuels and white masculinity of zeitgeists past. Daggett could also post a fun anecdote about combustion and virility. Something like:

 A quick google search of “Combustion + Virility” will send you to a link to the next book on your summer reading list, Combustion by Denis Agnew. How does it link these two unique ideas? Just read the synopsis: “Former Smoke jumper Autumn MacAllister returns to Montana after tragedy almost takes her life. She doesn’t expect the chubby insecure boy she once knew to have turned into a virile man with a mind-blowing smile.” Former Smoke jumper Autumn MacAllister returns to Montana after tragedy almost takes her life. She doesn’t expect the chubby insecure boy she once knew to have turned into a virile man with a mind-blowing smile.” Virile combustion… 

 How to contradict the idea of linking whiteness and petroleum and co. together? You only need to provide a few contradicting images. I can think of a few: Black migration to work for car manufacturers in northern cities within the US; studies of national petroleum companies in non-European nations like Venezuela, Mexico, Iran, Kuwait, Libya, and Nigeria. Undeniable examples of the power of petroleum in the global south, for the benefit of nations in the global south. 

Daggett writes many strong claims and paints with a broad brush. The benefits of which are that you can find many examples to support your claims, but contradicting evidence can be found just as swiftly.    

In The Uninhabitable Earth, David Wallace-Wells’ writing is the embodiment of the reckless not-my-responsibility he accuses modern-western-humanity of. 

The planet survived many millennia without anything approaching a world government, in fact endured nearly the entire span of human civilization that way, organized into competitive tribes and fiefdoms and kingdoms and nation-states, and only began to build something resembling a cooperative blueprint, very piecemeal, after brutal world wars-in the form of the League of Nations and United Nations and European Union and even the market fabric of globalization, whatever its flaws still a vision of cross-national participation, imbued with the neoliberal ethos that life on Earth was a positive-sum game. (Wallace-Wells 25)

Sorry for the blockquote, but where is the period? As you can see, Wallace-Wells (WW) has a wonderfully descriptive and illuminating style, but if we examine his work, we find something unsettling. WW writes like an ivy league educated tech-bro that aims to ‘disrupt the mainstream,’ he throws convention aside– and makes the reader do the work to find the thesis, beginning, and ending of his argument. WW goes on to write that a global crisis like climate change should be the catalyst that brings the world together when we are doing the complete opposite. On page 25, Wallace-Wells writes that the western world is “recoiling into nationalistic corners and retreating from collective responsibility and from each other.” Well said WW, now please use your privilege for the common good and sprinkle a few more periods down from that golden perch of yours.  

Golden perch, ivory tower, whatever, I feel like I need to make a concession. WW does not need to write to the common man, and I do not believe this book is targeted to the common man. With this in mind, I think WW is doing the most good he can do with his laptop keyboard. Let me explain myself a little more. I have a very progressive friend that does not recycle; she says it is because the global environmental crisis we are facing has little to do with individual responsibility. She finds that most of the fault lies at the feet of a massive industry and leviathan corporations. Who better to write to the modern-day robber baron than an ivy league educated son-of-New York, part-time writer, part-time podcaster, with coiffed hair and a sculpted jawline (Wikipedia). Did I mention he is married to an art dealer (thecut.com)?

Works Cited

((((I DONT KNOW HOW TO MAKE THIS WORK ON HERE, BUT ON MY WORD DOC THE FORMATTING WAS CORRECT!))))

“David Wallace-Wells.” Wikipedia, Wikimedia Foundation, 10 Feb. 2020, 

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Wallace-Wells.

The Cut. “New York Magazine’s Sex Lives Podcast: The Couple That Shares a Toothbrush.”

 The Cut, The Cut, 19 Aug. 2016, www.thecut.com/2016/08/couple-that-shares-a-toothbrush.html.

WALLACE-WELLS, DAVID. UNINHABITABLE EARTH: Life after Warming. 

TIM DUGGAN  BOOKS, 2020.

I chose this piece to respond to because as a native Michigander I listened to this speech out of civic duty to the motherland.

“It doesn’t matter what the President says about the stock market.  What matters is that millions of people struggle to get by or don’t have enough money at the end of the month after paying for transportation, student loans or prescription drugs.  American workers are hurting.  In my own state, our neighbors in Wisconsin and Ohio, Pennsylvania and all over the country, wages have stagnated while CEO pay has skyrocketed.” – part of Gretchen Whitmer’s response to President Trump’s State of the Union.

Governor Whitmer’s response to the state of the Union was well written; with a simple strategy, she was able to answer a speech before hearing it. A close reading of this section of the reply shows how Whitmer used pathos to reach her audience and respond to the State of the Union. By focusing on the emotional struggles of Americans and supporting her case with emotionally charged ideas, Whitmer can respond without responding to specifics. What does is it mean precisely that American workers are hurting? I do not know, but I do not like it! What does it mean that millions of people struggle? I do not know, but I want someone to help them! Who is Governor Whitmer? Who cares, wages are stagnating, and the rich are getting richer! Well, what research institution provided these facts on the monthly budget of Americans; was it a double-blind study? What does it matter!? Americans do not have enough money to pay for their glaucoma medication!

We can see from Whitmer’s word choice that this is a well-crafted speech and lands squarely on your heartstrings. But, was it a compelling appeal for convincing America that democrats have the answer to the troubles the country faces? I would argue that no, this is a speech crafted to appeal to a certain kind of American. I think by dismissing the stock market and elaborating on the struggles of paying for student loans, prescription drugs, and CEO pay, the speaker is talking to a red-blooded working-class American. Let’s say it’s aimed at someone that drinks Budweiser over Lambrusco. Would this be effective rhetoric for convincing an upper-middle-class family that lives in a suburban home to forget about the gains their 401k made this year, maybe, maybe not. But, it seems to have been on target if she aimed to convince working-class voters to flip back the mid-western states that sent their electors for Trump in 2016.