Roldan 1

Onyx Roldan

CAS137H

Lori Bedell

9 October 2020

A Mouthful of Plastic

Within the last 10 years, there is no doubt that people across the planet have become

more conscious of their plastic consumption. With Starbucks making efforts to greatly diminish

their use of plastic straws, to water bottle manufacturers such as Aquafina rolling out packaging

made with 50% less material, companies have become much more savvy to the growing amount

of consumers concerned with their environmental impact. Still, there is a great need for attention

and a heightened sense of concern over the urgency of this issue. In 2011, to raise awareness, the

Surfrider Foundation released an impactful advertisement that informs the reader, “what goes in

the ocean goes in you”. It’s aim was to garner concern among consumers and make them

question how their personal decisions could impact both themselves and the oceans. Eight years

later in 2019, following worsening conditions of the oceans, the environmental protection

organization Sea Shepherd released a much more shocking and impactful ad campaign depicting

sea lions suffocating at the hands of plastic bags that plead audiences to stop “torturing” sea life

through their consumption of single-use plastics. While both campaigns construct strong

extrinsic proofs that inspire the audience to reduce their plastic consumption, the advertisement

from the Surfrider Foundation takes a logos-centered approach that contrasts against the

pathos-driven take by Sea Shepherd, with their stylistic choices being driven by the dominant

ideology present during their respective releases.

While it’s true that the two campaigns center their arguments in completely different

ways, they use the same methods of rhetoric to build their arguments against the exigence of

plastic pollution, presenting the audience with extrinsic proofs born out of universal cultural

commonplaces. Using factual evidence and research the Surfrider Foundations lays down the

groundwork for it’s argument. The speaker presents the startling statistics of plastic pollution

along the west coast, stating how fish have been shown to ingest over 12,000 tons of plastic a

year. To consume such a large amount of plastic in such a short amount of time is certainly cause

for concern, but this alone is not enough to move the audience enough to inspire action.

Following this presentation of intrinsic proof, the speaker builds the extrinsic proof by taking

advantage of commonplaces already known and instilled in the reader, calling back to sayings

such as “you are what you eat”, “there is no planet B”, and to “treat others as you would want to

be treated”. When the advertisement states, “what goes in the ocean goes in you”, it aims to

create a reason for personal concern over ocean contamination. The added imagery of

garbage-ridden food leaves the audience questioning how much they may be harming themselves

through their plastic consumption and how they can work to slow this contamination. In

correlation with each other, these elements ask the audience why they are okay with the current

reality that exists and those who have been persuaded by the argument are led to the resources

provided by the campaign and encouraged to pursue their civic duty of reducing their plastic

usage.

The campaign from Sea Shepherd builds its argument in a similar manner, drawing

extrinsic proof out of commonplaces and factual evidence. As the audience is presented with the

advertisement, they are immediately drawn to the visual of a sea lion being suffocated by a

plastic bag. Similar types of single-use plastics such as water bottles and grocery bags can
 Roldan 3

remain in the ocean for up to 450 years and have been widely known to strangle and internally

damage sea life, disrupt ecosystems, and increase the amount of toxic elements in our waters.

Single-use plastics are one of the leading causes of marine pollution and their impact on wildlife

and ecosystems remains for far beyond their user’s lifetime. The logical conclusion and extrinsic

proof that Sea Shepherd draws out of these intrinsic proofs is that those who care about other

living things, especially “animal-lovers”, have an obligation to care and to stop their personal use

of plastic products. After being given this knowledge, it is irresponsible and cruel to bring upon

unnecessary suffering for the small amount of convenience that a plastic bag or disposable water

bottle may provide. This concept is, again, born out of commonplaces held by the audience. All

societies demonstrate the utmost care and consideration for those most vulnerable, and in this

situation, wildlife cannot speak or defend itself and is therefore simply the victim of

irresponsible human actions. On top of this, the “golden rule” is again utilized, as no morally

conscious being wants to see others suffer as marine life does. Using these elements, Sea

Shepherd invents their argument that those who do not care about their consumption of

single-use plastics do not care about the suffering they bring upon to others.

While the two advertisements are similar in message and method of invention, they vary

greatly when it comes to style. As the Surfrider Foundation takes a logos-driven approach with a

more gentle and thought-provoking style, Sea Shepherd creates an urgent tone by using a

pathos-driven approach and an accusatory and demanding style. These stylistic choices are

driven by the dominant ideologies at their releases. During the release of the Surfrider

Foundation’s campaign in 2011, the world had recently suffered a great amount of environmental

tragedies. In March of 2011, people across the globe had witnessed the great Tohoku Tsunami

bring in mountains of garbage and plastic to North American shores and just a year prior the
 Roldan 4

largest marine oil spill in history had occurred off the Gulf of Mexico, devastating wildlife, the

oceans, and all sorts of natural resources. The real effects of pollution and environmental

recklessness were moving to the forefront of media attention and people everywhere began to be

concerned. Still, the dominant ideology was one of carelessness-- there was no such concern over

plastic straws, bottles, and grocery bags that exists today. Taking this into consideration, the

Surfrider Foundation had to frame their advertisement in a way that would call attention to and

inform the reader exactly why they should begin to consider the effects of their plastic

consumption. Using this line of thinking, the advertisement centers its main message around

factual evidence, drawing a logical conclusion from its sources. The Surfrider Foundation

proposes a logos-based argument with an informative tone to address why exactly the audience

should care as opposed to relying on an emotional argument that, at this point in time, would not

be effective. Rather than making shocking claims or accusatory statements, the passive voice is

used to approach the audience as to not alienate anyone.

On the other hand, Sea Shepherd released their campaign in 2019 when a completely

different ideology was present. Since the release of the Surfrider Foundation’s campaign, the

world had seen many more natural disasters and what was essentially the physical manifestation

of environmental recklessness from both individual and corporate pollution. Following this,

many states and cities began to implement plastic bags and water bottle bans, and it was common

knowledge that single-use plastics cause great harm to sea life and to the environment. The

dominant ideology had shifted from one of carelessness to one of great concern for personal

accountability, yet a substantial number of people remained unconcerned about their impact on

marine life. With a reformed dominant ideology and a need for concern that was higher than

ever, Sea Shepherd needed to take a harsher approach than the Surfrider Foundation did upon
 Roldan 5

their campaign’s release. Because the factual evidence about the harm single-use plastics cause

was already widely known, Sea Shepherd decided to employ a pathos-based, emotionally driven

approach to their argument. The stylistic choices they made both through their visuals and

language choice, using words such that evoke feelings of pain and permanency such as “tortures”

and “forever”, directly confront the audience with their individual role in harming wildlife for

personal gain. The graphic imagery used brings the audience face to face with a horrific scene

which is meant to trigger their emotional response, with the goal of winning over a reader that

was previously unconvinced by facts and words to pursue their civic duty of protecting the

oceans and marine life that is unable to defend itself. While the Surfrider Foundation used a

passive voice to approach the audience, Sea Shepherd uses an active voice to confront the

audience and make them feel personally responsible for pain and torture inflicted upon innocent

animals. Any reader that was previously untouched by environmentalist pleas was surely moved

by the pure emotional appeal of the campaign.

Although an initial striking contrast can be observed between the two campaigns, their

methods of invention and argumentation are very similar, with both employing commonplaces

and facts to construct their arguments. However, their stylistic choices truly set them apart, with

the Surfrider Foundation relying on logos and an open and friendly approach, while Sea

Shepherd relies greatly on pathos and a strong-willed, accusatory tone. Unfortunately, the need

for these advertisements still exists, as our oceans continue to be ravaged by pollution and

recklessness. Organizations like the Surfrider Foundation and Sea Shepherd still work tirelessly

with words and actions to protect our oceans in the hope that one day, each and every person will

fulfill their call to action.

Works Cited

Baker, Stephanie. "What Goes into the Ocean, Goes into You." Surfrider Foundation, 11 May

2012, vancouverbc.surfrider.org/2012/05/11/what-goes-into-the-ocean-goes-into-you/.

Accessed 8 Oct. 2020.

Cho, Renee. "Our Oceans: A Plastic Soup." State of the Planet, Earth Institute, 26 Jan. 2011,

blogs.ei.columbia.edu/2011/01/26/our-oceans-a-plastic-soup/. Accessed 8 Oct. 2020.

"Sea Shepherd Uses Depictions of Tortured Animals to Fight Against Plastic in the Oceans." Sea

Shepherd Conservation Society, 7 Mar. 2019, seashepherd.org/2019/03/07/

sea-shepherd-uses-depictions-of-tortured-animals-to-fight-against-plastic-in-the- oceans/

#:~:text=3D%20ads%20have%20been%20created,items%20used%20in%20our%20daily

/. Accessed 8 Oct. 2020.