Environmental Engineering Reference
In-Depth Information
(p. 8) resulting in a 'smoking, blackened landscape' (p. 10). The impact of
'The Almighty Match' (CAFNEC, 1992) on wildlife, especially birds, pro-
vides the main focus for their arguments with reference made at one point
to one of the representatives having observed 'young birds' being 'burnt
alive' and 'totally cooked' (p. 44).
The following closing statement is typical of the non-conformist nature
of the representation: 'Let us aim for perfection in all things but please,
now, stop diminishing our reservoirs of nature and spirit.' The failure to
engage with the conventions of non-emotional presentation is explicitly
recognized by the representative himself who makes 'no apology for intro-
ducing some emotion to the debate'. Such non-conformity, however, may
well be interpreted as making it dii cult to gain credibility for the argu-
ment by positioning it outside the institutional conventions of the other
representatives. The Wattle Hills discourse does use a limited amount
of scientii c rhetoric (p. 9) but has no rhetorical means of combining the
scientii c and the emotive and this leaves the discourse as predominantly
emotional, a position that is bound to reduce its standing in any policy
debate.
It does, however, play a role in constituting the identity of Wattle
Hills. The residents of Wattle Hills pursue a very dif erent environmental
management policy from most other landholders in the Cape and are well
known for their alternative lifestyle centred on self-sui ciency and natural
regeneration. This is rel ected in their presentation's overall departure
from the rational, scientii c approach adopted by the rest of the repre-
sentatives at the seminar. Here, the discourse constitutes Wattle Hills as
a distinctive community. This, however, undermines their attempt to take
a central place within the policy debates. There is an attempt at an appeal
to the 'economic advantage' to Cape York landholders of a i re-free man-
agement regime, which, they claim, will 'halt the decline in soil fertility',
healthy farmland being a 'priceless resource' (p. 11). This could be inter-
preted as attempting discursive ai nity by engaging with those for whom
economic gain is a priority. This is not, however, going to be a winning
trope in a debate framed around environmental protection and where
scientii c rationality plays such a key role.
Finally, there is the discourse of the independent scientists. As might
be expected this has parallels with the government scientists' discourse
in terms of the pattern of social construction and rhetoric. Humans and
nature are viewed as distinct with scientii c knowledge legitimizing certain
practices, through revealing the key relationships af ecting natural systems.
Scientists are again seen as responsible and scientii c terminology is again
combined with emotional language. The dif erence here, however, is the
mainly negative ethos and loose use of apocalyptic rhetoric: 'destroyed',
Search WWH ::




Custom Search