Smith 1

Smith, Kathryn

Seibert

ENC2135

Plastics In Our Ocean: Rhetorical Analysis

The worldly “epidemic” of plastic in the oceans has been a problem for many years. The

effects that plastic pollution has had on the environment have been seen to have a lasting impact

on many species in the environment. As many people dive into and analyze the effects of plastic

pollution, their approaches are all seen differently strategically as they speak towards an

audience of people willing to stimulate a change. Between the video essay done by National

Geographic titled, “How We Can Keep Plastics Out of Our Ocean” and the educational journal

done by multiple scholars, titled “Microplastic Ingestion Ubiquitous in Marine Turtles,” the two

artifacts both have those different approaches as their different formats tackle the issue of

plastics in the ocean. Through rhetorical and communicational strategies, both the video and

article are able to show their effectiveness in how plastic pollution in the ocean affects the

environment and oceanic species overall.

In the National Geographic video, “How We Can Keep Plastics Out of Our Ocean,” they

dive into the overall importance of why the world needs a change in how they use plastic.

Through interviews with professionals and visual imaging of the effects, the clear purpose of the

video is to show how the lasting impacts of plastic can devastatingly affect the world we live in.

Their audience, which most likely consists of activists, National Geographic viewers, and anyone

curious about the effects of plastic pollution, would watch this video and see the possible

consequences. National Geographic uses pathos in the video through visual elements and
 Smith 2

graphics. In the video, they show different kinds of places, like beaches or lakes, covered in

plastic and trash. This visual element can be seen as emotional to the viewer as they can visually

see the effects of this plastic pollution. Another example of pathos is seen starting at the

timestamp, 0:17, saying “Across our ocean, plastic trash flows into circulation dispersed almost

everywhere but concentrating in huge swathes in the midst of global currents breaking down into

smaller and smaller pieces ingested by species across the marine world and sinking to the bottom

of the sea” (National Geographic, 0:17-0:44). With all the plastic going into our oceans, marine

animals are ingesting small pieces, ultimately hurting and possibly killing them. This can bring

the audience in, as they would want to save these animals from plastic pollution. But National

Geographic also connects to the audience through the rhetorical strategy of logos. They start

their video with a very shocking fact that “8 million metric tons of plastic trash enters the sea

from land every year the equivalent of five plastic bags filled with trash for every foot of

coastline in the world” (National Geographic, 0:05-0:17). This fact is expressing the amount of

trash that enters the oceans across the world and a viewer may hear this and want to start a

change. The use of facts and evidence, like the one from the beginning, throughout the video

gives a real-world perspective on the problem, leaving that lasting effect on the viewer. Along

with the use of facts and evidence, National Geographic is able to use real speakers to give their

input on the problem. Ellen MacArthur, who is on the Chair of Trustees for the Ellen MacArthur

Foundation, gave her input on the situation, by saying “in order to solve the plastic packaging

problem we need to effectively rethink the entire system” and as well saying, “the ultimate goal

of the new plastics economy is to design an economy where plastic packaging never becomes

waste and to do that we need every single player in the chain to change the way that they do

things” (National Geographic, 0:54-1:21). MacArthur not only gives her input of the plastic
 Smith 3

“epidemic” but gives ways on how to reverse it. She is giving ways that someone in the audience

can change the way they use plastic in order to hop on the train and stop the long-lasting effects.

The other speaker in the video is Michael Heller, who is the manager at Clagett Farms. He says,

“If you eat, you're involved in agriculture, so it's a problem [pollution] that all of us have to work

together to solve. Soil health is critical for water quality it's the first thing we have to focus on

here.” (National Geographic, 2:08-2:18). Heller brings a new perspective on the effects of

pollution as it is affecting agriculture and soil. This brings into view how, not only is it more than

just the ocean, but the audience hears first-hand how it is affecting the earth. All these elements

that National Geographic mentioned are able to bring an effective approach to communicate the

message of stopping plastic from getting into our oceans. Between the purpose and exigence,

National Geographic wanted to get their point through to the audience on the lasting effects of

plastic in the ocean and the worsening water quality.

The next artifact is a scholarly article written by multiple authors. “Microplastic ingestion

ubiquitous in marine turtles” talks about how the microplastics in the ocean affect marine

species, through a series of experiments. The purpose of this article is to show the results of

microplastics in the ocean and its effects on marine species, more specifically marine turtles.

The multiple authors, thirteen to be exact, are all either professors at Universities, part of marine

research groups, or some sort of researcher which helps prove the credibility throughout the

article. The article starts off following logos as it has a fact, in the beginning, saying, “It is

estimated that 4.8–12.7 million tonnes of plastic waste could be entering the marine environment

annually, contributing to an estimated five trillion pieces of plastic in the surface waters of the

global seas” (Duncan, 2018). This brings the audience in by starting by showing how much

plastic is estimated to be in the oceans. As the article goes on, it continues following logos as it
 Smith 4

gives more statistics on how much plastic is consumed in marine turtles as well as the rising

concerns of all this microplastic. To see how much microplastics are ingested, the investigators

“sought to: (a) identify the extent of microplastic ingestion in all species of marine turtles; and

(b) explore the polymer type of any ingested particles.” (Duncan, 2018). The effectiveness of this

experiment will show readers the true effects of plastic ingestion and how it may affect species

like marine turtles. The authors also include pictures showing the results giving a clear answer to

the number of microplastics in the ocean. Between “seven species over the three ocean basins,”

there was a total of 811 particles isolated” (Duncan, 2018). These results can connect to pathos

for the readers as that are a lot of particles that can kill these species of marine turtles. This

analysis all connects back to the true purpose of the article which is to warn the audience by

showing true results on how plastic can affect the species in the oceans.

Between the two artifacts, they both are communicating the same thing but there are still

some contrasting details between the two. The article is an experiment, which relies more on

facts and evidence to communicate with the audience. With the video, National Geographic

relied more on pathos, visuals, and professionals to convey the point of trying to stop the spread

of plastic in the oceans. There could also be contrasting audiences as the two artifacts reach

different sites. As the video, is posted on YouTube, this can reach anyone across the world.

National Geographic is also a widespread organization with a very broad kind of audience so any

avid watcher of National Geographic could watch. The scholarly article would probably reach a

smaller audience as it is more of a research paper from a couple of authors rather than from a

huge company. However, both artifacts would reach anyone concerned with the effects of plastic

being in the ocean and the marine species.

To conclude, this plastic epidemic in our oceans is proven to have lasting effects on the

water quality and species as shown by the two artifacts by National Geographic and the

researchers in the “Microplastic ingestion ubiquitous in marine turtles” article These rhetorical

and communicational strategies, the authors and creators can express their point on plastic in the

ocean to their widespread audiences. This also pushes to show that there needs to be a change

and we need to act now to influence that change.

Works Cited

Geographic, N. (2016, September 16). How we can keep plastics out of our ocean - YouTube.

YouTube. Retrieved March 3, 2022, from https://www.youtube.com/watch?

v=HQTUWK7CM-Y

Duncan, EM, Broderick, AC, Fuller, WJ, et al. Microplastic ingestion ubiquitous in marine

turtles. Glob Change Biol. 2019; 25: 744– 752. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.14519