Allen 1

David Allen

Samuel Dunn

Writing 150

11 Oct. 2012

Raising awareness of the hidden pollution through rhetoric

The global population is made aware of multiple types of pollution. Air,

water, nuclear, soil, and even global warming are a few. But Verlyn Klinkenborg, a

former university literature teacher and New York Times editor as well as non-

fiction writer, brings to our attention of yet another kind that is largely unknown in

his essay “Our Vanishing Night.” He argues that the widespread use of artificial

lights in cities creates light pollution that confuses humans’ biological clocks.

Klinkenborg attempts to inform and persuade an environment-minded audience to

act on this problem through sympathetic and logical parallels to animals, a small

bandwagon appeal, and scientific evidence.

A large part of Klinkenborg’s argument lies in his use of sympathetic appeals

through the use of animals. He aims to make a parallel between humans and other

species to convince the reader that humans are (or soon will be) in danger. Certain

words like “vanish,” “targets,” and “disproportionately,” evoke sympathetic

responses for these animals from the reader. When National Geographic readers

readread, “In some Swiss valleys the European lesser horseshoe bat began to vanish

after streetlights were installed…” reports and statistics about endangered and

extinct species come to their minds and they immediately sense a danger that may

lead to something irreversible and damaging to the environment. This helps get the

Allen 2

readers on Klinkenborg’s side so he can lure them into believing there is true danger

to those at risk of light pollution. Consider tThe sentence “Other nocturnal

mammals – including desert rodents, fruit bats, opossums, and badgers – forage

more cautiously under the permanent full moon of light pollution because they’ve

become easier targets for predators.” When this audience reads the word “target,” a

small, vulnerable animal undoubtedly comes to mind. This creates a parallel

between humans and “targets” that further create sympathy for these victims, which

Klinkenborg uses to his advantage. The last example is especially interesting. It

reads, “Migrating at night, birds are apt to collide with brightly lit tall buildings;

immature birds on their first journey suffer disproportionately.”

“Disproportionately” triggers a sympathetic response – that something is wrong.

Disproportionate situations, for National Geographic readers, signal that something

needs to be fixed. Klinkenborg uses this reaction to gain support for change and

action against light pollution.

Klinkenborg intends to use this appeal to get the reader to apply these

vulnerable feelings to themselves and realize the danger that they’re in. The image

of sea turtle hatchlings stranded and “confused by artificial lighting behind the

beach” is used to put us in the turtle’s position, one where we are disordered even

when we aren’t aware of what is happening.

Save one, Klinkenborg states claims about these affected animals largely

without citation, save one.: For example, “…on many species [Light] acts as a

magnet, a process being studied by researchers such as Travis Longcore and

Catherine Rich, co-founders of the Los Angeles-based Urban Wildlands Group. he

Allen 3

claims “One population of Bewick’s swans wintering in England put on fat more

rapidly than usual, priming them to begin their Siberian migration early.”

Klinkenborg is intending to boost his argument by throwing in studies, but, in fact,

he is damaging his credibility since he cites animal” findings without citation and he

is no authority on the matter. Although he does a fine job at pulling out a pathetic

emotional appeal from his audience, it is mostly without much credibilitystanding,

and, more importantlyon top of that, there is no logical connection that states why

distracting streetlights directly affect humans’ biological cycle.

Klinkenborg further tries to persuade the readers to take action by using a

bandwagon fallacy. He claims, “It was once thought that light pollution only affected

astronomers, who need to see the night sky in all its glorious clarity.” Yes, it is

obvious that astronomers need to see the night without glare, but he uses the

example of Flagstaff to convince us that we should follow suit to take action.

Flagstaff , to protect the view from Lowell Observatory, “has tightened its

regulations . . . and in 2001 it was declared the first International Dark Sky City.” He

then follows with “More and more cities and even entire countries, such as the

Czech Republic, have committed themselves to reducing unwanted glare.” He says

that other cities have followed Flagstaff’s example, but his argument that everyday

residents need to have a clear sky is relatively weak. His claim is that “Darkness is

as essential to our biological welfare, to our internal clockwork, as light itself. The

regular oscillation of waking and sleep in our lives – one of our circadian rhythms –

is nothing less than a biological expression of the regular oscillation of light on

Earth.” He says that darkness is essential, but there’s no direct link between

Allen 4

clearing up the night sky and our biological clock. Klinkenborg, essentially, is stating

that because glare from light pollution is somehow affecting our biological clock,

cities and even countries should heighten restrictions on lighting.

As far as pure scientific evidence goes, there is little to none. There is only

one statistic mentioned that supports the overall argument suspiciously placed in

the second-to-last paragraph: “At least one new study has suggested a direct

correlation between higher rates of breast cancer in women and the nighttime

brightness of their neighborhoods.” Klinkenborg uses the phrase “as least” to trick

the reader into accepting the credibility of one un-cited statistic by subconsciously

thinking that there are more studies than this one mentioned, even if there isn’t.

At first read, it is tempting to buy into this idea after going through 4

paragraphs of unsupported sympathetic appeals to animals. Perhaps this is a real

issue that needs to be addressed, but more evidence needs to be used in order to

support the claim that light pollution affects humans’ biological cycle. Klinkenborg

points out that this is an issue that could be fixed easily, but the need to do so does

not come out as strong enough.