Approves of the Superfund and the Taxation

¶ … approves of the Superfund and the taxation on oil and chemical companies that is used to clean up environmental messes. Even before these specific elements of the author's concern are mentioned, he or she has made a tacit appeal to the sense of fairness expected to be found in the article's readers; using quotes to offset the alliterative phrase "polluter pays" (and calling it in full the "polluter pays' principle," adding one more instance of the repeated "p" to help the phrase stick in readers' minds) and referencing it as the "cornerstone of environmental policy," the author immediately sets out what is right and what is wrong. This is done in such a way that there is no room for argument -- obviously, if someone makes a mess, they should be the ones to clean it up. Throughout the article, the author never engages in any of the more intricate and complex details of the Superfund issue, such as the possibility that some companies end up paying more than their fair share and thus that the polluter doesn't actually always pay -- the industry as a whole does. This is a useful way for framing a rhetorical argument and immediately paces the reader in position alongside the article's author, making the latter and more immediate arguments made in the article easier to agree with.

This does not mean that they are necessarily agreed with, however, or that the author is able to effectively prove his or her point. Other emotional appeals and rhetorical devices are relied on, such as an initial appeal to patriotism ("Congress made an important commitment to Americans") and the specter of external aggression ("that principle is now under attack"), and these come about as frequently as do the logical arguments and real points made by the author. These are also admittedly difficult to argue with, even from a purely rational level. The author notes that in addition to the taxes on oil companies that are used to ensure an adequate amount of cash exists in the Superfund trust fund, special dispensations were given to these companies in terms of their liability for petroleum spills and other related environmental issues. Most importantly, these dispensations will continue even though the taxes have not been and will not be levied (as of the writing of this article, at least). It is here that the author brings his or her argument full circle, though not explicitly: the reader is again faced with an issue that boils down essentially to fairness. At the outset of the article, the author makes it clear that the polluter must pay -- the one who makes the mess ought to clean it up, as this is only fair. Later, the author points out (implicitly) that it is decidedly unfair for a mutually beneficial contract to be put into place, and then for one side to enjoy the privilege of receiving their benefit while denying the previously-agreed-upon benefit to the other party. In this case, oil companies continue to receive the benefit of a lack of liability, without the benefit given to the public of money to clean up environmental hazards.