Recently, around January 27th, the Australian government, under the power of prime minister, Scott Morrison, funded one billion dollars in efforts to conserve and protect the Great Barrier Reef. The Great Barrier Reef is the world’s largest natural coral reef system, with over 2,900 types of coral, and is home to one of the most diverse ecosystems in our oceans. For years now, due to climate change and other factors, this coral reef system has slowly been dying and bleaching, a process in which the coral expels its algae in their tissues, due to high temperatures or direct sunlight, which raises the chances of the coral dying. 

Jon C. Day, an adjunct research fellow at James Cook University and a former director at the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority, as well as Scott F. Heron, a senior lecturer at the James Cook University, are well-versed in their knowledge of the Great Barrier Reef and understand that the funding for the reef is “nonsensical” and there are more resourceful ways the money can be spent. Both Day and Heron argue that the funding for the Great Barrier Reef is “nonsensical” because they believe the money should be used to target the issues that have the greatest impact on the reefs. They would’ve liked the money to be used to phase out fossil fuels, improve water quality, and have an accelerated funding program in which it is based over one prime minister’s term, instead of a nine-year plan as it is now, in order to actually improve the reefs and not just improve the public image for electoral candidates. Their purpose behind writing this is to inform specifically, the Australian people as well as the mass majority of people that the Australian government’s funding for the reefs is not practical if they actually want to conserve the reefs and actually change some of the laws or plans that the Australian government have in place. Throughout their article, Day and Heron appeal to emotions as well as logic to get their point across to the readers.

One of the main points Day and Heron try to express is that instead of using the majority of the money towards addressing “the land-based causes of water quality issues impacting the World Heritage Area,” it should have gone directly towards phasing out the usage of fossil fuels. In a bold statement, seemingly calling out the Australian government, the authors state, “What’s more, the federal and Queensland governments continue to approve new coal and gas projects. Doing all this, while knowing the grave threat climate change poses to the Great Barrier Reef, demonstrates the incoherence of government policies.” ( Day and Heron, January 2022) The authors clearly express disappointment, a powerful emotion, because of their government’s ability to overlook these facts in order for financial gain. They do this because they understand that without the public knowing about these investments the Australian government is making, the public wouldn’t understand why the funding for the reefs is incompetent. The authors also use a graph representing the changes in temperature recorded in the Great Barrier Reef over the past one hundred years. It shows that 2021, was the hottest recorded year, with the most amount of coral bleaching as well. The authors included this graph to appeal to logic and give readers first-hand data on how climate change, and specifically how greenhouse gas emissions have affected our reefs. 

Water quality is another issue that plagues The Great Barrier Reef. In fact, “After climate change, poor water quality is the most pressing problem facing the reef. It’s largely caused by nutrients, pesticides and sediment runoff from agriculture and coastal development.” (Day and Heron, 2022) The authors use dramatization, in an attempt to target emotions, to make the reader understand the effects of water pollution. The authors attempt to highlight the Australian government’s insignificant efforts by stating that the hundreds of millions of dollars that the government has spent in order to improve water quality, is not enough and that some of the root issues concerning “improving water quality requires the right balance between voluntary industry-led approaches and enforcing the rules. The Queensland government must greatly increase its compliance and enforcement on matters such as fertilizer runoff entering creeks that flow to the reef.” (Day and Heron, 2022) The authors demand change, giving a sense that if the government doesn’t, the consequences will be drastic.

Another underlying factor that the authors include to mention is the convenience of the timing of the funding for the Great Barrier Reef. Heron and Day write, “This latest government funding boost is welcome but suspiciously timed. Environmental policy and budget allocations should not be about a government’s reputation and firming up its electoral prospects – especially when so much is at stake.” (Day and Heron, 2022) They express the severity of the situation and explain that funding during a time when it is convenient for the electoral candidates is unjust and they try to appeal to the reader by using logic. The authors mention UNESCO, The United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, an organization dedicated to promoting world peace and cooperation, because UNESCO, “… has specifically urged Australia to take “accelerated action at all possible levels” to address the climate threat. It remains to be seen whether UNESCO will continue to pressure the federal government on that front.”(Heron and Day, 2022) Heron and Day mention UNESCO’s demands to the Australian government adding to the dramatization of the situation, in order to convey the importance of this to the reader. 

Overall, Heron and Day are well-versed in their knowledge of the Great Barrier Reef and argue that the funding by the Australian government to conserve the reef is “nonsensical” because there are underlying factors that contribute to the issue to a greater extent. They use a wide range of rhetorical devices including, dramatization as well as appealing to emotions and logic. Heron and Day’s purpose of writing this way was to attempt to raise awareness for the readers, specifically, the Australian people and their government, in order to do better and address the key root of the issues.