Question
Directions: On November 8, 2022, Mia Amor Mottley, Prime Minister of Barbados, made a speech at the opening of the COP27 World Leaders' Summit of the U.N. Climate Change Conference in Egypt. Watch the video of her speech here, reading and annotating the transcript below as you watch. Then, write a paragraph in response to the question that follows.
Transcript of Mottley's Speech at the U.N. Climate Change Conference
I came here to say a few things, but the chorus that we've had from this stage has been clear. I don't need to repeat that we have the power of choice. Every speaker on this platform has done that. I don't need to repeat that this is the COP¹ that needs action. All of us as a chorus have said that. I don't need to repeat the horror and the devastation wrecked upon this Earth over the course of the last 12 months since we met in Glasgow. Whether the apocalyptic floods in Pakistan or the heat waves from Europe to China, or indeed in the last few days in my own region, the devastation caused in Belize by tropical storm Lisa, or the torrential floods a few days ago in St. Lucia. We don't need to repeat it because pictures spoke a thousand words earlier. But what we do need to do is to understand why—why we are not moving any further. "1.5 to stay alive"² cannot be that mantra, and I take no pride in being associated with having to repeat it over and over and over. We have the collective capacity to transform. We're in the country that built pyramids. We know what it is to remove slavery from our civilization. We know what it is to be able to find a vaccine within 2 years when a pandemic hits us. We know what it is to put a man on the moon and now we're putting Rover on Mars. We know what it is.
But the simple political will that is necessary, not just to come here and make promises, but to deliver on them and to make a definable difference in the lives of the people who we have a responsibility to serve seems still not to be capable of being produced. I ask us how many more and how much more must happen. And I say so because there's no simplicity in it—we get it. I come from a small-island state that has high ambition but that is not able to deliver on that high ambition because the global industrial strategy that we have has fault lines in it. Our ability to access electric cars or our ability to access batteries or photovoltaic panels are constrained by those countries that have the dominant presence and can produce for themselves, but the Global South remains at the mercy of the Global North on these issues. But it isn't only in that. We heard Al Gore just now speak about the difference in the cost of capital to those of us in the Global South. And I ask us how many more people must speak before those of us who have the capacity to instruct our directors at the World Bank—is that called the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development only for the 20th century? At the IFM³, which at least has been trying more than the World Bank?—how many more countries must falter, particularly in a world that is now suffering the consequences of war and inflation, and countries therefore are unable to meet the challenges of finding the necessary resources to finance their way to net zero? This world looks still too much like it did when it was part of an imperialist empire.
The Global North borrows between interest rates of between 1 and 4%. The Global South's are 14%. And then we wonder why the just energy partnerships aren't working. Similarly, we ask ourselves if countries that want to finance their way to net zero and want to do the right thing can't get the critical supplies—will they not have to rely again on natural gasses, that clean bridge? This is the bald reality, and we have come here to ask us to open our minds to different possibilities. We believe that we have a plan. We believe that there can be the establishment of a climate mitigation trust that unlocks $5 trillion of private-sector savings if we can summon the will to use the SDRs, $500 billion of SDRs⁴, special drawing rights, in a way that unlocks the private-sector capital. We believe that that requires a change in the attitude of Congress because the agreement that establishes the International Monetary Fund requires 85% to change that agreement. And if the United States government has 17% of the quota, then it can't be done, Mr. Gore, without your Congress. Similarly, we accept that there was and must be a commitment to unlocking concessional funding for climate-vulnerable countries. There is no way that developing countries who have been graduated can fight this battle without access to concessional funding. We heard it on this stage from the head of my old Alma Mater at LSE. We believe that it is critical that we address the issue of loss and damage. The talk must come to an end.
And I'd like to salute Denmark, and Belgium, and Scotland, for their own modest ways of trying to accept the precepts and principles of loss and damage as critical and as morally just. But for loss and damage to work, we believe that it can't only be an issue of asking state parties to do the right thing, although they must, but we believe that the non-state actors and the stakeholders, the oil and gas companies, and those that facilitate them, need to be brought into a special congregation between now and COP28. How do companies make $200 billion in profits in the last three months and not expect to contribute at least 10 cents in every dollar of profit to a loss-and-damage fund? This is what our people expect. And I ask us as we reflect on what a loss-and-damage fund can look like, and who should access it, that we convene a special congregation that doesn't only involve state parties but non-state actors such as the same companies. We believe as well that a time has come for the introduction of natural disaster and pandemic clauses in our debt instruments. I have said that if Barbados is hit tomorrow, because we have natural disaster clauses, God forbid if we are hit tomorrow, we unlock 18% of GDP over the next 2 years because what we do is effectively put a pause on all of our debt and put it at the end for 2 years, and we pay back that money at the end, but what we get is the flexibility in the first 2 years to address issues of damage and loss.
And finally, we believe that the multilateral development banks have to reform. Yes, it is time for us to revisit Bretton Woods⁵. Yes, it is time for us to remember that those countries who sit in this room today did not exist at the time that the Bretton Woods institutions were formed for the most part. And therefore, we have not seen, we have not been heard sufficiently. And if we are therefore to rise to the occasion, to play our part to stop the tragic loss of life that we have seen on these screens and the impact on livelihoods that we are feeling across our countries, then there needs to be a new deal with respect to the Bretton Woods institutions, and we need to ensure that they have a different view to their risk appetite, that we look at the SDRs and that we look at other innovative ways to expand the lending that is available from billions to trillions.
My friends, the time is running out on us. And yes, we have the power of choice. When asked what should he do when he became president of South Africa—should he pursue a path of vengeance or should he seek to build a state?—Nelson Mandela chose to be able to build a state and to keep a country together. He chose blessings instead of curses because he believed that it would make a defining difference. When given the choice of how to treat post-war Europe, President Truman settled the Marshall Plan that made the definable difference to the countries that were responsible, yes, for the destruction of so much and for the loss of life of so many. But in spite of that, they chose to rise above it. I ask us today: what will our choice be? We have the power to act or the power to remain passive and do nothing. I pray that we will leave Egypt with a clear understanding that the things that are facing us today are all interconnected. I thank President El-Sisi for his comments that there needs to be peace because countries like ours continue to suffer as a result of a war that we have no part of and a war that we want to see come to an end. Our people on this Earth deserve better, and what is more, our leaders know better. Because while many of us may not have been alive during the Great Wars, the consequences of those wars still live with us, and we have the capacity to choose differently.
I ask the people of the world and not just the leaders, therefore, to hold us accountable and to ask us to ask in your name to save this Earth and to save the people of this Earth. The choice is ours. What will you do? What will you choose to save? Thank you.
¹ COP – Conference of the Parties
² "1.5 to stay alive" – the goal to keep global temperatures from increasing by 1.5 degrees Celsius (2.7 degrees Fahrenheit), which would have catastrophic effects on the Pacific Islands
³ IFM – International Monetary Fund
⁴ SDRs – Special Drawing Rights, or an international reserve of money that countries can use as "credit" in times of need
⁵ Bretton Woods – an international system for managing money that was established in 1944 by the United States, Canada, Western European countries, Australia, and Japan
INTRODUCTION
Introduce the writer and the text. Provide background context that gives readers insight into the rhetorical situation that informed the text's creation. What is the writer's purpose? Who is the audience? What was the exigence that inspired the text?
THESIS STATEMENT
This is the overall claim for which you are providing an argument throughout your essay. Your thesis must identify the writer's rhetorical choices and then make an argument about the effect of those choices. Consider identifying a shift in the text and then structuring your essay around that shift, explaining how and why the writer incorporates that shift to convey their message.
BODY PARAGRAPH 1 ("Before the Shift")
Topic Sentence 1
This is a claim that supports your thesis and can be backed up with evidence.
Evidence 1
“Their own modest ways of trying to accept the precepts and principles of loss and damage as critical and as morally just.”
Analysis
Explicitly state how the quote supports your claim.
Evidence 2
“how many more countries must falter, particularly in a world that is now suffering the consequences of war and inflation”
Analysis
Explicitly state how the quote supports your claim.
Evidence 3
“Our people on this Earth deserve better, and what is more, our leaders know better. Because while many of us may not have been alive during the Great Wars, the consequences of those wars still live with us, and we have the capacity to choose differently.”
Analysis
Explicitly state how the quote supports your claim.
BODY PARAGRAPH 2 ("After the Shift")
Topic Sentence 2
This is a claim that supports your thesis and can be backed up with evidence.
Evidence 1
Analysis
Explicitly state how the quote supports your claim.
Evidence 2
Analysis
Explicitly explain how the quote supports your claim.
Evidence 3
Analysis
Explicitly state how the quote supports your claim.
CONCLUSION
Reflect on the key ideas and examples in your outline. What is the overall effect of the text? In the grand scheme of things, why does the writer's rhetorical argument matter? Was the writer effective in navigating the elements of their rhetorical situation in order to land their message? How so?
written like a 8th grader
Transcript of Mottley's Speech at the U.N. Climate Change Conference
I came here to say a few things, but the chorus that we've had from this stage has been clear. I don't need to repeat that we have the power of choice. Every speaker on this platform has done that. I don't need to repeat that this is the COP¹ that needs action. All of us as a chorus have said that. I don't need to repeat the horror and the devastation wrecked upon this Earth over the course of the last 12 months since we met in Glasgow. Whether the apocalyptic floods in Pakistan or the heat waves from Europe to China, or indeed in the last few days in my own region, the devastation caused in Belize by tropical storm Lisa, or the torrential floods a few days ago in St. Lucia. We don't need to repeat it because pictures spoke a thousand words earlier. But what we do need to do is to understand why—why we are not moving any further. "1.5 to stay alive"² cannot be that mantra, and I take no pride in being associated with having to repeat it over and over and over. We have the collective capacity to transform. We're in the country that built pyramids. We know what it is to remove slavery from our civilization. We know what it is to be able to find a vaccine within 2 years when a pandemic hits us. We know what it is to put a man on the moon and now we're putting Rover on Mars. We know what it is.
But the simple political will that is necessary, not just to come here and make promises, but to deliver on them and to make a definable difference in the lives of the people who we have a responsibility to serve seems still not to be capable of being produced. I ask us how many more and how much more must happen. And I say so because there's no simplicity in it—we get it. I come from a small-island state that has high ambition but that is not able to deliver on that high ambition because the global industrial strategy that we have has fault lines in it. Our ability to access electric cars or our ability to access batteries or photovoltaic panels are constrained by those countries that have the dominant presence and can produce for themselves, but the Global South remains at the mercy of the Global North on these issues. But it isn't only in that. We heard Al Gore just now speak about the difference in the cost of capital to those of us in the Global South. And I ask us how many more people must speak before those of us who have the capacity to instruct our directors at the World Bank—is that called the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development only for the 20th century? At the IFM³, which at least has been trying more than the World Bank?—how many more countries must falter, particularly in a world that is now suffering the consequences of war and inflation, and countries therefore are unable to meet the challenges of finding the necessary resources to finance their way to net zero? This world looks still too much like it did when it was part of an imperialist empire.
The Global North borrows between interest rates of between 1 and 4%. The Global South's are 14%. And then we wonder why the just energy partnerships aren't working. Similarly, we ask ourselves if countries that want to finance their way to net zero and want to do the right thing can't get the critical supplies—will they not have to rely again on natural gasses, that clean bridge? This is the bald reality, and we have come here to ask us to open our minds to different possibilities. We believe that we have a plan. We believe that there can be the establishment of a climate mitigation trust that unlocks $5 trillion of private-sector savings if we can summon the will to use the SDRs, $500 billion of SDRs⁴, special drawing rights, in a way that unlocks the private-sector capital. We believe that that requires a change in the attitude of Congress because the agreement that establishes the International Monetary Fund requires 85% to change that agreement. And if the United States government has 17% of the quota, then it can't be done, Mr. Gore, without your Congress. Similarly, we accept that there was and must be a commitment to unlocking concessional funding for climate-vulnerable countries. There is no way that developing countries who have been graduated can fight this battle without access to concessional funding. We heard it on this stage from the head of my old Alma Mater at LSE. We believe that it is critical that we address the issue of loss and damage. The talk must come to an end.
And I'd like to salute Denmark, and Belgium, and Scotland, for their own modest ways of trying to accept the precepts and principles of loss and damage as critical and as morally just. But for loss and damage to work, we believe that it can't only be an issue of asking state parties to do the right thing, although they must, but we believe that the non-state actors and the stakeholders, the oil and gas companies, and those that facilitate them, need to be brought into a special congregation between now and COP28. How do companies make $200 billion in profits in the last three months and not expect to contribute at least 10 cents in every dollar of profit to a loss-and-damage fund? This is what our people expect. And I ask us as we reflect on what a loss-and-damage fund can look like, and who should access it, that we convene a special congregation that doesn't only involve state parties but non-state actors such as the same companies. We believe as well that a time has come for the introduction of natural disaster and pandemic clauses in our debt instruments. I have said that if Barbados is hit tomorrow, because we have natural disaster clauses, God forbid if we are hit tomorrow, we unlock 18% of GDP over the next 2 years because what we do is effectively put a pause on all of our debt and put it at the end for 2 years, and we pay back that money at the end, but what we get is the flexibility in the first 2 years to address issues of damage and loss.
And finally, we believe that the multilateral development banks have to reform. Yes, it is time for us to revisit Bretton Woods⁵. Yes, it is time for us to remember that those countries who sit in this room today did not exist at the time that the Bretton Woods institutions were formed for the most part. And therefore, we have not seen, we have not been heard sufficiently. And if we are therefore to rise to the occasion, to play our part to stop the tragic loss of life that we have seen on these screens and the impact on livelihoods that we are feeling across our countries, then there needs to be a new deal with respect to the Bretton Woods institutions, and we need to ensure that they have a different view to their risk appetite, that we look at the SDRs and that we look at other innovative ways to expand the lending that is available from billions to trillions.
My friends, the time is running out on us. And yes, we have the power of choice. When asked what should he do when he became president of South Africa—should he pursue a path of vengeance or should he seek to build a state?—Nelson Mandela chose to be able to build a state and to keep a country together. He chose blessings instead of curses because he believed that it would make a defining difference. When given the choice of how to treat post-war Europe, President Truman settled the Marshall Plan that made the definable difference to the countries that were responsible, yes, for the destruction of so much and for the loss of life of so many. But in spite of that, they chose to rise above it. I ask us today: what will our choice be? We have the power to act or the power to remain passive and do nothing. I pray that we will leave Egypt with a clear understanding that the things that are facing us today are all interconnected. I thank President El-Sisi for his comments that there needs to be peace because countries like ours continue to suffer as a result of a war that we have no part of and a war that we want to see come to an end. Our people on this Earth deserve better, and what is more, our leaders know better. Because while many of us may not have been alive during the Great Wars, the consequences of those wars still live with us, and we have the capacity to choose differently.
I ask the people of the world and not just the leaders, therefore, to hold us accountable and to ask us to ask in your name to save this Earth and to save the people of this Earth. The choice is ours. What will you do? What will you choose to save? Thank you.
¹ COP – Conference of the Parties
² "1.5 to stay alive" – the goal to keep global temperatures from increasing by 1.5 degrees Celsius (2.7 degrees Fahrenheit), which would have catastrophic effects on the Pacific Islands
³ IFM – International Monetary Fund
⁴ SDRs – Special Drawing Rights, or an international reserve of money that countries can use as "credit" in times of need
⁵ Bretton Woods – an international system for managing money that was established in 1944 by the United States, Canada, Western European countries, Australia, and Japan
INTRODUCTION
Introduce the writer and the text. Provide background context that gives readers insight into the rhetorical situation that informed the text's creation. What is the writer's purpose? Who is the audience? What was the exigence that inspired the text?
THESIS STATEMENT
This is the overall claim for which you are providing an argument throughout your essay. Your thesis must identify the writer's rhetorical choices and then make an argument about the effect of those choices. Consider identifying a shift in the text and then structuring your essay around that shift, explaining how and why the writer incorporates that shift to convey their message.
BODY PARAGRAPH 1 ("Before the Shift")
Topic Sentence 1
This is a claim that supports your thesis and can be backed up with evidence.
Evidence 1
“Their own modest ways of trying to accept the precepts and principles of loss and damage as critical and as morally just.”
Analysis
Explicitly state how the quote supports your claim.
Evidence 2
“how many more countries must falter, particularly in a world that is now suffering the consequences of war and inflation”
Analysis
Explicitly state how the quote supports your claim.
Evidence 3
“Our people on this Earth deserve better, and what is more, our leaders know better. Because while many of us may not have been alive during the Great Wars, the consequences of those wars still live with us, and we have the capacity to choose differently.”
Analysis
Explicitly state how the quote supports your claim.
BODY PARAGRAPH 2 ("After the Shift")
Topic Sentence 2
This is a claim that supports your thesis and can be backed up with evidence.
Evidence 1
Analysis
Explicitly state how the quote supports your claim.
Evidence 2
Analysis
Explicitly explain how the quote supports your claim.
Evidence 3
Analysis
Explicitly state how the quote supports your claim.
CONCLUSION
Reflect on the key ideas and examples in your outline. What is the overall effect of the text? In the grand scheme of things, why does the writer's rhetorical argument matter? Was the writer effective in navigating the elements of their rhetorical situation in order to land their message? How so?
written like a 8th grader
Answers
GPT-4o mini
### INTRODUCTION
In her speech at the COP27 World Leaders' Summit in Egypt on November 8, 2022, Mia Amor Mottley, the Prime Minister of Barbados, addresses the urgent need for action against climate change. Mottley speaks to leaders worldwide, urging them to take responsibility for the devastating impacts climate change has had on vulnerable nations, especially in the Global South. The purpose of her speech is to rally political will and cooperation to effectively mitigate climate change, a topic that has become increasingly critical in light of recent environmental disasters. The exigence behind her speech is the ongoing climate crisis, exacerbated by wars and economic challenges, which demands immediate, coordinated, and ambitious action from world leaders.
### THESIS STATEMENT
Mia Amor Mottley’s rhetorical choices in her COP27 speech significantly emphasize the dire consequences of inaction on climate change and the necessity for collaborative efforts, culminating in a powerful shift from descriptive accounts of past efforts to a passionate call for accountability and action, particularly from the Global North towards the Global South.
### BODY PARAGRAPH 1 ("Before the Shift")
Mottley initially establishes the gravity of the situation by recounting the horrors and devastation caused by climate change, explaining the plight of vulnerable nations.
Evidence 1: She states, “Their own modest ways of trying to accept the precepts and principles of loss and damage as critical and as morally just.”
Analysis: This quote illustrates her acknowledgment of efforts from some countries, highlighting that while there is some movement, it is insufficient to address the broader issues at stake.
Evidence 2: Mottley expresses frustration, asking, “how many more countries must falter, particularly in a world that is now suffering the consequences of war and inflation?”
Analysis: This statement deepens her argument by pointing to the ongoing struggles faced by nations, stressing that the current situation is not merely a natural disaster but is intertwined with global socio-economic conditions that exacerbate their vulnerability.
Evidence 3: She passionately asserts, “Our people on this Earth deserve better, and what is more, our leaders know better. Because while many of us may not have been alive during the Great Wars, the consequences of those wars still live with us, and we have the capacity to choose differently.”
Analysis: This quote fortifies her call to action by invoking historical context and emphasizing moral responsibility; it shows that past events still shape current realities, underscoring the urgency for transformative action.
### BODY PARAGRAPH 2 ("After the Shift")
After setting the stage, Mottley shifts towards a call for accountability and practical solutions, urging leaders to confront the issues head-on.
Topic Sentence 2: Mottley pivots to insist on the necessity of commitments and reforms from global leaders to address climate change effectively.
Evidence 1: She advocates, “We believe that it is critical that we address the issue of loss and damage.”
Analysis: This statement marks a clear shift in her tone, focusing on accountability and solutions, indicating a demand for concrete actions rather than just dialogue.
Evidence 2: Mottley emphasizes, “How do companies make $200 billion in profits in the last three months and not expect to contribute at least 10 cents in every dollar of profit to a loss-and-damage fund?”
Analysis: This inquiry not only highlights corporate responsibility but also reinforces her argument for fairness and justice in addressing climate-related damages, pressing for the participation of non-state actors in the conversation.
Evidence 3: She concludes with, “My friends, the time is running out on us. And yes, we have the power of choice.”
Analysis: This powerful statement serves as the climax of her speech, compelling her audience to recognize the urgency of the climate crisis and the moral imperative to make impactful choices.
### CONCLUSION
Mottley’s speech at COP27 effectively conveys the urgent need for global leaders to act responsibly towards climate change. By initially detailing the devastating consequences faced by vulnerable nations and then shifting to a strong call for accountability, she emphasizes the interconnectedness of these issues and the need for immediate action. Her rhetorical strategy is successful in engaging both leaders and the global audience, urging them to hold themselves accountable for the future of the planet and its people. Ultimately, Mottley’s message resonates as a crucial reminder that the power to enact change lies in the choices made by individuals and nations alike.
In her speech at the COP27 World Leaders' Summit in Egypt on November 8, 2022, Mia Amor Mottley, the Prime Minister of Barbados, addresses the urgent need for action against climate change. Mottley speaks to leaders worldwide, urging them to take responsibility for the devastating impacts climate change has had on vulnerable nations, especially in the Global South. The purpose of her speech is to rally political will and cooperation to effectively mitigate climate change, a topic that has become increasingly critical in light of recent environmental disasters. The exigence behind her speech is the ongoing climate crisis, exacerbated by wars and economic challenges, which demands immediate, coordinated, and ambitious action from world leaders.
### THESIS STATEMENT
Mia Amor Mottley’s rhetorical choices in her COP27 speech significantly emphasize the dire consequences of inaction on climate change and the necessity for collaborative efforts, culminating in a powerful shift from descriptive accounts of past efforts to a passionate call for accountability and action, particularly from the Global North towards the Global South.
### BODY PARAGRAPH 1 ("Before the Shift")
Mottley initially establishes the gravity of the situation by recounting the horrors and devastation caused by climate change, explaining the plight of vulnerable nations.
Evidence 1: She states, “Their own modest ways of trying to accept the precepts and principles of loss and damage as critical and as morally just.”
Analysis: This quote illustrates her acknowledgment of efforts from some countries, highlighting that while there is some movement, it is insufficient to address the broader issues at stake.
Evidence 2: Mottley expresses frustration, asking, “how many more countries must falter, particularly in a world that is now suffering the consequences of war and inflation?”
Analysis: This statement deepens her argument by pointing to the ongoing struggles faced by nations, stressing that the current situation is not merely a natural disaster but is intertwined with global socio-economic conditions that exacerbate their vulnerability.
Evidence 3: She passionately asserts, “Our people on this Earth deserve better, and what is more, our leaders know better. Because while many of us may not have been alive during the Great Wars, the consequences of those wars still live with us, and we have the capacity to choose differently.”
Analysis: This quote fortifies her call to action by invoking historical context and emphasizing moral responsibility; it shows that past events still shape current realities, underscoring the urgency for transformative action.
### BODY PARAGRAPH 2 ("After the Shift")
After setting the stage, Mottley shifts towards a call for accountability and practical solutions, urging leaders to confront the issues head-on.
Topic Sentence 2: Mottley pivots to insist on the necessity of commitments and reforms from global leaders to address climate change effectively.
Evidence 1: She advocates, “We believe that it is critical that we address the issue of loss and damage.”
Analysis: This statement marks a clear shift in her tone, focusing on accountability and solutions, indicating a demand for concrete actions rather than just dialogue.
Evidence 2: Mottley emphasizes, “How do companies make $200 billion in profits in the last three months and not expect to contribute at least 10 cents in every dollar of profit to a loss-and-damage fund?”
Analysis: This inquiry not only highlights corporate responsibility but also reinforces her argument for fairness and justice in addressing climate-related damages, pressing for the participation of non-state actors in the conversation.
Evidence 3: She concludes with, “My friends, the time is running out on us. And yes, we have the power of choice.”
Analysis: This powerful statement serves as the climax of her speech, compelling her audience to recognize the urgency of the climate crisis and the moral imperative to make impactful choices.
### CONCLUSION
Mottley’s speech at COP27 effectively conveys the urgent need for global leaders to act responsibly towards climate change. By initially detailing the devastating consequences faced by vulnerable nations and then shifting to a strong call for accountability, she emphasizes the interconnectedness of these issues and the need for immediate action. Her rhetorical strategy is successful in engaging both leaders and the global audience, urging them to hold themselves accountable for the future of the planet and its people. Ultimately, Mottley’s message resonates as a crucial reminder that the power to enact change lies in the choices made by individuals and nations alike.