Lopez 1

Angel Lopez

Professor Bocchino

Writing 2

December 7th, 2019

WP#2 : ​The Unique Variety of Academic Genres

Renewable energy is a very broad topic that covers numerous disciplines, such as

economics and environmental studies. In fact there are countless articles from both an economic

viewpoint and an environmental viewpoint. Take, for example, “Renewable Energy

Consumption and Economic Growth: Evidence from a Panel of OECD Countries” by Nicholas

Apergis & James E. Payne,1 and “Thinking Globally and Siting Locally - Renewable Energy and

BIodiversity in a Rapidly Warming World” by Taber D. Allison, Terry L. Root, and Peter C.

Frumhoff.2. Both of these articles are scholarly, peer-reviewed articles on the topic of renewable

energy with the first being based in the discipline of economics and the second environmental

studies. As a result, despite both being on the topic of renewable energy, the focus of the two

articles and the way they are written are wildly different. With a very narrow and busy audience,

the economics based article is precise and to the point, focusing solely on the feasibility of

renewable energy implementation and potential economic growth through heavy use of high

level mathematics. On the other hand, with a very broad audience that may struggle with jargon,

the environmental based article is more general and simpler than the economics article, focusing

on the necessity of renewable energy in order to preserve the planet through the use of studies

1
​Nicholas Apergis and James E. Payne, “Renewable energy consumption and economic growth: Evidence from a
panel of OECD countries” ​Energy Policy issue,​ issue 1 (2010):​ 656-660
2
Taber D. Allison, Terry L. Root, and Peter C. Frumhoff, “Thinking globally and siting locally - renewable
energy and biodiversity in a rapidly warming world.”​ Climatic Change 126,​ no. 1-2 (2014): 1-6.
 Lopez 2

and research papers. These two articles look at the topic of renewable energy but write with very

different points and styles.

Based on the title alone, one can tell the article by Apergis and Payne belongs to the

discipline of economics. This is made clear in the abstract of the article in which the authors state

in plain text their focus is “the relationship between renewable energy consumption and

economic growth.”3 In fact that relationship between renewable energy and economic growth is

the sole focus of the entire article. As a result the article is heavy with mathematical evidence,

using it to demonstrate the accuracy of their findings. For example, when making their

calculations they state outright what methods they use, such as the “cointegration test advanced

by Pedroni”4 or the “fully modified OLS technique.”5. Not only this, the two authors make use of

footnotes, a sometimes confusing form of citing that points exactly to where they found their

information, for further clarification on what steps they took ​or as well as the reasoning behind

their steps. While their use of evidence may seem narrow, it is all that is needed from an

economic standpoint, as the scholarly community for economics is based in mathematics. The

discipline of environmental studies, on the other hand, is not as clean cut as economics.

The article by Allison et al. makes clear in the very beginning of the introduction, that

this article belongs to the discipline of environmental studies. The authors start the article by

stating “Rapid, large scale expansion of… renewable energy sources is essential for limiting the

magnitude of global warming and its impacts on wildlife.”6 Right from the start, the authors

establish their discipline as well as the focus of the paper, environmental science and renewable

3
Apergis et al.​, Renewable,​ 656
4
Apergis et al.​, Renewable,​ 657
5
Apergis et al.​, Renewable,​ 658
6
​Allison et al.​, Thinking,​ 1
 Lopez 3

energy respectively. However, unlike economics, environmental studies deal with more than just

math and forces the authors use a variety of evidence in their article. The evidence stretches from

legal documents and research papers, to reports by environmental organizations. The evidence is

mainly used to provide credibility and sources when they make statements such as “wind

energy...may constitute up to 50% of the total renewable energy development by 2050”7or “the

U.S. would have a carbon budget equivalent to…”8 There isn’t any use of footnotes, but After

each statement made similar to the two just mentioned, the authors write in parenthesis the

source in MLA format, an easier and more generic format that fits the simpler style of the

economics article. This variety of evidence is important because unlike economics, this article

inherently has a very broad audience because their focus on the preservation of our planet.

The organization of the articles are another aspect that is very distinct between the two

disciplines. Looking at Apergis and Payne, we see a fairly short article divided into three simple

subheadings: “Intro,” “Data/Methodology/Results,” “Conclusion.” With a simple structure, the

information has a very clean, easy to follow, flow. The introduction indicates the focus of the

article as well as its relevance. At the start of the second paragraph of the introduction, the

authors state “In a number of recent studies…”9 showing this article isn’t the first to discuss a

correlation between renewable energy and economic growth, and other papers have results

congruent with their own. The body of the article really crams together tightly all of the math and

methods that went into their findings. However, all of the information their audience might need

is there and all of the details used are essential. The conclusion then fortifies the claims made in

the intro and states explicitly that renewable energy is beneficial for the economy in both the

7
Allison et al.​, Thinking,​ 3
8
Allison et al.​, Thinking,​ 2
9
Apegis et al.​, Renewable,​ 656
 Lopez 4

“short-run and long-run.”10 The article itself reads almost as a math problem in the sense that it

presents an issue, shows its work through formulas, and interpreting the solution. This makes

quite a statement about the economic community as they see real life issues as just another math

problem.

As for the article based on environmental studies, Allison et al. organizes their article in

no such manner. The article is divided into five subheadings: “Introduction,” “Threat of climate

change,” “Need for significant renewable energy expansion,” “Potential wildlife impacts of

renewable energy expansion,” and “Proposed framework.” While the article as a whole flows

smoothly, it is not as left-to-right as Apergis and Payne. Rather the authors very quickly present

two sides of the argument at hand, the benefits of renewable energy, and ultimately ends with

plan to help the environment. The introduction is very short​, simply highlighting their focus, as

stated earlier, as well their objective to “motivate a needed dialogue” on the issue.11 The body of

the article looks at both the potential harm and benefits of renewable energy,12 making the article

feel much more argumentative than that of the economics based article. The conclusion

ultimately recaps the entire article, restating the necessity of expanding renewable energy. All of

this shows that the environmental community most likely has to deal with debates on a more

daily basis than that of the economics community.

A few more aspects that really show how different these two disciplines are as well as

their respective communities are their intended audience, use of jargon, tone, and point of view.

While not stated outright, the intended audience of Apergis and Payne is most likely government

officials as their findings aren’t all that helpful outside of a nation’s economy. As a result, the

10
Apergis et al.​, Renewable,​ 659
11
Allison et al.​, Thinking,​ 2
12
Allison et al.​, Thinking,​ 2-3
 Lopez 5

authors use very specific jargon such as “ADF-statistics”13 and “the Engle-Granger two-step

procedure.”14 With jargon that the everyday reader would most likely not be able to understand,

it’s obvious the authors had a very specific audience in mind as well as assumes they harbor very

specialized knowledge. The overall tone of the article is serious and feels as if the article is

composed solely of facts. Given their intended audience, this is fitting because government

officials most likely won’t have time for anything extra, which explains why the article itself is

short. Not only this, the article is written in the third person, always pointing to other sources

such as “Pedroni proposes…”15 or “the study by Stadorsky,”16 never using “We” or “I.” This is

most likely so as to not appear arrogant and prevent others from diminishing their findings.

Environmental studies, in contrast, shares no such point of view.

Unlike the economists, Allison et al. state their intended audience explicitly. The authors

state their audience expands “among industry, wildlife conservation advocates, and

policymakers.”17 This broad audience, from small time advocates to government officials, results

in very little jargon and simple phrases such as “best available science.”18 A very large audience

demands very simple dialogue, the polar opposite of the article by Apergis and Payne, but the

differences don’t stop there. The tone of this article is very urgent with their focus is on the need

to take early action against global warming, no matter the cost. This urgent message is illustrated

through the use of words and phrases such as “immediate” and “time is of the essence.”19 To

13
​Apergis et al.​, Renewable,​ 657
14
Apergis et al.​, Renewable,​ 658
15
Apergis et al.​, Renewable,​ 657
16
Apergis et al.​, Renewable,​ 659
17
Allison et al.​, Thinking,​ 4
18
Allison et al.​, Thinking,​ 4
19
Allison et al.​, Thinking,​ 2
 Lopez 6

emphasize this urgency, the article is written in the first person using words like “We.”20 This

makes the article personal for the reader, as if they were apart of that “we,” and while the authors

make use of facts and evidence, the article feels more emotionally desperate than professional,

adding to the sense of urgency. This article showcases how argumentative the environmental

community needs to be because they are literally fighting for the earth’s survival and people tend

to respond strongly to emotion.

There are many aspects to focus on when it comes to the topic of renewable energy.

While many articles concerning renewable energy may be scholarly and peer-reviewed, many

will be inherently different depending on the discipline they originate from. Articles from an

economic standing will be very impersonal, focus heavily on math as evidence, and use specific

jargon for the very small audience the economic community has to focus on. Articles from an

environmental standing will use a variety of evidence to appeal to a variety of audiences, using

little jargon and a personal tone to both logically and emotionally appeal to their audience

because what concerns them should really concern everyone. Two articles on the same topic with

completely different writing styles and objectives.

20
Allison et al.​, Thinking,​ 3
 Lopez 7

Bibliography:

Apergis, Nicholas, and James E. Payne “Renewable energy consumption and economic growth:

Evidence from a panel of OECD countries.”​ Energy Policy 38,​ no.1 (2010): 656-660.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2009.09.002

Allison, T. D., Root, T. L., and Frumhoff, P. C. “Thinking globally and siting locally - renewable

energy and biodiversity in a rapidly warming world.”​ Climatic Change, 126,​ no. 1-2

(2014), 1-6. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-014-1127-y