Yesterday's newsletter from
Open Democracy writer James Crabtree is on the subject of global warming. It asks the question: why is discussion about such an important issue missing in the American elections? One of the reasons, Crabtree says, is that views about global warming are split along partisan lines. "Only 23% of Republicans think it's important, but more than half of Democrats do." Do Democrat message framers reason that they need Republican votes to win, and decide to avoid focusing on this issue for fear of alienating them? Or is it simply the fact that other issues are currently better at motivating political change?
Both parties have access to the same focus group information, indicating that volatile gas prices and hurricanes have attracted people's attention. Most of the campaigns are about reinforcing the frames people already have around the global warming issue, with slight tweaks using code words their target groups will respond to. Many people, particularly men, don't believe in global warming, but think that temperature extremes are a natural cycle. You can see the current frames-in-use by comparing the issue statements of Democrat
Amy Klobuchar in Minnesota, who says "I will fight to reduce global warming by adopting legislation to limit greenhouse gas emissions," to her Republican opponent Mark Kennedy, who makes no mention at all of either global warming or climate change, but instead speaks of protecting the environment and reducing dependence on foreign oil.
GOP Pollster Frank Luntz says, "nearly all Americans agree that our nation's current energy policy is behind the times and needs a new, 21st century approach." You can review the Luntz memo here: it outlines how Republicans should address the issue. Several days after I learned about the Luntz memo, my own Republican congressman, Gil Gutknecht, hit his constituents with a glossy mailer that hit all the Luntz talking points. The talking points that all partisans agree on is advocating renewable energy and decreasing dependence on foreign oil. Neither global warming nor climate change are part of the pitch.
[I was excited to hear that the DCCC has signed off on targetting a new group of GOP incumbents, specifically mentioning Gil Gutknecht as a target]
Those of us who would like to be effective advocates for change on a national, state and local level are caught in the same conundrum as the politicians. If we say it's a crisis, people will tune us out. They won't respond to messages blaming them for their destructive, consumptive habits, and they may feel insufficiently compelled to action by messages urging them to do "one small thing". Here it is important to acknowledge the contribution made by Al Gore in his documentary, An Inconvenient Truth. Gore found a way to communicate effectively about the science behind global warming. His movie may prove to be the tipping point that moves Americans to a new attitude.
Many thinkers are trying out new frames that will capitalize on this new attention. George Lakoff, who is best known for his examination of the stern father frame that informs the Republican message, says that people who hope to change attitudes about global warming would do well to cast the issue in terms of health and security. Jeffrey Feldman, a frequent blogger on the subject of frames, says that progressives need a larger frame than global warming. He cites Thom Hartmann, arguing that the gradualism implied in global warming fails to capture the magnitude of the response needed. Instead, he says, we should talk about parts of the planet "shutting down," which is a big story that will elicit greater response.
I thought this was an interesting approach until I read the more lengthy and nuanced background information on communicating about climate change, put together by the Yale School of Forestry and Environmental Studies. I was particularly impressed by some recommendations developed by the Institute for Public Policy Research in the UK. The academics, policy experts, and media advisors seem to agree on several keys points:
* We need to treat the argument over global warming as won. The deniers will make lots of noise, but the weight of scientific information will make these folks increasingly irrelevant.
* Quiet down the rhetoric; instead make efforts to show people exactly how patterns of climate have changed, so that acceptance of global warming becomes the new common sense. Use visual images and stories wherever possible.
* Treat climate friendly activity as a brand that can be sold. Highlight stories of "ordinary heros" who are achieving success in battling global warming through purchases or new behaviors.
This blog entry is a distillation of information from a variety of sources. Obviously, any particular communications campaign about global warming or its constituent solutions needs to be targeted to the learning curve of a variety of different audiences. A one-size-fits-all approach is not going to work.
Action Media, a media advocacy group, makes a very important point about advocacy and persuasion on environmental issues in their booklet, "Defining We in Environmental Advocacy," which you can download. For too many years, caring about the environment has been the province of environmentalists. This has allowed an entire movement to be pigeon-holed and marginalized. Instead, we should realize that we are all environmentalists: mothers, writers, artists, accountants, car dealers, teachers and entrepreneurs--concern about global warming is something that affects us all, and calls forth our engagement whatever our position is in life. The stories we use to engage with others around the issue should reflect the commonality we experience within this diversity.
Originally posted, in part at Hickory Bud.