Seeking to Save the Planet, With a Thesaurus
WASHINGTON — The problem with global warming, some environmentalists believe, is “global warming.”
The term turns people off, fostering images of shaggy-haired liberals, economic sacrifice and complex scientific disputes, according to extensive polling and focus group sessions conducted by ecoAmerica, a nonprofit environmental marketing and messaging firm in Washington.
Instead of grim warnings about global warming, the firm advises, talk about “our deteriorating atmosphere.” Drop discussions of carbon dioxide and bring up “moving away from the dirty fuels of the past.” Don’t confuse people with cap and trade; use terms like “cap and cash back” or “pollution reduction refund.”
EcoAmerica has been conducting research for the last several years to find new ways to frame environmental issues and so build public support for climate change legislation and other initiatives. A summary of the group’s latest findings and recommendations was accidentally sent by e-mail to a number of news organizations by someone who sat in this week on a briefing intended for government officials and environmental leaders.
Asked about the summary, ecoAmerica’s president and founder, Robert M. Perkowitz, requested that it not be reported until the formal release of the firm’s full paper later this month, but acknowledged that its wide distribution now made compliance with his request unlikely.
The research directly parallels marketing studies conducted by oil companies, utilities and coal mining concerns that are trying to “green” their images with consumers and sway public policy.
Environmental issues consistently rate near the bottom of public worry, according to many public opinion polls. A Pew Research Center poll released in January found global warming last among 20 voter concerns; it trailed issues like addressing moral decline and decreasing the influence of lobbyists. “We know why it’s lowest,” said Mr. Perkowitz, a marketer of outdoor clothing and home furnishings before he started ecoAmerica, whose activities are financed by corporations, foundations and individuals. “When someone thinks of global warming, they think of a politicized, polarized argument. When you say ‘global warming,’ a certain group of Americans think that’s a code word for progressive liberals, gay marriage and other such issues.”
The answer, Mr. Perkowitz said in his presentation at the briefing, is to reframe the issue using different language. “Energy efficiency” makes people think of shivering in the dark. Instead, it is more effective to speak of “saving money for a more prosperous future.” In fact, the group’s surveys and focus groups found, it is time to drop the term “the environment” and talk about “the air we breathe, the water our children drink.”
“Another key finding: remember to speak in TALKING POINTS aspirational language about shared American ideals, like freedom, prosperity, independence and self-sufficiency while avoiding jargon and details about policy, science, economics or technology,” said the e-mail account of the group’s study.
Mr. Perkowitz and allies in the environmental movement have been briefing officials in Congress and the administration in the hope of using the findings to change the terms of the debate now under way in Washington.
Opponents of legislation to combat global warming are engaged in a similar effort. Trying to head off a cap-and-trade system, in which government would cap the amount of heat-trapping emissions allowed and let industry trade permits to emit those gases, they are coaching Republicans to refer to any such system as a giant tax that would kill jobs. Coal companies are taking out full-page advertisements promising “clean, green coal.” The natural gas industry refers to its product as “clean fuel green fuel.” Oil companies advertise their investments in alternative energy.
Robert J. Brulle of Drexel University, an expert on environmental communications, said ecoAmerica’s campaign was a mirror image of what industry and political conservatives were doing. “The form is the same; the message is just flipped,” he said. “You want to sell toothpaste, we’ll sell it. You want to sell global warming, we’ll sell that. It’s the use of advertising techniques to manipulate public opinion.”
He said the approach was cynical and, worse, ineffective. “The right uses it, the left uses it, but it doesn’t engage people in a face-to-face manner,” he said, “and that’s the only way to achieve real, lasting social change.”
Frank Luntz, a Republican communications consultant, prepared a strikingly similar memorandum in 2002, telling his clients that they were losing the environmental debate and advising them to adjust their language. He suggested referring to themselves as “conservationists” rather than “environmentalists,” and emphasizing “common sense” over scientific argument.
And, Mr. Luntz and Mr. Perkowitz agree, “climate change” is an easier sell than “global warming.”
Demented.
Borrowed from Charles Munger who said this past week, “adopting cap and trade in this economic crisis is demented”, “demented” is my new word of choice in describing the entire AGW crusade.
Demented.
de⋅ment⋅ed
1. crazy; insane; mad.
2. affected with dementia.
Synonyms:
1. lunatic, crazed, deranged, unbalanced.
Good day.
If people stop believing the lies then rephrase the lies?
Sounds like a failed soap powder advertising drive doesnt it? is it all about selling the lies now, repackaging the dogma?
Lies and falsehoods built on speculation to support a wretched politically convenient theory, the decline of science into a dark age of dishonest spin, the old saying goes that ‘you cannot make a silk purse out of a pigs ear’ holds true, lies and falsehoods are still lies and falsehoods even if you sugar coat them.
On the plus side it could well signal a marked decay in the AGW/MMCC narrative coupled with a strong whiff of desperation, they must realise that if the public turns against them in large enough numbers then their jelously guarded dominance thus far in the political/MSM arena is finished.
Polititians will look closely at the polling numbers and if it turns out that the voter will switch their vote to a sceptical/realist candidate then just watch the polititians jump off the AGW/MMCC bandwaggon leaving behind the usual scapegoats(scientists) many of whom will have their carreers smashed, well someone has to carry the can eh?
Science as a whole will be discredited and damned and the polititians keen to cover their posteriors will surely be the first to condemn them from the lofty pulpits of their own hypocritical pomposity.
Other words in their Thesaurus :
‘Cap-and-Trade’ is known as ‘Emissions Trading’ in Europe
From Václav Klaus via Lobos Motl’s :
“Green Hysteria Shackles Our Economic Growth”
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/cif-green/2009/may/01/vacla-klaus-emissions-economy
Well, once one starts digging into connections such as theseone can begin to see the wider view of what is really going on. These groups, while individual, are coordinated in their message by groups such as Fenton. Fenton keeps various organizations “on message”.
They specialize in astroturfing where they coordinate several groups that appear to be individual grass-roots or non-profit agencies so that they all work together. They also provide marketing material, news releases, media packages, etc. So in many cases “articles” like the one above are really information ready for publication that is provided to various “journalists” by Fenton in a media packet.
The “environmental” agenda is a political agenda and has very little to do with our atmosphere, and is really about agitation in order to elect a certain slate of candidates.
Reminds me of a hospital where I used to work. Personnel department was retitled Human Resources. Housekeeping was retitled Environmental Services. While Human Resources did a better job of describing how the place used up and threw away employees Environmental Services sounded like they were in charge of the air conditioning and heating instead of emptying trashcans.
This is just like the ad campaigns that prey on our fears and also our fears of inadequacy. Whether it is kitchen cleaner or anti-perspirant the ad just sows that seed of doubt that your household or personal hygiene is not up to scratch. The AGW slogans aren’t working and now they want to tell it to us straight.
“cap and cash back” or “pollution reduction refund.”
Sounds like a win-win to me! Sign me up! Just let me
finish drilling this hole in my head first!
Well well well; the klimate kool-aid has gone rancid, stale and sour, and they are going to try to cover it up with sweeteners and flavor enhancers and re-package and re-market the “product”. Good luck with that, AGWons. No one with half a brain is going to buy that C++p, especially not in this economy.
Ultimately, the toothpaste has to clean your teeth. Since AGW folks state that the war is already lost and even if we did cut back on carbon and oxygen which fuel the biosphere and ecosphere, the warming will continue. Okay, since we can do little (according to IPCC graphs (a post on another recent thread, I have forgotten which) a calculation can be made that it takes about 1.8trillion tons of carbon dioxide reduction to cool us off 1 deg. C) let us take 10 year break and let the planet tell us which way things are going. It would certainly be an unmitigatable disaster if we were to act to accelerate a dangerous cooling trend.
“Just Want Truth… (10:32:08) :
Other words in their Thesaurus :
‘Cap-and-Trade’ is known as ‘Emissions Trading’ in Europe”
I believe that Europe intends (or pretends) to give companies the right to their current emissions for FREE, sort of a grandfather-right, whereas Obama wants to SELL them. These emission-rights would shrink over time.
Those being cheated would be (the US and) new or growing companies.
I posted the following as an OT response elsewhere, just moving it here.
Positioning the language is done by both sides for all time. One can stay above the fray but benefit from the attention brought by the zealots. I try to do that, I think Anthony does that too. A lot of people here are here because they got fed up with groups like RealClimate. I really like this quote:
If “Mr. Perkowitz and allies in the environmental movement” are that out of touch with the world, I think they’re more likely to embarrass themselves than advance their cause.
I’ve read many comments, both here and at the Times website, that refered to this article as Orwellian. I have to say, this is way beyond Orwellian, it’s South Park-ian.
Now that I think about it, the whole “deteriorating atmosphere” line is bogus. The reason I say that is because the atmosphere is MUCH cleaner in the US now than it was when I was a child in the 1960’s. The atmosphere in Eastern Europe is cleaner than it was only 20 years ago.
Smog in Los Angeles was much worse than it is today. Same with the SF Bay area. People living within 50 miles in any direction of Youngstown or Pittsburgh or practically any other major city would agree, too. I remember driving across Pennsylvania in the 1960s and smelling the most horrible smell I had ever experienced in my life. I asked my Dad what it was, he said “Pittsburgh” … and we still had 50 miles to go before we got there. When we did get there, you could barely see through the haze, my eyes burned, the smell was absolutely terrible.
Overall, I do not believe that our atmosphere is “deteriorating”, in fact I believe that quite the opposite has happened. The air is probably the cleanest it has been in decades. Compared to other places in the world I have been to, the US is practically park land.
I lived in Berlin, Germany for a while in the 1980’s and the East Germans burned a lot of soft coal. The air smelled of coal smoke, the trees and everything else covered with black soot. When you got a foggy, drizzly, day the moisture would cause black streaks to run down the sides of cars, faces of buildings, just about anything exposed to the air. And it got worse the farther East you went into Eastern Europe. Eastern Europe is, I believe, the greatest environmental disaster left untold in our history. It is also where the most improvement has taken place.
Our “deteriorating” atmosphere? Yeah, I suppose, if that is what your agenda is all about. The reality is, I believe, quite different. The atmosphere is currently in best shape it has been in my lifetime.
Reminds me of what the definition of ‘is’ is.
“It would certainly be an unmitigatable disaster if we were to act to accelerate a dangerous cooling trend.”
Please tell Obama.
Ok, so check this out. The Russians are building an array of 70 Megawatt floating nuclear plants in the Arctic Ocean. Now, how much will the cooling systems for these heat the surrounding water? Will it be enough to measurably reduce the Arctic ice area? If so, would this reduction from the Russian nuclear plants be used to further “prove” that “global warming” is reducing Arctic ice?
Speaking of propaganda anyone seen the trailer for
Battle for Terra?
http://www.apple.com/trailers/independent/battleforterra/
Evil man, destroyer of nature! But aren’t the alien’s cute…
I love the alarmists. Every time I think that things can’t get any crazier someone pops up to prove that I was wrong.
Let’s not call it “cap and trade” let’s call it “ponies and rainbows”. Let’s not call it a “carbon tax” let’s call it “free money for all”.
Without energy we won’t be freezing to death in the dark, we will be enjoying an extended number of cool evenings.
H L Mencken once said that nobody ever went broke by underestimating the intelligence of the average man. How much is Al Gore worth now?
Regardless of how much mayonnaise you use, you can’t change chicken sh*t into chicken salad.
The bottom line seems to be how the public is persuaded to emotionally react to the existence of trace amounts of CO2 in the atmosphere. Is it dirty “carbon” pollution for unseemly profit, causing the inevitable demise of God’s Perfect Creation, or simply a natural plant nutrient without which there can be no life on Earth?
Since uncensored scientific investigation usually has a lower priority than emotional consensus, fear and other negative emotions generally win out over fundamental facts. The deciding factor could finally be some scrap of meat for Pavlov’s hungry dog.
Praising…
Bob Meyer (13:06:48) :
I love the alarmists. Every time I think that things can’t get any crazier someone pops up to prove that I was wrong.
Let’s not call it “cap and trade” let’s call it “ponies and rainbows”. Let’s not call it a “carbon tax” let’s call it “free money for all”.
Without energy we won’t be freezing to death in the dark, we will be enjoying an extended number of cool evenings.
H L Mencken once said that nobody ever went broke by underestimating the intelligence of the average man. How much is Al Gore worth now?
I may have to print this post out, frame it and hang it on my office wall…
The side that is losing the factual debate is always the side that continuously tries to redefine the terms involved in the political debate.
I just hope that the electorate, and their representatives, realize the fraud before we bankrupt ourselves tilting at CO2 windmills…If not…The Yankees will soon find themselves “freezing in the dark.”
My goodness, they have gone from “settled science” to trying to come up with what sells. Does the AGW crowd realize how absolutely stupid and manipulative this makes them look? As if we didn’t know already! Can Al Gore be brought up for perjury charges on his Congressional testimonies?
Im not sure who the wise guy was that decided what that perfect climate was. I say we use their own words against them.. Define climate… define change.. explain why it is bad, unprecidented or dangerous.
For those who haven’t read it yet “Warm Words” was written for UK policy makers about 3 years ago. Avoid facts and debate just present climate change as a product.
An extract:
“Will producing more of the same communications do the job, and if not, how could the way climate change is communicated be improved?
To help answer those questions, ippr commissioned Linguistic Landscapes to analyse current UK constructions and conceptions of climate change in the public domain, using some of the tools and principles of discourse analysis and semiotics.”
No science just “discourse analysis and semiotics”
Oldthink and oldspeak must end. The proles must embrace doublethink via prolefeed to ensure Big Brother’s eco-plans are implemented. The Ministry of Truth and the outer party will begin immediately. Crimethink will not be tolerated and the Ministry of Love will use Room101 to eliminate resistance.
(with apologies to George Orwell)