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.”
Here is a definition of AGW from wiki.answers:
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_does_CO2_affect_climate_change
An example; “The way it works is that basically certain ‘greenhouse gases’ can’t escape from our atmosphere because they get trapped. ”
And:
“Because these gases are trapped in our atmosphere, it is not allowing new usable and circulated air to enter or be created because when the gases hit the atmosphere only a little leaves are planen (our planet?), and the rest bounces back to the earths surface.”
I do not want to ridicule someone for trying to describe something that appears to be not in their native language. That might explain what appears to be confusion in explaining standard AGW theory. However the last line speaks of ‘High profile climate change deniers’ thus “They understand the cause and effect relationship well enough, but in their pathalogical dishonesty they also understand how to manipulate people and seed doubt in their minds. “
Check out the John Prine song “Commom Sense” on the album of the same name from Atlantic Records, with its reftain of “It don’t make no sense that common sense don’t make no sense no more”.
The song of the 21st century?
Lubos Motl:
But such a system can only become real if they take over the “power”
Hope they will not…but they could, in such a case we´ll see history to repeat itself almost to the last detail. (So “they” need to take it seriously before going any further…WUWT will be following their footprints).
The thing that put me right off Al Gore’s self-promotional video, from the first day that it came to our cinemas, was this: the whole presentation was practically identical a hundred similar, graph-strewn, intentionally-misleading Powerpoint presentations that I had suffered at the hands of fund managers during my rather short tenure as a stockbroker. It was pure marketing. Lies by any other name! Same bucket, just a different lot of crap.
And the thing that put me off Al Gore was this: here was a spoiled, over-privileged, oily American politician, re-writing the history books by telling us that a) he had single-handedly discovered, and then for the past 30 years tirelessly fought against the horrors of global warming [which was rubbish, because when I first studied the subject, in 1985, under a brilliant London University professor who is now the head of the British Antarctic Survey, Al Gore was nowhere to be seen], and that b) his wealthy tobacco-farming father or grandfather had just about single-handedly abolished slavery [which was gratuitous nonsense: all his lot seemed to have done was to get shamelessly wealthy from the cancer trade].
So the jury was still out on global warming then, as far as I was concerned. But the whole Al Gore thing stank. And it was marketing that Al Gore stank of.
For as my old boss in the stock broking game used to reply to the earnest and oft-repeated question “But how do I actually make money for my clients?”: “FORGET THE CLIENTS! IT’S MARKETING! MARKETING! MARKETING! THAT’S ALL THERE IS TO IT!”
Which is why a scientific mind cannot do stockbroking, and why science advances, and the financial world is bankrupt.
[Rant On]:
We need to hold these alarmists’ feet to the fire, by constantly reminding them that their scare is based on “global warming”. More specifically: on CO2=AGW. They own that failed hypothesis, and we should never let them forget it.
If the AGW fraudsters had told the truth about the very minuscule effect of a minor trace gas on the planet, then any conjecture about atmospheric CO2 would have been an inconsequential footnote in a few obscure journals. There would have been no reason to spend one taxpayer dime on it.
But they lied. They lied in order to get their hands deep into the pockets of taxpayers. And now, as the truth becomes more and more clear, the alarmist side is frantically backing and filling by changing the words. Don’t let them get away with it. Global warming is their baby.
They own the global warming hypothesis. We should never let them call it by a different name without a challenge. Name changing is just moving the goal posts.
Hold their feet to the fire. When someone says “deteriorating atmosphere,” remind them: No, that’s just your old CO2=AGW claim, morphing into your latest cry of “Wolf!!” We don’t buy it. You have cried “Wolf!” too many times: Coral bleaching. Hurricanes. Malaria. Sea level. Ocean acidification. Receding glaciers. The ozone hole. Greenland melting. Nuclear winter. Global warming. And every single time it’s turned out to be a false alarm.
Since global warming didn’t pan out, why are they just shifting the focus to something else? The answer, of course, is money. Your money. The money we work for to feed our families. They are trying to take it by fraud. By global warming fraud.
Britain is currently showing what’s planned for America. There is no possible way to finance Obama’s spending plans by “taxing the rich.” There aren’t nearly enough rich people to tax.
The same situation is happening right now in Britain. The British government is raising marginal tax rates to 61.5% on anyone earning £100,000 [source: the Economist]. Obama’s mendacious claim that 95% of U.S. taxpayers will get a tax refund is an absolute scam: as one hand gives, the other will take away. And the taking hand is a lot bigger.
That’s why Cap&Trade must be passed, whether there is global warming or not. There aren’t enough “rich” people to tax. By definition, rich people are scarce.
So Obama will follow Britain’s lead in raising taxes. C&T is a tax, pure and simple. They will claim it’s not a tax. But it is a very big tax, which will significantly raise the cost of goods and services across the board. It will hit the poorest families the hardest, by far.
And C&T is not the only tax that will be raised. There are already proposals in Congress for hefty new taxes on gasoline and on Social Security pensions, which will be fully taxed. Employer-paid medical care is proposed to be taxed, as if it were received as income. Obama is also planning to pay out 0.7% of U.S. GDP into the opaque and unaccountable UN, which has always refused to allow any independent audits and has over 100,000 bureaucrats — who pay no income taxes — on its ever expanding payroll. And that UN “World Tax” is just for starters — name a tax that doesn’t get ratcheted up over time.
Rising prices plus increased taxes will come down hardest on those least well off. And it could all be avoided. But Obama never really cared about the less fortunate. If he did, he would help them most by jettisoning C&T and all the other fees and taxes, which will surely stick it to the poor in rising prices.
And President Obama exhibits astonishing public hatred toward American citizens that he purports to represent, if they don’t agree with him, even in his own Party [“Don’t think we’re not keeping score, brother.”]. At the same time he is way too kissy-face and subservient to the world’s most odious kings and dictators, bowing and grinning from ear to ear. When Hugo Chavez and Lula de Silva dissed him in public, Obama’s grin just got bigger. Fawning over tinpot dictators sends a bad message.
Recall that “global warming” is the original, stated rationale for C&T, because if CO2 causes global warming, C&T will presumably lower CO2 — at least in this country.
But now we find that there is *no* measurable anthropogenic global warming. None. There are natural climate fluctuations, which are blamed on CO2. But as CO2 rises, the globe continues to cool. That fact falsifies CO2 as a significant cause. Therefore, C&T is unnecessary, and should be discarded for the good of the country.
But this ravenous government has decided to take $billions/$trillions from taxpayers anyway. By hook or by crook. Because the global warming scam was always about getting at the money. AGW is being proven a sham. So they will change the name to “deteriorating atmosphere,” and demand just as much loot. If we don’t fight back, they will get away with it. So we fight. There is no other alternative.
“I sit on a man’s back, choking him and making him carry me, and yet I assure others that I am very sorry for him and wish to ease his lot by all possible means — except by getting off his back.”
~ Leo Tolstoy
[End Rant]
I don’t know where he came up with ““Energy efficiency” makes people think of shivering in the dark.
Most people I talk to know exactly what needs to happen: The light polluters and big energy hogs that pass their excess onto our bills need to start practicing what consumers have always been willing to do.
This tell me that the entrenched $$ machine that is energy production is nervous. They make $$ by consuming as much fuel as possible, and if that means running a plant at full capacity and taking the generators offline, that is what they do.
The common man understands that if the waste is cut out, it directly lowers the trade defecit. It also lowers the price of those fuels, and the whole things travels throughout the economy. It also frees up strained energy resources. But, even if they keep thier pricing scheme and go with making the most out of what is consumed, there is still plenty of beneift without imposing Cap & Trade sanctions on the economy.
Selling “Green” is nothing but a paint job. AGW is not selling because man + dog gets where this is going. License to tax, spill and foul, paid in full by the peasantry.
Start the Superfund Conservation Corp, hand Gore & Hansen a shovel and overalls to replace the vestments.
Replying to…
Another Ian (14:41:01) :
Check out the John Prine song “Commom Sense” on the album of the same name from Atlantic Records, with its reftain of “It don’t make no sense that common sense don’t make no sense no more”.
The song of the 21st century?
Will the follow-on song be…
REM’s “The End of the World as we Know it”?
Or The Who’s “Won’t Get Fooled Again”?
Luke (13:04:12) :
“Speaking of propaganda anyone seen the trailer for
Battle for Terra?”
No worries there, according to CNN:
Dreamworks Animation’s juggernaut “Monsters vs. Aliens” grossed another $5.8 million its sixth weekend for the fifth slot in the rankings, while newcomer “Terra” couldn’t muster more than $1 million for a twelfth place in the box office derby.
http://www.cnn.com/2009/SHOWBIZ/Movies/05/03/boxoffice.ew/index.html
Kids and their parents prefer to watch Monsters fighting Aliens in order to save humans and Earth, versus humans fighting aliens to destroy and take over their world, big surprise there. The humans are cockroaches philosophy is a tough sell. Back to the drawing boards…
It’s good to be King-politician-propagandist. The Master of the Universe can even reverse temperature-CO2 causality. Here’s a clear and very objective description of how he did it:
http://www.sciencebits.com/IceCoreTruth
First impression: AGW fearmongering, proposed tax/loophole agenda, ridiculous looking projections countered by cold, stark reality is the portrait.
Thusly painted and framed, that’s the foot put forward in the door by the pesky Global Warming salesman who reeks of con job in an era of gross corruption.
Hit the road, Jack.
It stinks.
New buss words
Hydrocarbons, as in carbon pollution so we must have (CO2 cap and trade) corporate welfare for wall street and GE.
CO2 tax/cap and trade, the new tea tax.
Well when you can sell torture as “Enhanced interrogation” or kidnap as “secret rendition”, when an invasion becomes regime change and a military occupation is a “peacekeeping effort”. When combat brigades are renamed “advisory and assistance brigades” yet the numbers and role stay the same, when a 1000lb bomb dropped into the middle of a wedding party is called collateral damage. When you can sell the role of a trace atmospheric gas as the primary driver of the entire planetary climate system you have reached the final stage of ultimate victory and have earned the right to name it whatever the hell you want.
Also look for the buss word Green Bank as in Pickens plan.
Do you remember why former civilizations fell down?, always by lack of ethics.
It seems utterly naive to mention such an “strange ” idea but wait and see.
Smokey (14:54:24)
Amen, Smokey! I share your outrage!
As an example of how far the AGW movement has gone into the realm of absurdity, consider the remarks made by our president just last week in Missouri. You can get the full text here:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/Remarks-by-the-President-at-Arnold-Missouri-Town-Hall/
—
“I don’t think people fully appreciate the potential damage– economic damage, as well as environmental damage — that could be done if we are not serious in dealing with this problem. If the temperature goes up a couple of degrees, well, it will change weather patterns pretty significantly. It could create droughts in places where we haven’t had drought; it could bring insect-born diseases up into places like Missouri that we haven’t seen before. But we can probably manage. If the temperature of the planet goes up 5 degrees, you’re now looking at coastlines underwater. You’re now looking at huge, cataclysmic hurricanes, complete changes in weather patterns. Some places will get hotter, some places will get colder. Our economy would be disrupted by tens of trillions of dollars.”
“So this is no joke. And the science shows that the planet is getting warmer faster than people expected. Even the most dire warnings, it’s gotten — it’s moved forward faster than anybody expected. They’re talking about, just in a few years, during the summer, there won’t be any ice in the Arctic, something we have never seen before. So we have to do something about it.”
—
Cataclysmic hurricanes? Complete changes in weather patterns? Just who has filled his head with this junk science??
I place the blame squarely on *** academia and the government funded labs (and by extension the IPCC) *** for (1) not reigning in their loose cannons like Al Gore and Jim Hansen, and (2) for remaining silent when obvious distortions and mistruths about climate are made by public officials and the MSM. Remember how fast Cryosphere Today responded to George Will? Where are they now when the president states:
“…just in a few years, during the summer, there won’t be any ice in the Arctic, something we have never seen before.”
Where’s the press release? Where’s the op ed? Where are Mark Serreze and Walt Meier?
No amount of spin can turn a sow’s ear into a silk purse.
The fundamental product “man made emissions of CO2 cause catastrophic global warming” is a boring fraud. No amount of spin can keep sparking public interest.
Most people have real problems to solve and can tell the difference between real problems and global warming – once they have access to the real information.
@Smokey (14:54:24) :
Very well said.
George Orwell is not surprised.
AGW = Fraud.
Ron de Haan (09:43:21) :
Welcome to the brave new world of cheat and mean green.
People don’t buy the worn out Global Warming BS any more so wrap it a trendy packaging, let the marketing boys add a nice jingle to it and push it on the public’s throat.
What do those green hillbillies think, that we are stupid or what?
I really believe this is the last desperate attempt to revive the crashing house of cards called AGW/Climate Change and it’s not going to work.
We will keep our eyes and ears open and rip the packaging of the scam.
And that’s a promise.
They do believe we are stupid and weak – their contempt for humanity is written large in their actions.
Dave Middleton (14:10:37) : Praising… Bob Meyer (13:06:48)
Having had my own problems with italics on WordPress I don’t hold anyone responsible for this:
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?
Mencken must have been thinking of this man. . .
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Gore,_Sr.
. . . because “the Sage of Baltimore” died in 1965. Al Jr. was still a teen.
It is really funny (if you are proned to lethal jokes). How did you americans manage to get such a lot of “peculiar beings”?..I prefer to think “they” are aliens who have invaded your country. 🙂
This is doubleplusungood.
Probably by being too generous Adolfo.
Frank K. (16:38:08) :
Don´t complain. It is just fair.
It sounds like Cap and Trade is a new name for the BTU tax of a few years ago, 1993, I think. I believe Al Gore was VP then. That tax was defeated by businesses but was somewhat more reasonable because it would apply to all energy including solar, wind power, nuclear power and hydroelectric.