Guest essay by Eric Worrall
University of Queensland Literature PhD student Jamie Freestone thinks the way to convince Conservatives to support climate action is to make climate action sound Conservative.
To get conservative climate contrarians to really listen, try speaking their language
May 15, 2018 2.06pm AEST
Jamie Freestone
PhD student in literature, The University of Queensland
…
Climate change holdouts are not necessarily ill-informed. But they naturally – like everyone else – do not welcome information that conflicts with their worldview. Conservatives are likely to disregard or filter out information that threatens economic growth, standards of living, and business interests.
They’re also likely to be unmoved by messages that emphasise the impact of climate change on the world’s poor. Especially ineffective are morally tinged narratives about how climate change is humanity’s fault and that we’re getting our comeuppance.
…
The first suggestion is that carbon dioxide emissions could be explained as a disruption to the status quo (of the climate), and thus at odds with conservative values. Climate change is a radical, anarchic experiment with the world’s atmosphere and vital systems.
…
Conservatives are more likely to respond to positive messages that emphasise agency rather than doom and gloom. Promoting geoengineering or market-based solutions like a carbon tax is a good idea. Even if your own political identity is opposed to these specific solutions, it’s at least worth using them to win conservatives round to the idea that climate change is real.
Third, climate change can be framed as a matter of impurity rather than harm. Harm to marginalised people and the environment is how many liberal-minded people conceive of climate change. But conservatives think more in terms of purity or sanctity. No worries. The effects of climate change can be no less accurately framed as being a violation of the purity or sanctity of the planet. Instead of harm to ecosystems, it’s a contamination of God’s green Earth.
Finally, we come to a difficult but potentially powerful narrative. It involves turning big industries in general against parts of the energy industry in particular. The more severe effects of climate change threaten the interests of everyone, including those of most large corporations.
…
I can’t help thinking Jamie has missed the target, but what do you guys think? Would messages about the benefits of carbon taxes and “climate impurity” move you to support more climate action?
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
“Conservatives for Carbon Taxes!”
And when no conservatives show up for your meeting, maybe then you might wish to review who favors taxes, and who opposes, among other simple basic realities.
All of the arguments serve to illustrate my ongoing issue in dealing with the majority of leftists which is…they don’t actually listen to arguments they don’t agree with. They deal in strawmen suiting their own twisted view of what classical liberalism entails, not the actuality.
Example one..the idea that ‘conservatives’ oppose change and are about ‘conserving’ status or situations because..’conservative’! They don’t internalize the actual arguments…that it’s not about opposing change, it’s about opposition to *imposed* rights violating ‘change’ via govt. We favor more change than they can handle via markets..which is why they’re always trying to limit markets via govt…who opposes ‘change’ again?
Unmoved by the poor? You mean the folks who *voluntarily* use *more* of their *own* wealth by *choice* to help the poor are unmoved by the poor? The people who point out the costs of fixing the planet at the expense of the poor nations who’ll be banned from using cheap electrons to raise their own standards of living, don’t actually care? Not agreeing with the left means you don’t care about the poor? Another strawman.
Disruption of the status quo? You mean like classical liberal defenses of markets such as Uber or Airbnb? Supporting online or home schooling? Upsetting union applecarts? Once again, defense of *individual* actions and choices and rights against *govt* interference is pegged as defense of a ‘status quo’ instead of the defense of what people *actually* choose on their own with their own actions and money.
It’s strawmen all the way down, and they don’t even realize it. And i don’t think they really care.