It’s got a ring to it, no?

Ditch ‘warming’ and start talking ‘deteriorating atmosphere,’ PR firm says 14

Beer and wings.How to make an energy plan more appetizing.The non-profit PR shop ecoAmerica finally released the findings of its public opinion research today, bringing a trove of information about how on-the-fence Americans respond to different messages about climate change and energy.

The firm conducted an impressive amount of research in February through March—focus groups, a phone survey, an online survey—all focused on finding better talking points for wooing folks who are undecided about this whole global warming/clean energy/green jobs business.

This was the report whose summary was accidently sent to a bunch of media outlets after a White House briefing from ecoAmerica in April, leading to a not-very-flattering story in the New York Times. The story suggested it’s cynical to try to sell the climate crisis the way you’d sell toothpaste, and it’s true that the report wholeheartedly embraces a public-relations way of looking at things:

Remember to speak in aspirational language about shared American ideals, like freedom, prosperity, independence and self-sufficiency while avoiding jargon and details about policy, science, economics or technology.

The earnest English major in me is pitching a fit right now (“Gah! The truth doesn’t need talking points.”) Maybe you’ve got the same beef, but there’s fascinating stuff here. Think of it as “rhetoric” if that sits better than “PR.” For anyone who communicates about climate and energy, it’s worth reading the whole report, “Climate and Energy Truths: Our Common Future.” Here are a few highlights for starters:

  • Ditch “global warming.” It makes people think of Al Gore more than anything else, too polarizing. “Climate change” is almost as bad. “Our deteriorating atmosphere” is the term soccer moms and other “environmental agnostics” respond to best, the report found.
  • Likewise, people don’t want to hear about “cap-and-trade.” Too wonky. When you’re talking about cap-and-trade, call it “Clean Energy Dividend” or “Clean Energy Cash Back.” This fits a central theme of the report—the climate-action camp needs to learn how to translate think-tank language into kitchen-table language. To hear how this sounds in action, try out ecoAmerica’s blog post explaining the report.
  • Even “renewable” and “alternative” energy are too vague. (Were you clear on the difference anyway?) Instead, talk about energy sources that run out and ones that don’t run out. Or energy sources you have to burn and ones you don’t have to burn.
  • Talk about values, not facts.
  • “Activating multiple values tends to be stronger than just invoking a single value.” Bring prosperity, national security, and personal health into your argument. The report doesn’t mention human rights or climate justice arguments—odd, since evangelicals have already shown they can rally behind this perspective.
  • One the other hand, one good fact packs more punch than a string of facts. You don’t win people over with a relentless barrage of facts, says the report. That only muddles the brain. Somehow this connects to Joseph Stalin’s “One death is a tragedy; a million is a statistic.”
  • For your one key fact, the report’s authors especially like the phrasing, “Local temperatures always fluctuate naturally. But when the 10 hottest years on record have all occurred since 1990, we have a problem.”
  • Finally, the report says it would be a travesty to let the Right own “comprehensive energy solutions”. Show why your side, not theirs, is the true “all-of-the-above” option. As with everything else, it works better to stay on the offensive and make the other side defend their position.

OK, but the report doesn’t seem to acknowledge that most people have bull**** detectors that kick in at some point. Calling a cap-and-trade plan “clean energy cash back” makes it sound like you’re promising to create money out of thin air. You can call it a “free beer and hot wings” plan, but at some point, citizens are going to ask for more than spin.

Jonathan Hiskes is a Grist staff writer. He reports, tweets, eats, asks questions, self-promotes, looks out windows, and wonders if it could be like this.

Related Stories

Advertisement
Advertisement
  1. Royal Enfield's avatar

    Royal Enfield Posted 8:08 pm
    11 Jun 2009

    If this concept seems alien, I recomend the (in)famous article "The Death of Environmentalism."

    Permalink

  2. Brad Arnold's avatar

    Brad Arnold Posted 11:06 pm
    11 Jun 2009

    You may think that changing the wording is smart public relations, but the goal you wish to achieve is illusionary, because successfully achieving a severe carbon diet is unfeasible:

    "The vast majority of new power stations in China and India will be coal-fired; not "may be coal-fired"; will be. So developing carbon capture and storage technology is not optional, it is literally of the essence." --"Breaking the Climate Deadlock," Tony Blair, June 26, 2008

    But, Vaclav Smil, an energy expert at the University of Manitoba, has estimated that capturing and burying just 10 percent of the carbon dioxide emitted over a year from coal-fire plants at current rates would require moving volumes of compressed carbon dioxide greater than the total annual flow of oil worldwide -- a massive undertaking requiring decades and trillions of dollars. "Beware of the scale," he stressed."

    The world's emissions of the main planet-warming gas carbon dioxide will rise over 50 percent to more than 42 billion tonnes per year from 2005 to 2030 as China leads a rise in burning coal, the U.S. government forecast on Wednesday. China's coal demand will rise 3.2 percent annually from 2005 to 2030, the Energy Information Administration said in its International Energy Outlook 2008. --Reuters, 26 June 2008

    In other words, maybe the spin gurus can somehow get unrealistic legislation passed, but Chinese and Indian emission growth will completely overwhelm any cuts we make:In 2006, China added 90 gigawatts of coal fired power capacity—enough to emit over 500 million tons of CO2 per year for 40 years; by comparison, the European Union’s entire Kyoto reduction commitment is 300 million tons of CO2.It will take more than a century to make the final massive shift to zero carbon energy, but the world doesn't have a century of time and will need geo-engineering technologies to cool the climate within the next 25 years, says one of the country's leading thinkers Thomas Homer-Dixon."  --"Canada has to tackle peak oil and climate change as one big carbon problem," The Hill Times, 1 Jun '09"The alternative (to geoengineering) is the acceptance of a massive natural cull of humanity and a return to an Earth that freely regulates itself but in the hot state." --Dr James Lovelock, August 2008

    Permalink

  3. vbstenswick Posted 1:30 am
    12 Jun 2009

    I prefer 'global flooding'.

    Permalink

  4. juliejohns's avatar

    juliejohns Posted 4:23 am
    12 Jun 2009

    I agree that global warming isn't a great phrase to use. It doesn't encompass the increasing intensity of storms, drought, hurricanes etc to come, but 'deteriorating atmostphere' makes it sound like the sky will fall in.

    Permalink

  5. Spence's avatar

    Spence Posted 6:36 am
    12 Jun 2009

    "Climate change" seems to work fine for me. I don't use "global warming" because most people relate that to local temperature, when it has nothing to do with local temperature. Two feet of snow in London might be the result of global warming, after all. Climate Change is more neutral, though maybe "climate deterioration" might be a better turn of phrase. "Deteriorating atmosphere" invokes the ozone layer in my mind.Agreed that "clean energy cash back" is total weasel language. Maybe the best argument for the whole carbon tax camp is that it's easy for people to understand.

    Permalink

  6. solargroupies's avatar

    solargroupies Posted 9:08 am
    12 Jun 2009

    Every time I hear that the majority of the American public is misinformed or ill-informed about science and climate change I get a sinking feeling, wondering whose reality will prevail. As any good teacher knows, if you expect people to learn you have to meet them starting from where they ARE. With short attention spans and other pressing concerns, most people may not be ready to re-learn the Earth Science they vaguely recall from high school with mind-blowing new climate data. While I agree that we don't want to push illusory or incorrect science I also think there is some truth to good PR and good PR principles. That is how elections (were) are won. Perhaps when we talk about the nexus of economic disaster, peak oil and climate change we should call it "Fried Chicken Combo for a Dollar".

    Permalink

  7. bbuc Posted 11:10 am
    12 Jun 2009

    The well meaning weenies at ecoAmerica have got it all wrong.  We need to celebrate Al Gore, not forget him. In 2009 liberals and progressives need certifiable heros living among us now, and Al Gore certainly is that. There's nothing wrong with associating the climate crisis with Al Gore.  The conservatives have all but given up the fight about it.  Even #@!! big oil is copping to it now.  Even the most backward people in America and the world have learned much of the truth from him.  These days Al Gore is pretty much accepted by everyone who matters.  And all are benefitting from his drive and intelligence.   So what are ecoAmerica talking about, besides being opinion sissies?  I suspect they, or someone very like them, advised Janet Napolitano to apologize for calling the extreme right wing a threat to America, scant weeks before the two separate murders of Dr. Tilling and Stephen Johns by right wing extremists. In fact I find the institutional silence about Gore odd.  It's almost as if they're embarrassed to mention him.  That silence, combined with this loser mentality memo from ecoAmerica, makes me wonder if someone's ego has been bruised or feels threatened by a bigger than life Democrat, someone even larger than Rahm Emanuel or Ken Salazar...and they're trying to pre-empt calls for Al Gore to come and help keep things on an even keel.  >>>  And one other thing.  This is the second time in recent memory with this administration that something was "accidentally" released to news media... accidental my foot.

    Permalink

  8. biscuits Posted 11:55 am
    12 Jun 2009

    I'm sorry, deteriorating atmosphere? that's a lot of letters. Very chunky in the mouth. Kind of hard to spell.Sounds like the world's worst PR advice. What kind of d-bag says "deteriorating atmosphere"? Try saying it 5 times fast. Try imagining it on a bumper sticker or protest sign. Stop Deteriorating our Atmosphere!How about in a chant:"Congress, White House,let's be clear,don't deteriorateour atmosphere!"Did they test run Climate Chaos? What about, "We're killing ourselves"

    Permalink

  9. AntonioSosa Posted 7:25 pm
    12 Jun 2009

    Are you looking for ways to better lie and manipulated people into believing a myth? Why not just tell them the truth -- "man-made global warming" is a huge HOAX. Why not mention that Obama is using that HOAX to impose his cap-and-trade scheme, which will kill the U.S. economy?No patriotic and informed American can support the global warming/cap and trade scam, more fraudulent than any Nigerian scam. Cap and Trade “would be the equivalent of an atomic bomb directed at the U.S. economy—all without any scientific justification,” said famed climatologist Dr. S. Fred Singer. It would significantly increase taxes and the cost of energy, forcing many companies to close, thus increasing unemployment, poverty and dependence. Cap and trade represents huge taxes and cost increases, which will hurt mostly the poor and the middle class. Cap and trade will give dictatorial powers to Obama and will further enrich his billionaire friends (Gore, Soros, Goldman Sachs, Obama’s  Chicago Climate Exchange friends, GE, etc.) -- all at our expense and at the expense of our children and grandchildren. 

    Permalink

  10. AntonioSosa Posted 7:33 pm
    12 Jun 2009

    You can’t use “global warming” because the earth is not warming. It’s actually cooling. That’s why those behind the “global warming” hoax changed the name of their hoax to “climate change,” which made the hoax even more ridiculous! Even the words "climate change" are NONSENSE. By its very nature, climate changes. The climate on earth has ALWAYS CHANGED and will continue to CHANGE, no matter what we do. And it’s even more absurd to claim that humans are responsible for climate change! It's like saying "Wet Rain" and then blaming humans for rain being wet! No matter what we do, rain will always be wet! The hoax has been debunked in 2007 and informed people know it. “Anthropogenic (man-made) global warming bites the dust,” declared astronomer Dr. Ian Wilson after reviewing a new study that has been accepted for publication in the Journal of Geophysical Research authored by a Brookhaven National Lab scientist Stephen Schwartz.  A former Harvard physicist, Dr. Lubos Motl, said the new study has reduced global warming fear-mongers to “playing the children’s game to scare each other.” http://nzclimatescience.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=141&Itemid=1   

    Permalink

  11. friedfish2718 Posted 4:37 am
    13 Jun 2009

    Call it CACA (Catastrophic Anthropogenic Climate Alteration).

    Some proper uses of the acronym:
       "Some are into antiques. Some are into sports. Albert Gore is into CACA."
       "NASA's James Hansen is a CACA expert."
       A climatologist movie: "All is quiet on the CACA front."
       "It was a dark and stormy CACA..."
       A kid looks up and says: "What CACA! The sky is farting cats and dogs!"
       "CACA happens."

    Permalink

  12. AntonioSosa Posted 9:59 am
    13 Jun 2009

    Hahahahahahahaha! ¡Jajajajajajajajajaja! (In Spanish) CACA fits perfectly!

    Permalink

  13. PeterKH Posted 12:04 am
    17 Jun 2009


    Gist excerpt (concluding paragraph):

    "OK, but the report doesn’t seem to acknowledge that most people have bull**** detectors that kick in at some point. Calling a cap-and-trade plan “clean energy cash back” makes it sound like you’re promising to create money out of thin air. You can call it a “free beer and hot wings” plan, but at some point, citizens are going to ask for more than spin."
     
     
    But calling the Waxman-Markey cap-and-trade bill a “Clean Energy Dividend” or “Clean Energy Cash Back”  plan is bull****.  Err, I mean factually incorrect.
     
    Well, bull**** sounds more folksy but with an edge, and that might be useful providing you're not talking to the most incorrigible of Democrats.
     
    Jim Hansen's "Tax and Dividend", or  John Larsen's "Cap, Tax, and Rebate" (i.e. H.R. 1337 America's Energy Security Trust Fund Act, previously supported by FCNL), or FCNL's Six Keys to a Successful Cap and Trade Program can accurately be called “Clean Energy Dividend” or “Clean Energy Cash Back”  plans. But not the Waxman-Markey cap-and-trade bill.
     
    According to the Library of Congress' Thomas website which provides information about legislation before Congress, Larsen's H.R. 1337 "Cap, Tax, and Rebate" bill was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means and to the Committee on Foreign Affairs on 3/5/2009 for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker.
     
    Which means of course that "Cap, Tax, and Rebate" was DOA when first introduced.

     
    FNCL's Six Keys to a Successful Cap and Trade Program:
    www.fcnl.org/issues/item.php?item_id=3573&issue_id=102
     
    Library of Congress' Thomas website:
    http://thomas.loc.gov/

    Permalink

Add a Comment

You are not logged in. Thus, you cannot post a comment. If you have an account, log in. If you don't have an account, well, by all means go make one! Meet you back here in five.

Hello, Visitor!    Why not register?

Viewed
More
Commented
More
Advertisement