Frank Luntz, the famed Republican pollster and messaging consultant who helped to shape Newt Gingrich's 1994 Contract With America, thinks environmentalists are mean.
Frank Luntz.
The author of a new guidebook on politically effective language, Words That Work: It's Not What You Say, It's What People Hear, Luntz is credited with popularizing use of the phrase "death tax" in lieu of "estate tax." He became notorious in environmental circles in 2003 for a leaked memo [PDF] he wrote telling Republicans how to green their image. He advised them to tout their love of national parks, and to say "conservationist" instead of "environmentalist," as Luntz believes the latter word reeks of political extremism. He also told Republicans to "make the lack of scientific certainty a primary issue in the debate" over climate change, because "[s]hould the public come to believe that the scientific issues are settled, their views about global warming will change accordingly."
Luntz has achieved enough notoriety to be lampooned on The Daily Show, where correspondent Samantha Bee described him as having "made a brilliant career of spraying perfume on dog turds." The National Environmental Trust has doled out Luntzie Awards for the use of politically deceptive language, and created a whole LuntzSpeak website to expose and counter the strategist's tactics. (Does that count as mean?)
To find out why Luntz thinks enviros have an attitude problem, and how he thinks green messaging could be made smarter, I recently interviewed him while he was speeding in a cab toward the Los Angeles airport.
In 2003, the media got hold of a memo [PDF] you wrote declaring the environment "probably the single issue on which Republicans in general -- and President Bush in particular -- are most vulnerable." You've since said that the environment played a negligible role in the 2004 and 2006 elections. Why did this huge vulnerability fail to play a central role in the elections?
Because the environmental community hasn't figured out how to communicate effectively.
What do you mean?
Words That Work, by Frank Luntz.
People think environmentalists tend toward the extreme position -- they're considered uncompromising, unyielding, very political. I get yelled at by them all the time, and yet they keep losing and losing when they should be more successful.
The American people believe in clean air and clean water. The American people believe in open spaces. I know this, I've polled it. What they don't believe is the idea that you would close everything down, put it under lock and key. They believe that you can use the environment while still protecting and appreciating it, and the environmental community just doesn't understand that. It's why the word environmentalist, people don't like it anymore.
But you understand, I'm not in the business of trying to explain this to them. In my dealings with them, they're mean. Some of the most personally nasty people come out of the environmental community.
Why do you think that is?
I think that they believe so strongly in their point of view, and they believe that anyone who doesn't share what they share or believe what they believe is not only wrong but evil.
It sounds like you see it as a dogma almost, as religious zealotry.
I don't see environmentalism that way, I see environmentalists that way. I think it's like they've taken a very important issue and they've undermined their own case for it.
The problem the environmental community has is they don't listen to their opponents. When I do my research, I spend more time studying the opposition argument because that's what I need to respond to. The environmental community never listens. If they listened, they would have realized very early on that they would find common ground with other allies.
Can you give an example?
In trying to achieve protection of endangered species, they created the land-rights movement. It did not exist before. But because they were unbending -- not just in the rules and regulations, but even in the enforcement and how it's done -- a whole bunch of Western ranchers rose up, organized, and may now have tipped the balance too far against endangered species. The public wants a balance, and any time it goes too far in one direction, the public says no.
Some polls show that the environment played big in a few key 2006 races, like Arnold Schwarzenegger's, and Rep. Richard Pombo in California, and Sen. Conrad Burns in Montana. Do you think those were cases where environmentalists are getting more savvy about appealing to the mainstream?
No, that's not accurate. No. Anyone who knows those races knows that that's not accurate. Conrad Burns lost because of Jack Abramoff. Arnold Schwarzenegger [won on] a whole series of issues -- environment is just one tiny one [on which] Arnold took a different approach. Pombo faced the most incredible unification of people who disagreed with him coming together financially and cooperatively, and it was an onslaught in a state that has really turned against the GOP with the exception of Schwarzenegger.
So you still believe the environment hasn't become a front-burner issue in any political races?
No, [it hasn't]. And it's amazing because you ask people, do you care about the environment? And their answer is, almost universally, yes. And then you wonder, why doesn't it play a bigger role?
I've come to the conclusion that the environmental community exists to raise money. They exist to raise money so they can spend money, and so it doesn't behoove them to claim victory. It behooves them to perpetuate a sense of alarm.
Do you believe that climate change is real and happening?
I believe that it is, uh ... I have no solution to it right now.
But is it real and happening?
Yes, I believe that it is an issue.
Let's say that you have a client whose concern was to make global warming a front-burner issue in 2008 -- how would you advise a plan of action? Let's say three directives.
I'm not going to do that.
Why? Because you expect a fee for such advice?
There are very few people that I don't meet with, because [with most people] I will learn from them and I think they want to meet with me to learn from me. These [environmentalists] are people who are just mean.
I'm not saying the client has to be an environmentalist. The environment is a bipartisan issue. Let's say John McCain were asking you to advise a plan of action.
The No. 3 point is the polar bears -- they're this generation's spotted owl. They're the previous generation's bald eagle. Another animal that people can see, one that they have a soft side for, and the animal, the species, is under threat.
No. 2 is what Al Gore did, when you show people, when it's visual, when they can see it. Basically what his movie is, it's 30 different vignettes of exactly the same thing said in a very different way. And each one lasts about three minutes long, and you see sometimes it's America-based, sometimes it's international, sometimes it's maps, sometimes it's live footage, but it's the same story that people can see. They gotta see it, not just hear it or read about it.
And then the No. 1 thing is to have a plan for a solution that is embracing rather than divisive. It's not enough to complain and rant. The No. 1 thing is to have a solution for the problems that they identify.
Green groups have been putting a lot of emphasis lately on renewable-energy development, which ostensibly offers win-win-win solutions to economic, national-security, and environmental concerns. Is that an example of the kind of message that's embracing and not divisive?
Yeah, I think energy independence is the best issue, the best language for the future.
You've said that the failure of messaging is a result of leaders who use extreme language. Who do you see as a leader who could appeal to the mainstream with a kinder, gentler environmental voice? Schwarzenegger?
Schwarzenegger could do it. John McCain could do it. The most effective voice would be a convert, someone you least expect to speak out.
What about Al Gore? He's a man who was once seen as an extreme liberal and whose environmental message ironically is bringing him more and more mainstream appeal.
His movie was so persuasive that people looked at him and changed their outlook. He does not have the same image today that he had when he was vice president. It's interesting that Al Gore has become cool. He shows up on the MTV Awards and gets a standing ovation from the kids. Six years ago they wouldn't have even listened to him.
So what happened?
He found a way to present a scientific issue in a popular way and to humanize something that until that point was just numerical. He made emotionally intimate something that had just been an abstract idea.
In your book, you say efficiency is one of the most effective words in the environmental realm or politics in general. And you've also advocated conservationist over environmentalist. What are some other words that you see as particularly strategic?
Energy independence. Energy self-sufficiency. Energy security. Energy diversity.
So these are words that connect the environment to other issues?
Correct. I think in fact that the whole issue of environment would be much better sold, much better communicated, if it were done from an energy standpoint than from an environmental standpoint.
The GOP has triumphed over Democrats in the messaging arena in recent years, but now the party seems to be on the skids. Does this suggest that their messaging strategy is losing effectiveness?
Democrats didn't get better at messaging during the election because all they did is criticize Republicans. I don't think it was a failure of Republican messaging; I thought it was a failure of Republican policy and Republican administration of that policy. The American people were angry about wasteful Washington spending. They were angry about the immigration problem. They were angry about corruption in Washington. And the way they expressed that anger was voting out the people in power. The public said they'd had enough already of A, now we'll see what party B will do.
How does environment play in your own life?
Well, that's a great question. I expect people to be consistent in what they think and how they behave, and it annoys me that people will have green stickers on their SUVs.
What I do at home is I turn off every light. I keep the temperature set at a reasonable level -- in the summertime the house will cool to 74, and in the wintertime the house will heat to 69. I drive an Acura, but I'm on the road all the time so I'm rarely in my car.
But I'll be honest with you: I love private planes, even though I know that they're the worst.
Climate psychology in cartoons: clues for solving the messaging mystery
Children and riot police face off in Canadian “Moms” video
A video interview with Bill Moyers
Comments
View as Flat
bkrell Posted 3:28 am
31 Jan 2007
Well, I'm staying, if for no other reason than to remind everyone of that fact.
Permalink
carfree Posted 4:17 am
31 Jan 2007
One of the biggest upsets was Jerry McNerney's (D-CA 11) victory of Richard Pombo (R-CA 11), the only sitting head of a House Committee to lose his job.
The McNerney vote was largely fueled by backlash against Pombo's career on the House Resources Committee, his war on endangered species, his chainsaw hugging, and his love affair with oil and gas drilling on public lands.
If Luntz hasn't digesting the environmental reality of what happened in CA-11 in the last election, his advice to anyone about political strategy is suspect.
I think he is just angling for a new job with the emerging environmental majority. He's quite a political streetwalker.
Good luck with the job search, Frank. We have a copy of your CV and it's not very green.
Permalink
Howell Haus Posted 4:43 am
31 Jan 2007
My wife and I were featured in the July 10th issue of Newsweek, 'The New Greening of America'. Jessica Ramirez interviewed us for Jerry Adler's article, 'Going Green'. We were quoted about our attempts to Green our own lives, which we've done fairly well.
Since that time, we've stopped saying 'environmentalist' and started using the phrase Steward. We're just two people that care for the planet and all it has to offer. We do get upset when people get appointed to environmentally sensitive positions when they've worked for the petroleum industry in the past. Why not some librarian or school teacher that personally practices being a conservationist in their own circles ?
We're moving to Eugene, OR next week to start a new life in a place where people get it. It's not due to political lines, or the fact that they use solar and wind and conservation. It's because it's not yet destroyed by urban sprawl, and density, and the water's clean and has fish with two eyes swimming in it.
So, what about it Frank ? Won't you join the conservation and preservation march, and at least buy a Terra Pass for your private jet rides...
Permalink
MdFarmBrew Posted 8:00 am
31 Jan 2007
Permalink
randino Posted 9:45 am
31 Jan 2007
Frank, clean up your own house, before you knock on our door.
Randy Cunningham
Permalink
lvchavez Posted 9:47 am
31 Jan 2007
Unlike the right wing politicians, most environmentalists are there to show the truth so that good changes may come for the benefit of all. In contrast, most Republicans are there only to promote the agenda of their big business donors, in order to gain more and more power.
One question though, if you know global warming is happening, why would you not want to do something about it? Why is Luntz so uncooperative, especially when this type of global event will affect us all? I guess in his lofty house with all of his money, he feels he can buy his way out of this one???
Permalink
bkrell Posted 9:52 am
31 Jan 2007
Permalink
theunlikelyactivist Posted 1:10 pm
31 Jan 2007
It's clear to me that those who call themselves environmentalists have let their passions lead them into a trap, allowing themselves to be too easily marginalized, not only by the likes of Luntz, but also by the masses of people they really need to connect with. And I believe that the trap has two components.
The first is an inward focus, preventing them from understanding just how fine a line separates them from the eConsciousness dormant in outsiders like--well, Luntz himself. The second is a general inability to communicate with--vs. talk at--folks outside the 'green box'.
When you look at the effectiveness of communications today--especially on the commercial side of the spectrum, the sophistication of messaging, and the pervasive new channels available to reach out and touch one another, it's high time for more enlightened envirocommunications to take off.
Let's take advantage of the noble efforts of Gore et al, and learn how to engage people at all scales, across all lines. Increasingly, I think we're seeing that it works.
Larry Grob
theunlikelyactivist.com
Permalink
jaybor Posted 4:31 pm
31 Jan 2007
Permalink
Kif Scheuer Posted 11:26 pm
31 Jan 2007
Check out this funny ad from BuiltGreen Colorado - they've got the message.
About the elections - all you have to look at is the speed with which climate change is coming to the fore post '06 to see he's off base there. The fact that the environment is running head to head with immigration, the economy and health care while a war is going on is strong evidence that environmental issues are not a loser, and that the mean environmentalists are not undermining their causes. Do we need some evolution of tactics? Sure. But all-in-all I think there's more dimensionality than Luntz gives us credit for.
Permalink
GaGa Posted 11:40 pm
31 Jan 2007
His point is well-taken. Before Al Gore changed my mind, I thought "tree-huggers" were lunatic, aging hippies who didn't want to grow up and didn't think realistically or rationally about anything - in short, zealots - not the people I look to for information or advice.
His reference to land rights is accurate, also. When people work hard to achieve their piece of the American Dream, they don't want some zealot coming in and telling them they can't build a house on their land, because some unknown bug might lose some habitat.
I live in upstate New York, and the battle has raged for decades in the Adirondack Park. The most recent one involves the death of an elderly man from New York City, who froze to death a few feet off the Adirondack Northway, after crashing and not being able to get cell service. Why? Because the "environmentalists" didn't want to have to see cell towers when they commune with nature. This man sat, unable to get out of his car, and froze to death. His elderly wife, whose back was broken, sat and watched him. Some communing with nature, eh?
People need to be realists ... including environmentalists.
Permalink
Jones Posted 12:36 am
01 Feb 2007
But guess what? Everybody's like that. Ever watched Bill O'Reilly? Rush Limbaugh? Ever read the comments on conservative blogs about climate change? What about George Bush himself?
What "Dr" Frank Luntz forgets to mention is that it's not just environmentalists who do it to themselves. They're constantly sterotyped and vilified by many right-wingers in the US--not least of all George Bush Sr and Dick Cheney--to the point where the last thing that people want to be identified with is environmentalism. The coup de grace is that "Dr" Frank was able to perpetuate the stereotype in this interview.
Personally I hate it when people think in stereotypes rather than the objective truth--that people are individuals, regardless of what "category" they happen to fall into. And when people allow themselves to be led around by their self-image, rather than the facts.
But that's what "Dr" Luntz is selling. Nothing can take away the fact that he advised the President to obscure the facts and shut down rational discourse on an issue with serious security implications--facts he now blithely accepts. No doubt he advised GWB on how to sell Iraq, too.
He gambled with the nation's security, to sell his product. That's not mean. That's evil.
Permalink
bkrell Posted 12:47 am
01 Feb 2007
I think the thing that many environmentally conscious conservativea and moderates worry about the coupling of the environmental movement to all sorts of "fringe" issues. Fuel efficiency and the mainstreaming of renewables are one thing. But they are often coupled with all sorts seemingly socialist schemes and crunchy granola viewpoints. I don't want to debate the worthiness of such issues-they may well have merit. But the environmental "movement" is trying to force a really big pill down everyones' throat. Focus the message and connect it with the daily life of most Americans. Furthermore, emphasize the fact that it's the moral thing to do.
Permalink
randino Posted 1:21 am
01 Feb 2007
I think of conservationist as someone of the old school that looks upon species and eco-systems as separate from the surrounding society.
To me an environmentalist is someone who agrees with John Muir, that everything is "hitched together." That is what gives environmentalism its reputation for extremism, because even old timers like Aldo Leopold were very, very radical in their outlook precisely because they refused to set up nice, neat boundaries between "us" and nature.
That said, environmentalist, environment, environmental - they are mouth fulls and not really adapted to most people today who have the attention span of a knat with ADD. I would be more than receptive to a new term, but lets not throw the baby out with the wash water. I think our development over the past generation of a comprehensive critique of society is where a lot of our power is.
Randy Cunningham
Permalink
GreenEngineer Posted 3:21 am
01 Feb 2007
The amazing thing about this ad is that it uses humor to defuse the anti-green stereotypes. On the face of it, it actually accepts the oppositions framing, but it does so in such a way as to make that perspective seem absurd.
Luntz is an a$$, but he's got a point. Greens are always so serious (self included). We see horrible things happening, and it makes us angry. Well and good, if that motivates us. But we need to remember that that anger, which seems so righteous to us, looks really immature and unjustified to someone who doesn't already understand our position. On the other hand, if we can poke fun at ourselves (in a productive fashion), we can effectively defuse that perception and make people more receptive to our message.
Are you listening, David Roberts? This is the key to the "dirty hippy" problem. While I sympathize with the frustration you've expressed in your posts on the subject, it's not an effective way to address the fact that that label has been put on us. Especially since there is at least a grain of truth in it. On the other hand, if we can embrace it, make it funny, and make it absurd, while presenting ourselves as smart, responsible people who want prosperity for ourselves and our fellow creatures... Well, that might just work.
Plus, the image of a "dirty hippy" has all kinds of comic potential.
Permalink
retet58 Posted 4:21 am
01 Feb 2007
We ALL need to work together.
democrats, republicans, green party, libertarian, etc.
after all the green party might consider the environmental "people" who are democrats to be voting for the wrong segment. Remember neither political party has done anything while they were in office.
Permalink
Biodiversivist Posted 5:25 am
01 Feb 2007
Permalink
Jones Posted 6:18 am
01 Feb 2007
The problem with Luntz is he'll sell you the sizzle, even if the steak is poisoned. He doesn't care about the issues, just winning elections. I hope we don't try to sell the movement at the expense of watering down the issues.
As luck has it, we don't have to. Environmentalism is all about creating a better world, humans included. For inspiration, I would look at the approach taken by Amory Lovins or Bill McDonough. They're both upbeat, great spinners, and they're backed up by rock-solid reasoning.
Permalink
David Roberts Posted 7:33 am
01 Feb 2007
What socialist schemes? Which granola viewpoints? Do you think it's revealing that you don't actually specify or name any?
I'm not picking on you. I'd just like to raise the possibility that the "fringe extremist" stereotype of environmentalists might be largely the creation of the very savvy media efforts of their opponents. It's something even greens themselves seem to have internalized. Everyone, after 20 years of this barrage of accusations and caricatures, is left with the vague impression that there's a bunch of dirty hippies out there somewhere advocating socialism. But what's behind that vague impression? Can someone point to some of these dirty hippies? Name a few? Show me where such socialist wacko solutions are advocated?
Let's not assume that our subconscious stereotypes reflect reality. People like Luntz have spent a long time working very hard, and very smart, to shape those stereotypes.
Permalink
GreenEngineer Posted 8:24 am
01 Feb 2007
Sebastopol, California, where I used to live. Also, many university environmental groups. At least, back when I and my friends were in college; maybe they've gotten more mainstream in the last decade+. But just because the stereotypes may no longer apply doesn't mean that they didn't at one time. And a reputation like that can take a long time to live down.
At any rate, the stereotype is there. As you point out, it's been well ingrained. Even if it were a pure fictional invention (which it is emphatically not) we probably couldn't extract it from the public consciousness if we tried. So we'd better figure out strategies to work with it. See my previous post on this thread.
Permalink
randino Posted 9:12 am
01 Feb 2007
Randy Cunningham
Permalink
Desk Bound Posted 10:07 am
01 Feb 2007
But let's say, just for the sake of argument, that it one is basically true. There are vast areas of this country which do not have cell phone coverage. This is because the cell phone companies don't find it profitable to put towers everywhere. If the area where the elderly couple wrecked their car had lacked cell phone coverage for purely commercial reasons, nobody would suggest for an instant that the couple had any right to complain about it. But, if it turns out that there are also environmental considerations for the placement of cell phone towers, rather than just purely commercial ones, apparently this makes environmentalist heartless zealots? This doesn't seem altogether fair.
Permalink
theunlikelyactivist Posted 12:31 pm
01 Feb 2007
What they don't want to do, however, is wear the green label. If only the environmentalists were able to recognize these core connections for what they are, build on them, and develop a common message platform--a marriage of convenience, if you will.
After all, 'in your face' tactics have their place, but not when the common interest is so critical and the frames so distinct.
Larry Grob
theunlikelyactivist.com
Permalink
Delay And Deny Posted 3:50 am
02 Feb 2007
Most "environmentalists" are people who couldn't cut it in math, or a real science such as physics, chemistry or biology.
Environmentalists cannot perform experiments, because that would take test beds the size of a planet -- two planets in fact.
Most of their work is speculation beyond the pale from small subsets of data.
Permalink
Whiskerfish Posted 4:13 pm
02 Feb 2007
None of the comments have picked up on the point that Luntz makes about environmental groups just existing to make money.
Unfortunately, with the growing professionalisation of environmentalism, I think he's partly right. It's one of the elephants in the green movement's room and it hurts them way more than they like to believe.
Here in Africa I've seen more and more US-based, (astonishingly) highly-paid professional consultants and academics cruising the continent looking for sexy projects to raise money off the back of. Many of them ARE mean, back-stabbing careerists, and worse than that, they're also extremely un-hip and fail to inspire anyone to do anything useful except use them in turn as funding sources. They dress badly, they're ugly, condescending, and have no interest in anything but impressing their socially-irrelevant peer-group of nebbisher policy wonks and laptop jockeys. Many of them have about the same level of passion for the wild outdoors as your average Chicago commodities broker - they wouldn't know the difference between a woodpecker and a rhino if their lives depended on it.
The whole thing reeks of small people who think they have a lot of power, of schoolyard nerds desperately clinging together in a dark corner of the playground who haven't yet realised that it's far more fun - and effective - if you put on lipstick and a short skirt, crack jokes and poke your finger in the eye of the bully instead of gossiping quietly together about what an illiterate loser he is.
Arundhati Roy recently asked 'since when is activism a paid profession?' The question runs deep, has many implications, and no easy answers.
It's time for green groups to get transparent about how much their seniors and consultants pay themselves, and why. Otherwise people like Luntz are going to take them to the cleaners - in fact I'm amazed that he hasn't used this point far more powerfully until now.
Cheers
Whiskerfish
Permalink
Barbara Haig Posted 11:53 pm
05 Feb 2007
I've had some success with corporate audiences by encouraging them to consider the Dow Jones Sustainability Index definition of Corporate Sustainability: A business approach that creates long-term shareholder value by embracing opportunities and managing risks deriving from economic, environmental and social developments.
It's simple: Risks/Opportunities
It's visual: Triple Bottom Line
It speaks their own language: Shareholder Value
I know many people would shudder at the idea of Shareholder Value being the driver of environmental efforts, but every aspect of the equation should be considered if it is to be globally successful.
Permalink
CyberBrook Posted 1:41 am
06 Feb 2007
So, it seems, we need to keep it simple and appealing, focus on polar bears and other icons (penguins? butterflies?), tie-in to issues like security, independence, freedom, and self-sufficiency, make it visual and understandable, repeat the message over and over and over again and again, have a solution or two, make it win-win, and keep spreading the word with all sorts of megaphones. We can do that.
Eco-Eating: Eating as if the Earth Matters
http://www.brook.com/veg
Permalink
DLyons Posted 4:36 pm
06 Feb 2007
In my couple of years in college so far (at UC Berkeley and now at Yale), much of my extra-curricular time has been spent in campus environmental groups trying to 'sell' the ideas to my classmates. Both experiences validate the basic sentiment of Luntz's argument, that environmentalists (or 'stewards,' or 'concerned citizens,' or 'people who care about the environment'...whatever you want to call them) need to change their approach to communicating with people.
On both of these notably-liberal campuses, I would say it is definitely most-common to run into people who are either uninformed or unmotivated to do anything about the issues, and often to have an impression of environmentalists something along the lines of the zealous, crunchy, 'hippies' that many above have described. Getting people to consider the environment and to overcome these stereotypes is the first step, but it fortunately isn't too hard. The most important thing, at least in what I do, is to try to work with people rather than against them. That's why the environmental group I work for is called Student Task Force for Environmental 'Partnership' (STEP). We aim not only to educate, but to make it easier for our classmates to live sustainably by coming to them with compact fluorescent lightbulbs or recycling bins, by asking for their input, and probably most importantly by being friendly and funny (a la Grist). Furthermore, we're not out on a 'crusade' to convert people to our cause. If people disagree or shut the door on us (most people don't), fair enough, their decision and we move on.
We're still a pretty young organization, (though they are spreading rapidly to other schools), but with continued hard work I think we can reach the goal of integrating environmental concerns into the everyday lives of students (hopefully when they leave too).
To sum up, the keys for me are expressing partnership over confrontation, humor over fear-mongering or ranting, and respect for others opinions over whipping people into line.
Permalink
Brudaimonia Posted 7:06 pm
08 Feb 2007
See, the problem with saying that everyone cares about the environment is that it is so watered down as to not mean anything.
There is an infinite difference between a nebulous, nonbinding "care" (kind of like how everyone "cares" about starving children in Africa) and actually doing something about it.
It's more plausible that most Americans view environmentalists' message as too extreme because any message that calls for us to scale back our fossil fuel gluttony falls on the extremity of our probable action spectrum.
So I reject Luntz's implication that environmentalists are to blame for their message not being more popular. True (i.e. non-light-green) environmentalists have an uphill battle because what they're asking for -- conservation -- is challenging, albeit ethical. It's "hard work," as a certain man in Washington is fond of saying.
American culture has shaped us to be hard working, but this applies to our work schedule, not our self-restraint. Especially since the hubris of World War II victory was channeled into the splurge of suburbia and then exurbia, we have been incapable as a people of restricting our energy and land use, and thus our deleterious impact on the natural environment.
That is why "efficiency" mitigations are now extremely popular, but conservation is lagging behind. There are 1,000 calls for driving hybrid vehicles for every call to bike instead of driving. There are 1,000 platitudes for Wal-Mart's CFL ambitions for every call to buy your vegetables from a CSA. There are 1,000 reminders to keep your tires properly inflated to every mention of Smart Growth. Don't get me wrong; I think efficiency mitigations are a good thing and that hybrid cars are a good thing for people who are in situations where a car is convenient. It's just that they are mitigations: they're much easier to implement in one's own lifestyle, but they are also less effective in the overall picture.
This uncovers the hypocritical juxtaposition of the term "conservation" in Luntz's formula. He stresses the political expedience of labeling oneself a "conservationist" while simultaneously stressing the political expedience of terms that are expedient precisely because they stop short of calling for conservation: "Energy independence. Energy self-sufficiency. Energy security. Energy diversity." When no one challenges this contradictory rhetoric, you can have people who call themselves conservationists without the obligation to call for an ounce of energy conservation.
In my mind the real rhetorical challenge for American environmentalists has been, and will continue to be, dissolving the Catch-22 whereby their message is only popular when it's insubstantial, and always unpopular when it's substantial. Their challenge is to dissolve it before it's too late.
As George Monbiot says, "My fear is not that people will stop talking about climate change. My fear is that they will talk us to Kingdom Come." Talking us to Kingdom Come: that sounds like an apt description of Frank Luntz's job.
Permalink
djeff Posted 12:51 am
09 Feb 2007
Permalink
snedunuri Posted 10:29 am
11 Feb 2007
Secondly, he says that the envs are seen as not presenting solutions. I have to agree with him on this. In fact they are, but they are perceived as not doing so. Why? Because the language they use is often received negatively. Rather they ought to be touting how much better an alternative solution is - and repeat that endlessly. If there's any one thing I've learned from the criminals right now in the White House, its take a message and repeat it ad nauseum - it doesn't even have to be true. In our case, it is, which helps, but that's almost beside the point.
Permalink
jennx3989 Posted 2:22 am
13 Feb 2007
Environmental activists appear to be too far left-wing, too radical and very negative. My government often has to deflect criticism from them. We need to work TOGETHER, not AGAINST each other. The status quo is that we criticize each other, make ourselves enemies to the other, and in the end, nothing positive gets done to actually protect the environment, which is the same goal we each have.
I think that all environmentally-minded people need to follow Al Gore's model of communication. We need to have a friendly, open dialog, not beat each other over the heads with blame and criticism. Blaming corporations, blaming governments, blaming ordinary citizens only causes those people to put up their defenses and then they don't hear your message at all. No matter how right you are, if you keep using the stick, no one will listen to you. You need to start offering the carrot. We all need to start "selling" the benefits of living more environmentally-friendly lives, and we need to show how easy it is to start making some small changes that can make a difference.
I agree that the majority of people do care about the environment. That majority however, don't have a scientific background and need to be visually shown how to change their behaviour and consumer patterns to be more eco-friendly and how they can actually save money in the long run, and it can be as easy as changing a lightbulb. If we can educate people, rather than brow-beating them, then we can build on this new momentum of environmental consciousness so that we can start making some real, dramatic changes to improve the global environment.
Permalink
LaurieH Posted 8:46 am
20 Feb 2007
Environmentalists hate spin. We think that once educated, everyone will embrace environmentalism because it is the right thing to do. We are out to create a nation of converts, and we tell it like it is.
News flash - that ain't gonna happen. Even when you're Al Gore. I would venture to say that while he has done a tremendous job of increasing public awareness and public support on global warming issues, that the number of non-environmentalists who have made personal lifestyle changes as a result of his documentary is minute.
As Brudaimonia points out in a post, the idea of self-restraint is foreign in America.
To be effective on a national scale, we must achieve behavior change. To achieve behavior change, we must create attitude change. Where environmentalists go wrong is in defining that attitude change. They advocate a self-sacrificing "I'm doing this because it's the right thing to do" attitude.
Forget it. On a mass scale, that doesn't work. You must find another way to achieve your objective. Try "I'm driving a Prius because it's hip" or "I'm living in a high-density apartment building near the rail line because it saves me time." There are many other motivations that cause people to change their behavior (for the good of the environment) that don't have to involve sacrifice. Sacrifice doesn't sell. But if a behavior change has an environmental benefit, that's a bonus to people. They love that kind of "easy" contribution.
As environmentalists, we recoil from these ideas. We're "green" because it's right, and we are very invested in that position. We want everyone else to see the light. That's where we get the reputation for "zealotry."
P.S. In my 15-year career in environmental communications, I've yet to meet a dirty hippie. And some of the environmentalists I've worked with have been (as Kinky Friedman said once) "stupifyingly dull." Add that to the list of adjectives, right under MEAN. A dirty hippie would be quite refreshing.
Permalink
ozwry Posted 1:06 pm
28 Feb 2007
Gristmill! What a brilliant site. Congrats to all, especially contributors. The world should know that such good [caring, thoughtful, rational, and tolerant] Americans - and others - still exist.
Still, a 'lost tribe' can attract a lot of attention. That's bound to be financially rewarding, if handled right. Frank Luntz? No way. Who needs the hassle? The stereotyping? To be marginalised? To be grist to his dark satanic mill?
Luntz appears as a wannabe modern-day Niccolo Machiavelli. Who can blame him for providing his Prince with the wherewithal to reign supreme? For utilising his "education" in a way that allows his Prince to subdue his subjects? For becoming a spin-meister of catch-phrases and creator of stereotypes to silence and alienate us?
Is that Frank Luntz' fault . . . or our own?
Do we submit to his acerbic cynicism, his tortuous language, and his abject sycophancy? Or not?
Luntz, unwittingly I suspect, gives a huge clue to his own vulnerability. [Although he just may possess a wicked sense of humor]
In his interview with the delightfully incisive Amanda Griscom Little, Dr. Luntz says, "The No. 1 thing is to have a solution for the problems that they identify." This is plain daft and symptomatic of a simplistic ploy. It sounds impressive, if not examined critically. However, it has been used effectively to cower the media for over two decades.
The trouble is, we have been successfully conditioned to 'buy' that canard. It implies that if you do not have a solution you have no part in the debate or discourse. We all have a part, make no mistake. However large or small it is.
We need to be absolutely clear about this. Not to blame our Parents. Teachers. Professors. Politicians. Spouses. Employers. Or Church, Synagogue, Mosque, Richard Dawkins . . . whatever. Not even Dr. Frank Luntz. We need to blame ourselves for surrendering our free will, our self-respect, our rights. Our obligation to ourselves, our friends and families, our communities, that is, to think critically. And to respond accordingly.
Hence, it becomes just as important to identify and communicate a problem as to offer a solution. The two are not inextricably intertwined as Luntz cunningly projects. A question, comment, or criticism can illuminate dark corners. It often implies a solution: 'stop,' 'cease,' 'desist,' 'withdraw,' 'don't'!
Luntz is engaging simplistically, and successfully if he prevents one person from engaging in discourse. The essence he promotes is exclusion, not inclusion. And you get the impression he has carefully worked out the mocking rejoinders to all anticipated solutions. That is his "trick," his shtick. It is pure Machiavellian pragmatism. The end justifies the means.
Have we not seen the terrible consequences of that brutal but bankrupt philosophy played out time and time and time again . . . in Germany, Italy, Spain, Russia, China, Bosnia, Iraq, and Abu Ghraib, and Guantanamo Bay etc. etc. etc. ?
The irony is, Dr. Luntz is a large part of the problem and no part of the solution.
We are like trees. We have deep roots, many branches, and left to our devices we blossom and instinctively reach for the sky; spreading our arms to shelter and protect all below. Luntz is the dude with the chainsaw who works for the guys that would thwart our ambitions, our destiny. They say they like trees, but show they do not.
The solution that really matters, and contrary to the Luntz message, is to stand up, stand tall, and stand proud. Have your say. Often. Hug yourself. Often.
No solution ever came without criticism of some kind. Why are Ford automobiles no longer only black? Asking questions is necessary to finding answers. Who would be foolish enough to believe you can't ask, or be critical, without presenting a solution?
Not even Dr. Frank Luntz could believe that. Nor should we.
ozwry
. . . who lives, loves, and writes on a beach in Australia
Permalink
writetokirk Posted 7:16 am
07 Mar 2007
Personally, I believe that this issue is begging for an effective organization or coalition to get the correct message out. This means money. The Ad Council is wonderful, but a few tv commercials, while well done, will not suffice. The folks on the campaign trail will hopefully be giving more airtime to the environment, but that still won't do it.
So, WHO will? A grassroots effort is necessary, but insufficient on its own. It seems we are trying to get a message out to several generations who--by and large--have ZERO concept of what it means to sacrifice for the future. A tall order. If we don't want to wait until the effects of global warming are visibly in our front yard, or until an oil crisis significantly disrupts our quality of life, we need to empower the right organization to figure this out. Any ideas?
Permalink