Comments ronniehoresh has made

Outcomes are everything

The deeper we delve in search of these causes the more of them we discover, and each single cause or series of causes appears to us equally valid in itself, and equally false by its insignificance compared to the magnitude of the event.

That was Tolstoy writing about conflict in War and peace. I think he's right. Looking for the causes of climate change is of value only if it helps us stabilise the climate. Doing so now is an excuse for blame-shifting and political rhetoric. Meanwhile, the climate grows more volatile. My suggestion is that governments collectively should issue Climate Stability Bonds which would reward people for stabilising the climate however they do so.

Policy as if outcomes mattered http://SocialGoals.com

Reframing in terms of agreed outcomes

One problem is that we are all the beneficiaries of a degraded envirnoment. I don't just mean those of us who fly or drive or buy supermarket food. I mean everyone on the planet. By destroying the environment we have allowed a massive increase in the quantity of life, and we, ourselves, our lives, are the result. Without environmental destruction the earth would be supporting far fewer people. So any campaign, or reframing, must start with some humility. It's not us versus them. We are all 'us'.

To be more pragmatic, I suggest reframing the discussion in terms of explicit, agreed, meaningful, environmental goals. Not, as at present, about rights, processes, activities, or funding of institutions. Goals - so that instead of talking about cutting greenhouse gas emissions, we target climate stability. Instead of trying to monitor and pin down polluters of water, we agree on and target the quality of the water. My website goes into more detail, and discusses how we can use the market's incentives and efficiencies to achieve environmental goals. Efficiency is part of it, but it's also about having clear, agreed, targeted outcomes. There is more consensus over what we need than about how to get there. Talking about outcomes makes trade-offs clearer, and brings more participation and buy-in into environmental policy. On Enviros recruit Lakoff for reframing project, but concerns mount that he might abandon them posted 4 years, 8 months ago 9 Responses

It's about outcomes

"You have to frame environmental issues in a way that makes sense for us and relates to the issues we care about."

There are other worthwhile points in this essay, but to me this is what counts. In the environment, and with much social policy, the issues are framed in ways that can be understood only by policy wonks, specialists and lawyers. Take climate change: we all know it's going to be disastrous, but the policy discussion is all about compliance, or not, with Kyoto, which may or may not do something to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, which may or may not change the composition of the atmosphere, which may or may not do something to stabilise the climate.

This is too tenuous and too esoteric for normal people to follow. My suggestion is that we frame our environmental policy in terms of broad outcomes. Instead of micro-managing anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions, we should be specifying a climate stability target, and rewarding people for achieving it, however they do so. Similarly with other environmental bottom lines: air and water pollution, etc. Outcomes are something that everyone understands. Frame our environmental (and social) policy in terms of targeted outcomes. This would clarify what the government is or is not doing, and also the trade-offs involved. Transparency would go with greater public participation, understanding and therefore buy-in. (My website suggests how this can be done in ways that inject the market's incentives into the achievement of social and environmental goals.)On Dramatizing the "death" of environmentalism doesn't help urban people of color, or anyone else posted 4 years, 8 months ago 21 Responses