Framing is far less of a problem than the  fact that a large majority of people are unwilling to give the environment any priority, even though they profess to support environmental issues.  Our main efforts should be focused on changing people's attitudes toward life, not figuring out how to convince them that black is white.  Leave the latter for the bad guys, they'll get found out eventually.

About a year ago, enviro groups in California went ballistic that the Forest Service had hired a PR firm for $90,000 to create the "Forests with a Future" brochure to launch the 2004 Sierra Nevada Framework. Thus it is ironic that these same groups and their funders spent four times that much, just to thelp them think through their own marketing. At least the Forest Service got a brochure out of it!

Sure George Lakoff is the brilliant thinker de jour. But the problem for the environmental movement is not "framing," which is just another word for "packaging," "spin" and "propganda."

The problem is that the major Enviro groups (not the local grassroots organizations) don't have a product worth framing. Namely, they don't have any--or at least not enough--political relevance to influence public policy. And, until they learn  how and have the courage to effectively wield all of the latent political power in their supporter bases and budgets, they will remain merely meaningless political background noise.

It is appalling that the largest Enviro groups on the planet which raise and spend almost $7 billion a year and enjoy the support and trust of millions of Americans cannot influence US federal environmental policy one whit.

The Lakoffian values of the major groups are clear, because values are expressed in what groups actually do and accomplish. With that in mind it's worth noting that between 1970 and today the major Enviro groups grew in money and members by 5000%. In that same period, the global environment degrade by a further 40%. A clearer expression of the true values of the major Green groups could not be made.

Before Sierra Club and other major groups have anything worth framing, they are going to have to use the enormous power they, in fact, have and demonstrate as much influence over environmental policy as the NRA has over gun laws.

Isn't it about time that the major Enviros begin to act in a way that it commensurate with the life and death envirornmental issues we are facing? We are all dying and Carl Pope, who has the power to do something about it, is worried about framing.

The major Enviro groups, like Sierra Club, are now so impotent, while at the same time controlling over 70% of the Green movements members and resources, that they are now the major obstacle to an ecolgocially sustainable, just, and human global economy.

The enviromental movement as expressed by the major groups is not dead, it's a degenerative disease that's slowling helping to kill us and the planet.

I say this as friend of the enviromental movement which I've been working in since the early 70s.

Regards

It's ridiculous to think we can "reframe" the debate or get more democrats to vote green.  The large corporations own them and the republicans and we will never have enough money to bid higher.

Security -- protection -- pick your frame: learning disabilities, behavior and mood disorders are increasingly being linked to pre-and post natal exposure to environmental toxins in the air, soil and water.

As more of us moms learn about environmental triggers that affect DNA, the developing brain, the endocrine system, and metabolic processes, more of us will start paying attention to how the government has been systematically dismantling the environmental protection systems so that corporations can enjoy maximum profitability.

Talk to the moms. The moms will talk to the dads. It's that simple.

I disagree.

Enviro-activism has to get local, close to families with children and grandchildren.

We've got to go where they are and make friends: at playgrounds; scout meetings; school board meetings; PTSA meetings; village, town and county legislature meetings; at senior centers. Then we take our new friends to the offices of state and federal representatives, and give em hell.

Special attention must be given to the intersection of environmental degradation and health and learning issues.

Hate to say it, but gettin into stuff like biodiversity or saving the monarch butterfly takes learnin, and most people are very busy. Things gotta rank pretty high to get em out to meetings, makin phone calls or writin letters.

But you start talkin bout that toxic dust and kids' autism or bad air days and asthma, and people get riled up pretty quick.

Once youve got their attention and youve made a believer out of em, then you can start talkin politics, and other issues.  

I don't care how much money anyone's got -- look at how much they're hurling at the social security issue, tryin to convince people that private accounts would make it all better -- people arent stupid, and they resent it when politicians try to snow em with fancy PR.

Sure, term limits or CFR or more effective lobbying might help. But ultimately, the war's fought at ground zero in every town, county and state, not in Washington.

P.S. Enviro groups need to offer childcare/kids activities so that families can bring their kids to meetings. Finding childcare can be a real b*tch, not to mention prohibitively expensive. Gotta make it easy for folks to get involved.

If you actually read the 20-page report produced by Lakoff's institute, it spends a lot of time talking about the "Protector" frame that environmentalists have long used.  And it describes how rightwingers have co-opted this frame to their advantage.  Now they are the ones "protecting" property rights and freedoms from the "attack" by "environmentalists" and "big government."

The report doesn't really come up with any solutions.  (We're still waiting, George!) But it seems to imply that enviros should cast about for another frame since the "protector" one has been taken over.

I strongly disagree.  I think the "protector" is one of the strongest archetypes (never mind "frame.")

It is so powerful because it is a way to be both strong and caring.  It's the way that men, in particular (Lakoff's Strict Father), can feel good about caring without seeming weak.  

It's exactly what the Right uses in most of its campaigns:  We must go to war to protect the country we love.  We must change our laws (Patriot Act) to protect our homeland from terrorists.  We must ban gay marriage to "defend marriage."

I don't think the environmental protector frame has failed.  It's just been outgunned lately, ignored in the media, distorted by rightwing.  

If anything, it was underused in the past presidential campaign (as it also was tragically underused in the 2000 campaign).  

It can be used simply and powerfully and co-opt what has been the rightwing's turf:

Protect America the Beautiful, the natural beauty that makes this great country so special.  PATRIOTIC.
Protect our traditional pastimes of hiking, camping, fishing, hunting.  FAMILY VALUES.
Protect God's creation and its treasures and pass it along to future generations. RELIGIOUSLY REVERENT, GOOD STEWARDSHIP.
Protect the health of ourselves and our children (and unborn children from mercury poisoning, for example.)  PRO-LIFE.

So don't give up this "protector" frame.  Keep hammering with it -- and keep getting the facts out.  The facts are shocking and in our favor.

There's also one other important frame to offer -- the bold visionary "can do," "man on the moon" kind of call for America to lead the way in new clean energy, forging energy independence, warding off global warming and powering another century of prosperity at home and abroad.  Right now, the Apollo Project and Tom Friedman's "geo-green" proposal are good examples. We can use more.

The strong and caring protector, the bold and optimistic pioneer -- these are powerful American archetypes.  They are what we look for in our leaders, and especially our president.  That's why it's vital not to give up on electoral politics.  The last election was very close, notwithstanding the devastating disappointment many felt.  It was not a referendum on environmental issues, which barely registered in the debates.  (Even Bush claimed to be "a good steward of the land" -- in other words, an environmental protector.)  This is the kind of message we need our next candidates -- and ourselves -- to articulate front and center.