|
||
Speaking with Americans about Energy and Climate: From the Think Tank to the Kitchen Table
Over 30 years have passed since the OPEC oil embargo of the 1970s led to a severe recession and warned Americans just how vulnerable our economic and national security are because of our dangerous dependence on foreign oil. Yet over three decades later, we still have no coherent energy policy -- and in fact, the United States has tripled its dependence on Middle Eastern oil in the interim.
Over two decades have passed since Americans began to hear that burning fossil fuels and pouring their byproducts into the air was producing changes in the earth's atmosphere and the face of the globe that, if allowed to continue, could have calamitous effects not just on some exotic species in Fiji but on the exotic species we call Homo sapiens. Yet in the meantime, Homo has not been so sapiens, at least in the United States. Scientists have just reported that the problem has accelerated past their worst-case predictions, particularly since China has become America's rival in carbon emissions from coal-powered plants. Yet in the intervening decades we have done nothing -- other than to spear the Kyoto Treaty we took the lead it writing -- while other countries have tried to move forward as best they could without American leadership (or at least participation).
So what explains a discrepancy of this magnitude over decades between the considered judgments of the reality-based community and public policy? Clearly many factors are involved, and we will not endeavor to list them all. One, of course, has been the campaign of disinformation by the energy industry, such as BP's superbly crafted "BP -- Beyond Petroleum" ads, replete with windmills and inspirational music, which don't quite advertise the fact that the company's actual diversification doesn't extend much beyond regular gas to premium unleaded. Then, of course, is the coal industry's multi-million dollar campaign to sell "Clean Coal -- America's Power." (If you believe that one, we have some clean pigs looking for a home -- preferably in your backyard, not ours.)
But there's another reason for the discrepancy between scientific knowledge and the level of public urgency it takes to make reform not only the right thing to do but the politically smart thing to do, especially for legislators from conservative or swing states and districts where skepticism runs as high as unemployment: We haven't been talking with the American people in their own language.
Instead, too often, as with so many issues about which progressives are passionate, we tend to speak to voters in our language -- the language of parts per million, carbon emissions, carbon sequestration, and the like -- and expect them to make the translation. We would do well to make that translation ourselves. If we can't convince the public to share our concern about what is, and our enthusiasm for what could be, perhaps it's our fault, not theirs.
The point is not to "dumb down" our messages. It's to increase their emotional intelligence.
As on so many progressive issues, we rely on science to develop the best public policy, but we too often then rely on intuition -- usually borne of what we find persuasive in talking with each other (i.e. with people who already agree with us) -- in trying to garner public support for that policy. We should be using science not only to develop our policies but to increase the likelihood that they will be enacted.
The best scientific evidence suggests that the best way to win public support for comprehensive energy and climate reform is not by presenting the public with the best scientific evidence. It is to talk with Americans in plain, emotionally compelling language that speaks to their values and concerns.
Over the last several months, we conducted an extensive research project with over 2000 voters designed to bring the language of energy and climate reform from the think tank to the kitchen table. Over the course of three phases of the research, we developed, tested, and refined messages so that they spoke to the American people about these issues in ways that address their values, concerns, and aspirations.
What we found is that when we talk in plain, values-oriented language, we solidly move people, motivate them to action, and beat the industry's well-crafted messages by 20-40 points. What resonates with people are not specific fuel standards or the mechanics of how a cap and trade system would work or the precise tonnage of carbon emissions per year. What moves them is a set of themes that bring the issue home to them: economic prosperity and jobs; energy independence and self-sufficiency; clean, safe, natural sources of energy that will never run out; getting pollution under control and making polluters pay for their own messes so we protect our health and the health of our children, preserve the majesty of our land, and reverse the deterioration of our atmosphere; harnessing American ingenuity and restoring American leadership; and protecting our legacy to our children the way our parents and grandparents protected their legacy to us.
And we learned that one striking fact that gets people to sit up and take notice -- for example, that the 10 hottest years on record have all occurred since 1990 -- is worth a thousand policy descriptions. In fact, more often than not, the second fact we offered in a message actually reduced the impact of the first.
The research is rooted in contemporary neuroscience and in both a scientific and clinical understanding of what psychologists and neuroscientists call networks of associations. Networks of association are interconnected sets of thoughts, feelings, images, metaphors, and emotions that are unconsciously active in people's minds and brains at any given moment (e.g., as they read, watch, or listen to messages on both sides about energy or climate change). Consider one very important example: Every time we used the term "global warming" in a message, we "lost" men and moderate Republican voters who were otherwise willing to hear us out. Why?
First, global warming is such an abstract concept that it's hard for most people to get worked up about it unless they're activists (like "universal health care," "reproductive health," and so many words in the progressive lexicon).
Second, "warming" accurately reflects a long-term trend observed by scientists, but it is the wrong word to include for nonscientists in a phrase intended to denote something destructive, because its connotations (the thoughts, images, metaphors, and emotions associated with it and hence unconsciously activated by it) are largely positive. "Warmth" is associatively linked to getting in from the cold, to hearth and home, to comfortable feelings, mom and apple pie -- and, for that matter, to stepping into the ocean on Memorial Day weekend and being pleasantly surprised rather than unpleasantly chilled.
Third, the term itself connotes linear increases in temperature that people expect should be observable to them. As a result, to many Americans, "global warming" is disconfirmed every time there's a cold spell. For example, a few weeks ago, during an unseasonably cool spell on the Gulf Coast of Florida, one of us overheard one man say to another, mockingly, "So I wonder what Al Gore would say about this, huh?"
We can, of course decry his ignorance. Alternatively, we can prevent this kind of misconception -- and its attendant emotion, which becomes hardened against any facts we try to throw at it -- by choosing our words wisely, taking into account the way our minds and brains naturally work. It's hard enough to beat an energy industry with billions to spend on advertising. There is no reason to add the brain to our list of political adversaries.
But it's not just individual words or phrases that matter. It's the narratives in which those phrases are embedded. We aren't talking about hypothetical ways of framing the discussion that should, theoretically, move voters. We're talking about narratives that empirically do move voters, particularly the "swing" voters who didn't start out quite sure whether they favored the industry's disingenuous message of "all of the above" or a new way forward to clean, safe forms of energy -- or who weren't quite sure they believed in climate change. In fact, those narratives made such a strong difference that by the end of a 20-minute online survey in which voters heard both our narratives and strong counter-narratives from the other side, voters shifted by 24 points on whether dealing with our changing climate and weather patterns should be a high or very high priority, from an initially small majority of 55% to a strong majority of 79%. That's change we can believe in. And it included Democrats, Republicans, and Independents.
As in other recent polls, we found that when we use resonant language and imagery, voters are confident that comprehensive energy reform can help create a new manufacturing base so we start building things in America again. The public sees innovation and the potential for renewed prosperity in the development of new clean energy technologies. They recognize that renovating and refitting our homes and businesses to conserve energy creates jobs that can't be outsourced. They think it's time we start exporting energy, not jobs, and sending American dollars to Middle America, not the Middle East. They resonate with the idea that people who show personal responsibility and take the initiative to conserve should be rewarded with tax credits, and they believe it's time we start imposing and enforcing strict pollution limits again on corporations that pour chemicals into the air and make polluters pay if they exceed those limits. They intuitively grasp the difference between sources of energy you have to burn to turn them into power and those that can be harnessed from sources like the sun or wind without damage to our air, land, and lungs.
We began by trying to understand the complex and often contradictory networks of association that constitute public opinion across dozens of existing polls (e.g., why most voters are concerned about climate change but then rank it a low priority when given a list of potential governmental priorities). We then listened to everyday voters' concerns in focus groups, watched how a representative national sample of 1000 voters responded to specific words, phrases, and narratives, and then polled another 1000 voters with a refined set of messages. And in so doing, we learned something at once complex and remarkably simple.
When Americans make a simple distinction, captured in the network of associations illustrated below, they prefer comprehensive energy reform that addresses climate change over well crafted conservative or industry messages by roughly a 2:1 margin. (In the illustration, solid black lines suggest that one concept implies another, dotted lines suggest that one contradicts the other, blue connotes positive associations, and red connotes negative associations.)
Click here for a larger chart
This network suggests a clear narrative: We have a choice. We can move toward the safe, clean fuels of the 21st century -- energy from the sun, the wind, and the ground (whether the geothermal energy at the core of the earth or the biofuels that actually gain us ground on energy) -- fuels that will never run out, don't have to be burned to produce energy, and will create new jobs and help us restore prosperity. Or we can continue to rely on the fossil fuels of the 19th century, which will run out, cost more and more over time to produce less and less, take jobs with them, threaten our economic and national security, and destroy the land and air as we extract and burn them -- pouring billions of tons of pollutants into the air, including those that are destroying our atmosphere and altering the delicate balance of nature. We can restore American leadership, or we can abdicate it. We can lead the first technological revolution of the 21st century the way we led the major technological revolutions of the 20th, or we can leave the task to Europe, Brazil, or China. We can confront the forms of pollution we face today, including those that are destroying our atmosphere, changing our weather patterns, and damaging our lungs -- just as our parents took on the pollution that confronted them in the 1960s and 1970s -- or we can ignore our sacred responsibilities to our children. That is our choice. It isn't a hard one.
Drew Westen, Ph.D., is Professor of Psychology and Psychiatry at Emory University, founder of Westen Strategies, and author of "The Political Brain: The Role of Emotion in Deciding the Fate of the Nation."
Celinda Lake is President and Founder of Lake Research Partners, and one of the most well-respected pollsters in the country.
This research was undertaken in collaboration and under the sponsorship and guidance of ecoAmerica and the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC). For a description of the complete study and results (entitled, Climate Truths: Making the Necessary Connections), contact meighen@ecoAmerica.org, or fkoe@nrdc.org.
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
Appalachia can not stand anymore of the progress and prosperity thanks to the new and improved, clean, green, hybrid coal industry. Wise County, Virginia is being bombed, blasted and bulldozed right into 3rd world America ! http://www.wisecountyissues.com/?p=138
When talking with older right wingers, I say is that the Pentagon is convinced of global warming and sees it as a dangerous destabilizing force throughout the world. I also tell them that global warming will be of the greatest benefit to Russia.
If the Obama admin., Gore et al, and so-called green corporations ("they") would be sincere about stopping global warming they would make it affordable to "go green". Instead they make it more expensive, eg. I just purchased a Toyota Yaris - not a hybrid, because I couldn't afford a hybrid, also at the grocery store, organic foods, "green" cleaners and or products cost sometimes up to double the amount of regular products. If "they" would be worried about global warming the govt. would subsidize "green" and drop the prices so people could afford them. AGW is a theory (hence it's called AGW theory) that might be a fact, but "they" really don't care or "they" would make wind/sun energy cheaper so people would insist on using it, instead Cap & Trade is going to increase the price for "green" energy. Nobama, et al, are just interested in gauging the consumer so he can pay for his pork agenda.
Well written. However, the proponents of either side of the debate - "doomsday scenario global warming camp" and "disdain for science crowd" - have adopted a "my way or the highway" approach. As an educated and enlightened man I refuse to be swayed by either side. My reasons are as follows:
Insisting that only fossil fuels cause global warming is as idiotic as holding on to the view that the sun revolves around the earth. The end of the many Ice Ages could not have been as a result of fossil fuels. Cycles are present in nature too.
Picking and choosing when to rely on science is a tool of emerging neozealots. What does it cost us to spare a thought to consider other forms of energy sourcing? I am not shocked because in some American Universities, the fallacy! of dating carbon dating is taught!!
Personalize the message, people relate. Talk in abstract scientific terms, eyes roll.
Climate change is real. Signs of it are everywhere from the arctic ice melting much more rapidly than had been expected to the severity and frequency of odd weather patterns. Islands have started disappearing under rising sea levels.
People are losing their homes and livelihood. Wild fires, droughts, floods, hurricanes, etc. have taken a toll on businesses: farmers, ranchers, agriculture, fishermen. Sea life is diminishing at alarming rates. Large portions of our oceans are known as dead zones. Aside from food shortages, the costs are growing astronomical.
It affects our health. Allergies once considered seasonal aren't anymore. Many say allergies bother them 12 months a year. Even people who had never been afflicted before are now complaining of allergies and sinus infections. Asthma and other bronchial infections are increasingly more common and worsening. As the earth temperature rises different dis_eases will quickly spread wide and far.
More and more scientists believe we can still lessen the effects, but the time to reverse climate change may have already passed because no politician is willing to enforce the drastic changes actually needed.
The signs are undeniable, but apparently the warnings are not enough to move people to act.
Therefore if it takes speaking in terms that convince people to make changes, Iam all for it.
And with the events of the fall of 2007 people are to trust what is said? That corporations are to be believed? That there is some good in it for the people by leaders? Hear is what I have heard. You (*meaning the individual) build it and we the government will pay you for it through corporations who will profit off it. Example question. Do local electric companies of homeowners of solar powered homes buy extra electricity at the same rate as they sell the electricity to others. Why not at a profit the homeowner has original expenses. Why doesn't the electric company lend the money to convert to the home owner and pay it off in extra electricity. Will local electric companies service and do maintenance on free batteries and storage of electricity the homeowner creates. No this is we build you profit. It's what we see.
The combative tone of some posts here. The distracting side issues of various pet solutions. The refutation of scientific data, often without citation. The ad hominem dismissal of the authors for doing psychological research or opinion polling rather than being atmospheric chemists or climatologists. Ironically, all reinforce the authors' main point! That arguments are seldom made on the basis of so-called objective evidence. Even among scientists: read the classic study by Thomas Kuhn. To reiterate, this article is about HOW presentations are made, the framing, NOT about climate change in itself. But since they also argue that abstractions are inadequate in the political arena, they use as an example what is called "global warming." An expression which is mushy and soft to some people; when presented in different terminology, their opinion changes. The message is to recognize that. Not to attack anyone without a scientific education as deficient. The Right became very skilled at appealing to to the resentment of people who have experienced the sniffing dismissal of the educated elites. Until economic elitism became the focus of righteous anger. Note to liberals: "I told you so" is not a helpful response. My qualifications for my claims-- decades of life as a blue collar worker; late in life a science degree. I do wish all citizens understood the method of scientific argument. But since that is not so, we have to speak to each other in language we all understand.
Actually its quite simple why people are getting bored with the whole global warming "issue". You can only cry wolf so many times. And not only have environmentalists been crying wolf for years, they've been doing it in ways that contradict each other. Global warming (90's) vs global cooling (70's). And in so many ways (population overload, nuclear winter, climate change, etc.)
Bottom line, you can only scare the crap out of people for so long. After a while they get tired of it.
You state
The best scientific evidence suggests that the best way to win public support for comprehensive energy and climate reform is not by presenting the public with the best scientific evidence. It is to talk with Americans in plain, emotionally compelling language that speaks to their values and concerns.
Yet you then suggest that a group should not use the "best scientific evidence" to make their point known to the population?!
Without providing facts, you are simply "preaching to the choir." You have to get people to think to overcome their "emotional" baggage. To get people who "feel strongly" about a subject, you must provide facts to get them to alter their perception and to change their emotional response.
Making an "emotional" plea is fine and dandy, but I don't think it is the way to alter the way people think or perceive the facts. Meaningful and long-term change comes from brain-washing (amazing how much of this is going on) and education based on facts.
Of course, that is just my opinion. An emotional plea to "save the planet" with no other reason given makes me laugh. If you don't know why it "should be sold," I don't think you should be trying to "sell it."
"As in other recent polls, we found that when we use resonant language and imagery...."
Imagery???....when I hear that term that sounds to me like obfuscation.
You need to look at the actual scientific evidence. It is very murky at best....that is why there are many not very excited about this. Sure, there is virtual consensus that some moderate warming has taken place but to come to the conclusion that it is absolutely man made cannot be concluded with high certainty with current available information. At least many feel that it is not certain enough to justify fundamentally altering our economy. That sounds like a recipe for disaster.
NOT "virtual consensus." There IS scientific consensus; that warming is ocurring, that it is accelerating and that it is anthropogenic.
Attempts at pointing to misunderstood words like "hypothosis" and "theory" is just handwaving.
Opinion of many authors depend on wrong suggestion of many scientists that global warming depends from greenhouse gases.
My conclusion-it is shame for scientists. They overestimate or underestimate the same GHG, water vapor, clouds, absolutely forgetting to look at energy to evaporate water and water droplets, which we have in atmosphere.
It is not only carbon dioxide or other GHG.
It is winds and their direction, which send hot air to cloud level.
It is reflection, which send short wave back to space.
It is huge convection forces.
It is cloud formation.
It oceans streams.
It is properties of water and ice.
It is water evaporation, which take a lot of energy on the ground level and send vapor as lighter gas to cloud level, where infrared radiation escapes to space. Mankind activities changed not only carbon dioxide, which is not main player in Nature, but only tilling of land changed reflection, convection forces, evaporation and cloud formation.
Claiming only carbon dioxide will direct our activities in wrong direction.
Only tilling changed reflection, evaporation, cloud formation, convection forces.
We need to use all natural properties to reduce effect of global warming especially cooling effects of water vapor, water droplet, water, and ice.
It is huge mistakes if our Government, senators (as Democrats, as Republicans) solutions depend from this kind of science.
If you want a balanced view of this try this link:
http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/
I welcome debate on what information is contained in this link. There is a consensus that man is only responsible for about 3.4% of the increase in CO2 concentration.
I would need to be convinced very forcefully that man is the sole cause of climate change over natural causes given this information.
Dear Bladernr1001, Thank you for very good link.
You wrote: “I would need to be convinced very forcefully that man is the sole cause of climate change over natural causes given this information.”
I will try to convince you by this information: “Since the Northern Hemisphere contains the greatest proportion of landmass and land heats more than oceans the Northern Hemisphere summer season causes significant increase in the global mean temperature”
They provide information how men activities change reflection, evaporation, cloud formation, convection forces and wind direction. In these directions, NOT GHG I SEE REAL POSSIBILITIES TO MAKE differences.
“Drew Westen, Celinda Lake Psychologist and neuroscientist; Emory University Professor”
Please looks who are trying to sell global warming problems? It is mostly psychologist, neuroscientists, actors, columnists, Senator and many others who burried real sciense in flood of words.
Most computer modeling looks at water vapor as static element in air, when they trapped infrared radiation and heats air.
Water vapor is the most important greenhouse gas, more important, than carbon dioxide. Molecular weight of water vapor is 18, nitrogen-28, oxigen-32, carbon dioxide-44. Water vapor is lighter than almost all others gases.
It takes 339 kcal of energy to evaporate 1 kg of water. It takes one kcal to heat one kg of water on 1º C.
Evaporation of waters on sea level cool the air. Temperature in Hawaii is always 70-85F, in Texas in summer time 85-110F
It take 80 kcal of energy to melt one kg of ice, when its temperature will be 0º C.
In atmosphere we have water vapor, small droplet of fog, clouds and droplets of rain. If water vapor as GHG will trap infrared radiation that energy will evaporate droplets of fog etc., and cool the air lifting up lighter water vapor close to clouds and beyond, where heat can escape to space.
If you will look in dynamic water vapor actually cool the air.
Droplet of rain will solve carbon dioxide and others GHG and clean the air better than any attempt to reduce emission.
Fair enough, I don't think a Psychologist should be regarded as an expert. On the other hand, I feel pretty confident that you are not a Scientist either, given that what you have written here is utter nonsense. The scientific academies of virtually every advanced nation in the world has stated that changes in climate caused by human burning of fossil fuels is a near certainty.
"a near certainty" it's gone from an absolute, to a near certainty..... when you have a family to keep warm, drive to school, feed, clothe, educate, etc., it's difficult to make wholesale changes to the behavior, because some believe it's a "near certainty"
Dear SK9, opinion of many authors depends on wrong suggestion that global warming depends from greenhouse gases.
My conclusion-it is shame for scientists. They overestimate or underestimate the same GHG, water vapor (we need 339 kcal to evaporate I kg of water), clouds, absolutely forgetting to look at energy to evaporate water and water droplets, which we have in atmosphere.
It is not only carbon dioxide or other GHG.
It is winds and their direction, which send hot air to cloud level.
It is reflection, which send short wave back to space.
It is huge convection forces.
It is cloud formation.
It oceans streams.
It is properties of water and ice.
It is water evaporation, which take a lot of energy on the ground level and send vapor as lighter gas to cloud level, where infrared radiation escapes to space. Mankind activities changed not only carbon dioxide, which is not main player in Nature, but only tilling of land changed reflection, convection forces, evaporation and cloud formation.
Claiming only carbon dioxide will direct our activities in wrong direction.
We need to use all natural properties to reduce effect of global warming especially cooling effects of water vapor, water droplet, water, and ice.
It is huge mistakes if our Government, Senators (as Democrats, as Republicans) solutions depend from this kind of science.
Dear Dale07, Al Gore in my opinion is wrong in overestimating role of carbon dioxide.
Conservation of energy has it limits
Wind and solar energy sources need batteries and greed to provide energy, when sun and wind can’t.
As you can read in Tim Flannery book “The Weather Makers,” 2006:
1. “ Forests contain much more carbon than does grass, and they also absorb more sunlight (having different albedo) and produce more water vapor, which affects cloud formation”.
2. “Mature forests don’t take in much CO2 they are in balance, releasing CO2 as old vegetation rots, then absorbing it as new grows. For these reasons the world largest forests-the coniferous forests of Siberia and Canada, and the tropical rainforests are not good carbon sinks, but new vigorously forests are.”
If old trees will anyway rots it is nothing wrong to cut old trees and use wood energy especially if we can sequestered all GHG from that power plants as nutrition to grow forests.
It takes one ton of coal to generate an average of 2500 kWh of electricity.
It takes less than 1.6 ton of wood to generate the same amount of energy.
In huge power plants we are loosing 80% of heat energy in vain.
In small power plants we can use as electricity, as heat.
Only if we need forests we will grow them. Interests of our economy, our health, and health of planet must to be combined.
"Plain, value-oriented language" is a contrdiction in terms. Worse it sound like Obama robospeak.
If you are trying to say it is easier to communicate with people in everyday language rather than trying to impress them with jargon they say it.
http://www.greenteethmm.com/dailystirrer.shtml#death_of_free_speech
unfortunately, too many americans feel a sense of entitlement. their definition of freedom includes being able to do whatever they want. this selfish mentality is running our country into the ground.
there is no longer a community spirit in america. it is all about selfishness. the media supports it, the govt is corrupt with it, and all major corporations are built upon it.
do you think positive propaganda will overcome it? uh, no. it is as simple as the argument you have when trying to get a toddler to go to bed when they don't want to. they will procrastinate and make excuses as long as possible....until they are forced. parental force is administered in the interests of the child. govt. force must be administered in the interest of the public.
right now govt force is administered in the interest of the elite ruling class. i'm waiting for Obama's change, but he's the only sheep dog in a pen filled with wolves. we sheep are getting plundered.
Believing everyone is "entitled" to a home, health-care, welfare, food stamps, etc. is running the country into the ground. You're right!! entitlements are destroying the country.
uh, no.
if you are a functioning member of the American Workforce, then YOU DESERVE healthcare, affordable housing, and social programs for when things go bad, like a lay off.
sure, people abuse the system, and they should be weeded out. but that doesn't make the programs wrong.
what is destroying this country is the ELITIST GREED that is running rampant thanx to deregulation by the Bushie regime.
if EPA standards weren't relaxed by Bushie, to the benefit of his BIG OIL buddies, we'd not be so dependent on foreign oil which sends billions to the Saudis and other terrorists, so his BIG DEFENSE buddies can keep selling weapons to them and us.
if banking regs weren't relaxed by Bushie, we'd not be paying a fee for every single thing we do at the bank, and paying usurious interest rates.
if NAFTA and other "free trade" deals weren't in place, as well as tax breaks for corporations that do business outside the country, we wouldn't have had offshoring of all our manufacturing jobs.
stop being a parrot and see what's really happening. it's a class war, the elite against the working class, and we are losing.
look, you don't gain support by demonizing peoples behavior. The environmental movement has belittled behavior to the point the average Joe just doesn't care to listen anymore. I hear more jokes targeted at the movement than ever before. Give fossil fuel credit for all the great progress we have enjoyed in the last 100 years and people my chose to listen, but making fossil fuels evil is foolish. The environmental movement has been foolish.
You could approach the subject with a different choice of words, but I think the problem revolves around credibility. The word "crisis" wore thin. Like my neighbor said, everything's a crisis. His point was well taken. The average man on the street just doesn't believe the word anymore, taking a softer approach is a backward approach. If the American public is disrespected, and they have been, trying to make the language more down home won't change a thing. There is no crisis, and more Americans are realizing this fact.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
