Written by Taj Schottland, a member of the College of the Atlantic delegation to the Copenhagen Climate Negotiations this past December
When discussing climate change, liberals love to cite facts. We believe facts can’t be argued with. Scientific facts are neither political manipulations nor individual opinions. They are well-reasoned, neutral statements that will convince any rational person – provided the person understands them. This is what we believe. But have you ever tried to “lay out the facts” to a climate skeptic? You probably didn’t get very far. Likely, regardless of what you said, they countered with some unfounded argument. In the end they weren’t swayed and you were left frustrated because they couldn’t see the logic behind your brilliant argument. Why did your facts fail to convince them? After much thought, I believe I have an answer.
George Lakoff, a renowned cognitive linguist and political thinker, asserts that people reject facts that are outside the frame with which they see the world. That frame, or framework, is often created by values that are instilled during childhood. The frame ensures that we see the world, and only the world, that agrees with our values. In other words, we block out facts and reasonable arguments to ensure that our core values are justified. The frame alters the reality that our senses detect.
As a result, facts that convince a liberal will not convince a conservative. To convince a conservative that climate change is an emergency worthy of their attention, we have two options: We can either attempt to change the conservatives’ framework or we must tailor our argument to fit within their existing framework. Continuing to argue only from our liberal framework will not help us achieve our aims.
Of our two options, it would be a massive undertaking to change the way conservatives view the world. While this might be an ideal goal, it is not realistic. It is not as challenging, however, to tailor our argument so that a conservative can see our arguments as logical: we must specifically shape our arguments to fit their framework.
I developed the following suggestions on shifting climate change discourse after reading Lakoff’s Don’t Think of an Elephant. (I highly recommend this book). In each instance I state the current, ineffective phrase that we use now, followed by more appropriate language for our target audience.
Climate Change > Climate Security
Climate change doesn’t sound bad; maybe winters and summers will be a little warmer. Climate change means much more than slightly warming seasons, but does the term “climate change” accurately portray the catastrophe we are heading towards? No, not in any shape or form. Climate change and global warming are weak terms when used on their own. We need stronger phrases. We should begin using a term such as “climate security” to explain what we are advocating. Instead of saying “climate change is a problem that must be dealt with,” we should say that “when we do not have climate security, we jeopardize our economy, our safety, and the prosperity of our children’s generation.” The second sentence conjures up a more severe picture that demands immediate action. Conservatives and climate skeptics, though not always one and the same, are usually ardent about protecting the security of our country. We need to engage them using appropriate language. One could also state the above sentence in the positive: “We must secure and stabilize our climate in order to protect the safety of our nation, its economy, and its future generations. We must allow our children to have the same rich opportunities that we currently benefit from.” The people we want to convince generally think in terms of strength, security, and power. When we remember this, we communicate more effectively.
Emission Reduction Targets > Energy Advancement Targets
These two phrases mean the same thing yet evoke different thoughts. Emission reduction targets sound as though they will harm our economy because companies will be forced to lower production rates or install new costly technologies. Americans are generally proud individuals who want their country to continue its growth as a superpower. They certainly do not want to hear about the need for reducing our growth. Therefore we must talk in the positive. Energy advancement is not about less of anything. It is about more. We need more energy and more production to sustain our economy; it is, therefore, important to advance our energy technologies – our energy advancement.
“Cap-and-Trade” > Harnessing the Power of the Market
People believe that energy costs will go up and mechanisms, such as cap-and-trade or cap-and-dividend, will hurt our economy. The rise in energy costs will supposedly hurt energy companies as well as consumers. Instead of discussing mechanisms, we must talk of “new open markets that will allow us to invest wisely with the expectation of reliable returns.” This sounds far better than creating a mechanism to offset emissions. And it appeals to free market conservatives – a valuable target audiance.
These examples show how to reword individual phrases to make them more palatable to conservatives and independents who do not yet support climate change initiatives. There is also the need for broader reframing. Shifting the entire debate is substantially more difficult than revising catch phrases. However, if we begin to use different terms and phrases that better portray our opinions, we will naturally begin to reframe the big picture. We should no longer talk about the “environmental effects” of climate change but rather discuss “the danger to humans if we fail to achieve climate security.” We might think it is our duty to protect the climate and the environment, but conservatives will never buy this argument because protecting the environment falls outside their current framework. Thus it is ineffective and a waste of time to advocate an environmentally based argument. Human safety, on the other hand, is a value that we all share. This value must be emphasized.
All of my rephrasing is targeted at conservatives who place national security high on their list of values. This is a generally effective value to emphasize. Undoubtedly some liberals will cringe at my suggestion to use terms associated with war and national security. They say we must shift away from the war paradigm that grips common day rhetoric. I disagree. Liberals generally tend away from speech idioms of war because it goes against their values. But conservatives understand and become energized when they hear these particular buzz words. Now is not the time to emphasize our own values and forgo any chance of converting moderately conservative climate skeptics. It is not wrong to exploit the terms that the Right created. It is an intelligent and effective strategy.
However, this isn’t the only way to reframe climate discussions. Many great minds puzzle over how to reframe climate issues in order to gain even broader public support. There is no consensus yet on how to do this. Discussing climate change in terms of security and human safety will help attract the attention of certain people. But we must also target other audiences, always keeping in mind the values of the audience we are targeting.
My overarching suggestion is to know your audience and then use language that appeals directly to them. Don’t use the language of a liberal when targeting a “family-values” conservative. Use their language: discuss values, respect, and family importance. When talking with a conservative war veteran, talk in terms of national security. But always remember, the words you would naturally choose to talk about climate change are words that would convince you. You don’t need convincing. A conservative will not be swayed by arguments that would sway you. Identify the values of your audience, and target those values relentlessly. We must stop using arguments designed by and for liberals and begin using language that fits within the framework of our target audience. Only then will we gain broader public support.
Finally, we will not develop an overall messaging campaign overnight. It is not realistic. It will take time, but that is ok. Our messaging campaign will commence when we begin using more effective language. Our new phrases will slowly gain popular momentum. Conservatives will listen to us because our arguments will no longer be “liberal” arguments. We will be using language that fits within their framework. It is time that our voices are heard by the people who need to hear them.
It’s funny seeing the old Soviet techniques of renaming concepts to somehow change their real meaning. Of course your belief is that conservatives can’t smell bullshit if you squirt a little perfume on it. I can certainly count on you having missed all the derision heaped on your first attempt at turning Global Warming into Climate Change. Go right ahead then and reword every tenet of your faith. Conservatives and all other normal people will respect you even less than they do now, if that’s possible.
There is no more convincing or debate. The Game is over. You have no chance of ever passing any significant legislation or crafting a worldwide treaty to make your eco-facist, misanthropic fantasies come true. Global warming is just another front in our Cold Civil War anyway. Our side consists of tens of millions of people who work, pay their taxes, and obey the law. We’ve been told by the left again and again that we are are stupid and evil, that we’re terrorists by gathering and protesting. Fine, we’ve picked sides. Now we can fight. We promise to do the fighting at the ballot box, but please, refresh your knowledge of American history.
BTW, we’re all for energy security. Drill here, drill now. Develop all of our oil sands. Build a hundred nuclear power plants. Bulk up refining capacity. Oh, and don’t try to engage any soldiers. You might want to use your arms again someday.
Except that windmills aren’t an energy advance. They’re so old we don’t even know who first harnessed the wind for power. Probably the guy who invented the fire – it was his second cousin that invented the windmill.
Harness the market. Giddieup. Yeah mule.
Great post Taj.
I’m encouraged to see that people are still examining the ways in which climate changed is framed, and perhaps more importantly, that people are developing new frames to communicate the impacts of the phenomenon to a wider audience. The construction of one capture-all frame is virtually impossible. I have written previously about the framing of climate change and conclude that we need multiple framings. You can find some of my thoughts at the following URLs:
http://therealewbank.com/2009/06/11/framing-climate-change-policy/
http://therealewbank.com/2009/09/21/a-new-direction-for-climate-campaigning/
How to frame policy responses effectively is another challenge for climate and renewable energy advocates. Take the Australian Government for example. It frames its climate change policy as a carbon pollution problem and has proposed a cap-and-trade scheme as the appropriate policy response. Unfortunately for the Government, the policy is poorly understood by the public and has failed to gain the support necessary to pass the Senate.
I have presented ‘nation building’ as an alternative way to frame climate and energy policy in Australia. The idea of nation building is not unique but Australians have a unique admiration for government projects that strengthen the nation. Investment in renewable energy and associated enabling infrastructure are central to our response to climate change and its ability to be framed in terms of nation building is a strategic leverage point. It is capable of winning a greater degree to public support than the complex market mechanism the Rudd Government—and many climate advocates—seek to implement. This approach demonstrates the potential to mitigate and adapt to our changing climate without the phenomenon being the central frame for policy responses.
An American version of the approach is most visible in the work of The Breakthrough Institute and others who present a global ‘clean energy race’ as a national challenge worthy of a public policy response. The strategic lever appeals to those who want the United States strive towards greatness and have a keen sense of national competitiveness. Engaging in a clean energy race will require the US to invest in deploying clean energy and fully utilise its capacity for innovation. The potential for gaining public support and action from Congress is greater with the clean energy race narrative than policies centred on reducing carbon emissions.
Getting the United States to engage in the clean energy race is a win win. It will ensure the increased innovation and deployment of clean energy. Decarbonising our global economy and reducing the price of renewable energy for all.
Keep up the good work mate, and I look forward to reading more of your posts in the future.
Great post. I’ve also just finished reading Don’t Think of an Elephant, and reccomend it to absolutely everyone.
A few comments on your post:
- Lakoff also said to never compromise on your politics, stand up for what you truly believe in, and speak to your values. So for those of us in the climate movement who support solving climate change but who don’t believe in cap-and-trade as an effective or equitable mechanism to solve it, we shouldn’t compromise on our ideals and adopt the framing you suggested above. Those of us who do support cap-and-trade might also consider whether promoting cap-and-trade actually creates a wedge in our own movement, dividing us rather than uniting us, and thus not being practical in bringing about our aims.
- He also said that we should never engage in shouting matches, sarcasm or insults, always hold the higher ground. Thus, don’t be worried, nor react to, the first two commenters here.
- It’s important to realise that the far right has been practicing conservative ‘re-framing’ to advance their agenda for decades now, and it’s time that we got clever and did the same thing. The difference between us and them is that we are discussing re-framing openly and in public, as on this forum, but they’ve been doing it behind closed doors. Thus it opens ourselves up to criticism of ‘manipulation’ more. But this isn’t an argument for not discussing re-framing publicly. We have to discuss it publicly, because that is in keeping with our values of openness. There is nothing wrong or manipulative in talking about re-framing – all that it is about is learning how to express and articulate our core values, rather than constantly preaching ‘the facts’ without activating our values also. The core values of our movement are the same values that most people share, and it’s time to start talking about them publicly.
Nice work!
“Those of us who do support cap-and-trade might also consider whether promoting cap-and-trade actually creates a wedge in our own movement, dividing us rather than uniting us, and thus not being practical in bringing about our aims.”
I could just as easily say those who oppose cap and trade should consider the same thing. Especially since the anti-cap and trade crowd often misrepresents and attacks the position of pro cap and trade greens in the media and through demonstrations. Believe it or not someone can be for cap and trade, and for other solutions as well to help solve the problem.
Interesting article though
Matt – perhaps I didn’t explain myself clearly enough. I don’t have a position on cap-and-trade, though I am sceptical, I am not pro, and not anti. I can see the economic rationale behind it, being an economics graduate myself, but believe that it is too open to rent-seeking behaviour and it is an ‘offset’ mechanism, meaning that wealthy nations/companies can avoid taking domestic action for longer, as long as they can pay someone else to do it for then. But then, offsets are hard to verify. Questions of forests vs fossil fuels, revenue distribution, compensation, and whether the underlying motivation is moral principles or selfish profit (without wanting to imply that all profit is selfish). Lots of complicated issues.
That being said, for other more complicated reasons, I do support the US bill being passed this year, if at all possible. If it doesn’t pass, I hope that other mechanisms can be considered in the next stab at the problem.
So, back on topic, I fully agree with you that both sides should consider whether their actions divide the movement or unite, and if they come up with the result ‘divide’, they should figure out an alternative approach. That doesn’t mean that people should give up their support of cap-and-trade, but they should be careful that they understand and can articulate why they are supporting it. Those reasons should be somthing greater than ‘because it’s the only method that the right will support’, and should be able to stand up to fact-based criticism. If those reasons exist, then proponents should go about building movement unity around cap-and-trade, rather than labelling the ‘anti cap-and-trade crowd’ as misguided, which just serves to divide the movement further. Similarly, the anti-crowd could do a lot better at building unity around their positions, too.
You should read the Lakoff book – particularly the last chapter about principles that unite the movement.
As to your comment “Believe it or not someone can be for cap and trade, and for other solutions as well to help solve the problem,” I think the answer to that is demonstrated by the fact that I acknowledged that there are people ‘in the climate movement’ who do support cap and trade.
Fair enough Anna, my misunderstanding. I’ve always thought that the content in any solutions framework is only as strong as the movement behind it.
To articulate myself better, I might be supportive of cap and trade legislation passing the Congress, and I accept that I might have an ideological difference there with some activists. I don’t necessarily think that one difference needs to be divisive for the overall movement. They might not join me at a rally for a cap and trade bill, but I might not join them for a rally opposing it, but there are other areas where we can find more common ground. For example, opposing mountaintop removal, moratorium on new coal plants, more investment in clean energy, ending fossil fuel subsidies, community power and local solutions etc. The movement should have a big enough tent to tolerate and accommodate different perspectives for reaching the common goal.
As a longtime advertising creative director and writer, I’m glad to see this awareness of message building on the scientific side of the climate issue. The reason is simple: the energy industries are spending millions each year to research messaging that denies science and that resonates with conservatives. Now it’s time for the good guys to fight fire with fire.
Lefties are not at all good at speaking the language of conservatives and moderates they try to persuade. Scientists are even worse at explaining their opinions to lay people. All that must change. The situation is getting dire, and the energy industries are fighting like the trapped animals they are.
The right has the playbook. Find effective messages and then enforce them among your own people. The political right killed the estate tax by reframing it as the “death tax”–an attack on responsible family business–and then enforcing that term in their own dialogue. In at least one national Republican HQ, anyone who so much as uttered the phrase “estate tax” rather than death tax had to put a dollar in a jar.
That is the kind of craft and discipline the environmental movement needs. If you think this goes too far, don’t worry; we’ll never be as good at it as the big-money, anti-tax righties are anyway!
Taj -
Great post, and thanks for the reference to the Lakooff book. (I plan to buy it tomorrow.) I am a postmodernist psychotherapist also interested in who controls language, whether it be medical, political, or social. I came across your post and I am impressed and encouraged by your solid case backed by a compelling author. I know the importance of reframing language and the fact that those who frame the conversation and control language have more influence on public policy and media access. You are supporting not only full time committed climate activists – but also those of us in different fields who care about the subject.
Keep up the good work – you are inspiring.
Jenny Burtis
Brattleboro,VT
Those people who enjoyed this post might also enjoy this, which I wrote to continue the discussion: http://itsgettinghotinhere.org/2010/02/23/framing-were-going-to-solve-it/
More coming soon.