At Grist, Heather Smith writes—Here are the latest market-tested words for selling climate action:
Explaining climate change to people has been described as “the problem from hell.” It’s hellish because it’s a risk-perception problem, and that is something that humans already have trouble with. Humans evolved to deal with risks that mostly fall into the “will that eat me/can I eat that?” category. Climate change’s risks are hard to perceive, distant in time, and bound up with the weather — something that humans already struggle to keep track of, and have for centuries outsourced to a small cast of record-keeping nerds.
In the last few years, though, I’ve seen an uptick in research in the delicate art of telling people that they are accidentally disrupting the troposphere. Just in the last year I’ve written about how to talk to conservatives about climate change, what theclimate movement can learn from the war on smoking, how more education makes people more likely to believe climate change is happening (except in the U.S.), howhope is a critical part of motivating people to do something about climate change (even if we’re all doomed), and why that means no one likes climate change journalism (except for you, dear reader).
Now, there’s a new climate change communication report in town, just in time for the holidays. The cheerfully titled “Let’s Talk Climate: Messages to Motivate Americans” comes courtesy of ecoAmerica (a climate-related market research nonprofit), Lake Research Partners (a political strategy research firm), ASO Communications (a political language research firm), and the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC). A report like this is less about big-picture strategy than it is about language tactics. It’s also a sign that communication about climate change — a problem that was discovered by scientists and publicized by people with a high level of science education and general eggheadedness — is becoming less and less science-focused and more like conventional political messaging.
Tweet of the Day
Blast from the Past
At Daily Kos on this date in 2004—US of A Headed for Economic Armageddon?
If you’re like me, you take economic prognostications with a salt shaker (and a back-up) close at hand. Whether it’s ultra-optimist Harry Dent explaining in The Roaring 2000s how to get rich as the Dow climbs to 35,000-41,000 by 2008, or uber-bear Robert Prechter explaining in Conquering the Crash how to get rich while everybody else is in the soup line, I’m skeptical that – for all their expertise - either these guys or a bunch of others just like them really knows what’s going on any more than my NASDAQ-happy ex-broker did on March 10, 2000.
In some cases, of course, blind ideology of left or right directs many economists – amateur and pro - to their conclusions. Supply-siders and paleo-Marxists both suffer from the same disease: our theory says this is the way things should be, so, despite contrary evidence, this is the way things will be.
Less ideologically encumbered players do what they can with the tools they’ve got. But modeling the interwoven global economy is akin to modeling the details of climate change. We know what causes a rise in average temperatures or a burst of inflation, but predicting exactly when, how much and all the consequences is, let us say, less than a precise science.
With all these caveats in mind - and fresh off reading about the growing U.S. debt, plus recent news (recounted in some Diaries) about China's attitudes toward the U.S. economy - I was not heartened by this: Economic 'Armageddon' predicted
On today’s Kagro in the Morning show, Greg Dworkin joins host David Waldman to round up the latest in trendy headlines, in which Trump is a liar. Turkey downs a Russian warplane; BLM protesters shot. Armando calls in to discuss Vitter’s backdated refugee letter and how the laggards at CNN continue celebrating the Trumpster fire.
High Impact Stories • Top Comments