Well I have decided this week to go after a topic that a commenter suggested. Global Warming is up on the framing block this week, and while it can be done, we will have to dig deep to make this acceptable to all frames. Climate change is the current way we on the left have attacked this issue and while it is better than global warming, we have to find some way to make it resonate with Billy Bob.
You see the problem arises when we look at the history of "Global Warming". Conservatives (read:the GOP) made a lot of hay when they pointed out that winters were awful cold to be claiming that the planet is getting hotter. Well we countered that with the facts, but the fact sometimes just do not resonate with the average voter when it does not fit in their frame. In chapter 1 of "don't think of an elephant!", by George Lakoff, we find this bit of helpful information
Neuroscience tells us that each of the concepts we have--the long term concepts that structure how we think--is instantiated in the synapses of our brains. Concepts are not things that can be changed just by telling us a fact. We may be presented with facts, but for us to make sense of them, they have to fit what is already in the synapses of the brain. Otherwise facts go in and then they go right back out. They are not heard , or they are not accepted as facts, or they mystify us: Why would anyone have said that? Then we label the fact as irrational, crazy, or stupid. That's what happens when progressives just " confront conservatives with the facts." It has little or no effect, unless the conservatives have a frame that makes sense of the facts.
So you see hitting conservatives over the head with the facts just does not work in most cases. It works like this: We say there is a man made thing called global warming. The conservative goes outside and it is cold. His brain says it is cold but we say the planet is getting warmer - which is factually correct, but the brain wins over the facts because the person is cold. I already stated that calling it climate change is the best idea to date, but can we do better? Sure we can. We need to frame the arguement in what a lot of coservatives understand. Most everyone in the United States has some form of an air conditioner, so I personally reccommend we start there.
You see the basic principle of an airconditioner is this:
The cold side of an air conditioner contains the evaporator and a fan that blows air over the chilled coils and into the room. The hot side contains the compressor, condenser and another fan to vent hot air coming off the compressed refrigerant to the outdoors. In between the two sets of coils, there's an expansion valve. It regulates the amount of compressed liquid refrigerant moving into the evaporator. Once in the evaporator, the refrigerant experiences a pressure drop, expands and changes back into a gas. The compressor is actually a large electric pump that pressurizes the refrigerant gas as part of the process of turning it back into a liquid. There are some additional sensors, timers and valves, but the evaporator, compressor, condenser and expansion valve are the main components of an air conditioner.
Although this is a conventional setup for an air conditioner, there are a couple of variations you should know about. Window air conditioners have all these components mounted into a relatively small metal box that installs into a window opening. The hot air vents from the back of the unit, while the condenser coils and a fan cool and re-circulate indoor air. Bigger air conditioners work a little differently: Central air conditioners share a control thermostat with a home's heating system, and the compressor and condenser, the hot side of the unit, isn't even in the house. It's in a separate all-weather housing outdoors. In very large buildings, like hotels and hospitals, the exterior condensing unit is often mounted somewhere on the roof.
(emphasis: mine)
So since everyone either has an air conditioner or a refridgerator, they probably will understand that you can not make cold air without some hot air as a by product. While we could go into the laws of thermodynamics, we are trying to convince Bubba that there is such a ting as climate change/ global warming. You have to get on their level and break it down for them. You can use the pictures & animations found at nasa to demonstrate, but I feel that you should approach it from a air conditioner aspect first. Like this:
Bob man you know how an air conditioner works right? Hot air comes out the back and cold air into the house or car? Well global warming is the same shit. Air gets hot melts them ice caps in the polar regions, right? So now you gots cold air going up in THE air, with moisture and shit. Now the jet stream, hell we all know about the jet stream, it pushes the cold air around the globe. So what I am saying Bob is that is why it is cold as hell around here man! Cold ass polar ice caps melting and what's worse is that ice up there is what helps keep the ocean temperature down too. You know how ice reflects the hell out of sunlightl; you know how when it snows you have to wear shades when you go outside? Well since there is less ice to reflect the sunlight the water gets hit by the sunlight and sheeeeeeeat you know how a puddle after a summer rain heats up - same shit cept on a bigger scale.
So that gets you in the door. Then you pull out the data. The facts about the smaller polar ice caps like in the nasa link I posted and the data about the ocean temperatures rising. Now all this may be for naught, as the Republicans have a 20 year head start training Bubba to not believe this. We have to keep bringing up the issue though and as such I propose another term -- PLANETARY PERIL. Sounds scary huh? Well it is supposed to be. I wanted so bad to use that and although it is scary the GOP would find some way to turn us into chicken littles with it, so a big J/K on that. Stick with climate change :)
The reason is that we are having more frequent and stronger storms around the globe. Of course the hard part is convincing anyone that even if we went totally green today that it would have any effect for the next 100 years. That is why in conjunction with Climate change we have to push the jobs issue of Green energy. We can push that. That is why Lakoff calls it a "Strategic initiative" because it is more than just a one issue horse. (Like in the old term you gotta race with the horse that brung ya") Lakoff points out correctly the following:
1) A jobs issue - it would create 2-4 million jobs.
2) A health issue: Less polution means less childhood asthma.
3) A clean water, clean air issue.
4) A species issue: it would clean up environments & Habitats.
5) A global warming issue: We would be making a contribution lowering greehouse gases without a program specifically for global warming.
6) A foreign policy/ national security issue: We would no longer be as dependent on Middle Eastern oil.
7) A third world development issue: Every country, no matter how "underdeveloped", can make its own energy if it has the appropriate technologies. Such countries would not have to borrow money to buy oil and pollute their environments. And they would not have to pay interest on the money borrowed. Furthermore, every dollar invested in energy in the third world has a multiplier effect of six.
So in conclusion, I hope that the preceding data was helpfull in persuading "Bubba" to come to the darkside (because we have cookies). While not a hole lot of "new" information, I hope that it helps to frame the debate a bit better. You see it is not just about global warming it is about JOBS as well. The key for us to regain the moral and factual high ground is twofold: Have a plan & work the plan. Thanks for reading and hope you enjoyed.
Update: Sorry I forgot to include the link to the appolo initiative so you can see what the last blockquote was talking about, so HERE