Framing Global Warming

I'm going to disagree with you here.

The problem in the global warming debate isn't framing. It's the constant muddying of the waters by denialists and the deep-rooted desire of many people not to have to change their lifestyle or sacrifice.

As long as public opinion is shaped by the denialism industry, and people happily go along because it prevents cognitive dissonance and change, we're screwed. We can have beautiful compelling framing, and I think we already do, but it still won't make a dent. As long as you're telling people what they don't want to hear, you're going to be at a disadvantage, and a large percentage of people will listen to anyone who offers a counter message that affirms their belief that they're already perfect and don't have to change a thing.

So, unless your framing can tell people what they want to hear, or subvert the denialists telling people what they want to hear, you're screwed. The other alternative is for enough environmental catastrophes occur that people are forced to change their minds which historically is where most regulation ultimately comes from, but we'd prefer to avoid that for once in our country's history.

I think what we need instead is really what your book does. We need a concerted assault on denialism, and a fundamental rejection of the arguments of denialism, that allow nonscientific arguments into public policy debates. It's not about framing the debate, it's about rendering the tactics of our oponents useless, through education and/or mockery of the denialist tactics. It's by doing things like getting the OTA back, so that everybody can't bring their own scientific facts to the table in a purely partisan way.

Framing the issue of anthropogenic global warming is a work in progress but seems also to be garnering some positive results.

One by one, corporate and company spokespersons are saying the earth is warming and inevitably there will be a federal law aimed at mitigating emissions of global warming gases. How the implementation of that law proceeds is presumably left to the marketplace.

How about engaging Wall Street and those companies with a great deal to lose -- possibly everything -- as the earh climate changes and seas rise.

Imagine how the US petrochemical --and for that matter the world-- petrochemical industry will respond to sea level rise and more frequent and intense tropical storms damaging and innundating their petrochem facilities--- all at sea level (built behnd the ports) here and everywhere.

The old saying...you can run but you cannot hide...applies to companies on the Big Board. Impoverished nations alrady know they will be hit hardest.

Maybe environmentalists have carried the message as far as they can and it will be up to the corporate world to see its ox is being (will be) gored; e.g., the reinsurance industry. Corporate messages to Congress cut across all lines while enviro messages are heard by believers.

quitter writes:
The problem in the global warming debate isn't framing. It's the constant muddying of the waters by denialists and the deep-rooted desire of many people not to have to change their lifestyle or sacrifice.

I have to agree. In my discussions with friends and members of my congregation, I find that highly educated people are aware of neither the strength of the consensus view nor the deliberate muddling by big-money fossil fuel interests.

I try to tell them they are seeing something analogous to big tobacco's approach to science in the 1970s or therebouts. I'm not sure whether that's having any impact on them.

We who are working at the grass-roots level need to educate on both the science and the systematic deception that is continuing even now.

Click my name for an article that I sometimes find useful -- at least when I am talking to readers rather than TV viewers.

Fred, I think you need to update that article, in particular these final paragraphs:

"Is Flannery wise to devote so much attention to his estimated five percent chance of the failure of the Gulf Stream before the end of this century? Will that approach also bring badly needed attention to the more likely, less serious but still concerning climate scenarios? Or will it provoke attacks from critics that this book is the work of a left-wing ideologue and harm its credibility?

"As a middle-of-the-political-road scientist who thinks policy-makers should consider Flannery's views quite seriously, I hope for the former but am afraid it will be the latter, largely because of two other aspects of the book. First, Flannery chooses to use the language of the Gaia hypothesis to discuss the intricate interconnections of Earth's atmosphere, land, and oceans. That will give many readers an uncomfortable sense that the book belongs on the "New Age" shelf.

"Second, he makes an argument that the present tragedy in the Darfur region of Sudan is the result of a climate-change induced competition for resources rather than genocide. He may be right, but including that small, nearly irrelevant point will have an unfortunate side effect: It will open the door for contrarian critics to suggest that the author has a hidden agenda."

They need to reflect what actually happened to Flannery in the aftermath of the book's publication. The shift in public opinion in Australia has been so vast that of course it can't be pinned to him or his book, but in any case I think we have to conclude that he turned out to be very much in synch with his times.

Also, your last point about Darfur is very strange. What's wrong with the concept that environmental stress due to climate change can lead to conflict? It certainly has plenty of times in the past. As well, there is plenty of evidence that the Sahel drought can be pinned at least in part to global warming.

Steve,

Thanks for the link for Flannery's award. I had heard about it, but I didn't think to add it as a note to my review (click my name for link). I need to decide whether to do that or to let the review stand as written last year.

I wasn't saying that Flannery was wrong about Darfur, but my comment was about whether he should have included it in this book. My reviews try to take the viewpoint of readers other than myself. In this case, I was thinking about the people Flannery needed to persuade about the likely impacts of global warming. If they view him as having a political agenda, they will be more likely to dismiss his more important points, particular his discussion of "Magic Gates," or small-scale tipping points that can add up to big trouble in the future.

It may help you to understand why I included that comment if I note where the review was published: The Dallas Morning News and the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette. In other words, it is for people who like to look at the Sunday newspaper to find good books but who may not quite understand the fuss about this issue.