There is a debate, subdued at times, between various approaches toward changing the planet to the better. In many ways, my viewpoint (on the optimist side) tends toward the ‘enviro-capitalist’, thinking that we can work to structure the economy to make the right choice, the easy (and preferred) choice. There is a challenge between using financial mechanisms as a tool to move toward a A Prosperous, Climate-Friendly Society and going overboard.
The line can be thin … or thick.
Spend a few minutes to watch GreenSumption and decide whether to laugh or cry.
And, then, ask the question of yourself and society:
Yesterday’s House Principles on GW Legislation focused on a wording, a framing issue with the opening letter. One that is serious but, as well, quite likely one that the three signatories might well agree with on ‘principle’. There are, however, there are elements of the House “prinicples” that violate core GW principles.
Principle #1: Scientifically Sound. That is core to me. Whatever Congress does should be in line with what the scientists say. As Representative Waxman says, “We must listen to the science .” Sadly, however, the letter to Nancy Pelosi seems to fly in the face of this imperative.
Representatives Markey, Waxman, and Inslee released Principles for Global Warming for Earth Day. This press release includes a letter that they jointly sent to Speaker Pelosi today. While there is much tremendous and substantive material within this release, one has to wonder about some of the messaging. To this reader, it seems off-target and to miss core messages in some arenas. This post will take an initial look at this package.
One of the greatest joys in the 2006 election, amid the triumph of capturing both the House and Senate, came with now Congressman Jerry McNerney‘s defeat of Richard Pombo in CA-11. Pombo was in real competition to be the worst member of Congress when it came to energy and environmental issues. On the other hand, McNerney knows energy, clean energy
During his career in wind energy, McNerney’s work contributed to saving the equivalent of approximately 30 million barrels of oil, or 8.3 million tons of carbon dioxide – the main greenhouse gas – as well as other harmful pollutants.
In 2008, across the country, we have the opportunity for similarly stark shifts from Energy Dumb to Energy Smart elected officials.
On this 38th Earth Day, you (and I) can take action to help ensure that the 39th Earth Day will be better than today’s by sending some $.01s toward Energy Smart/Earth-Friendly challengers across the country. [Read more →]
The Coal Industry came a callin’, complaining that I had not adequately examined their “principles” in commenting on the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity‘s (ACCCE‘s) new advertising campaign that bears an unnerving similarity to wording from Senator Obama’s Presidential campaign and from Al Gore’s We campaign. Their comment (complaint):
By concentrating on the name change, as you do, you glossed over the REAL news about the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity:
For the first time, we have over 40 coal-related companies agreeing to federal regulation of carbon dioxide, provided our 12 principles are met.
Is this “REAL news” or is that “provided” an opening for a subordinate clause that is dominant?
Amid continuing fervent denials in the Republican Party, such as Senator James Inhofe (R-Exxon), prominent Republicans speaking forcefully on Global Warming can be a refreshing change. This is why, for example, John McCain gets praised, even though his ‘solutions’ would likely doom humanity to catastrophic climate change. Recognizing reality is so rare. Even rarer, truth on Fox.
Kilmeade: But here’s the thing, Governor: A lot of people, a lot of Republicans in particular don’t believe there is Global Warming, there is Climate Change. They don’t believe the green technology and we talk to a lot of them on an every day basis. You’re a Republican, what do you know that they don’t?
Schwarzenegger: Well, I think they know the reality. I think they’re just trying to protect business. And in the end, they’re hurting business. Because we’ve proven in California that you can do both, that you can protect the environment and protect business. Even though in 2003, when I ran and I said that, people didn’t believe it but then we started building the ‘Hydrogen Highway’ and passed the Green Building Initiative and the Million Solar Roof Initiative and the Ocean Action Plan and AB32 to make a commitment to roll back our greenhouse gas emissions and the low carbon fuel standards, all of those things that got world recognition, I think people realize now, ‘wait, this does not hurt our economy, this is actually a big plus’ because we’re creating jobs through green, clean technology.
April 21st, 2008 · Comments Off on Husband or Wife on framing environmental issues
How should environmental organizations and prominent “environmental” politicians speak to supporters when it comes to environmental issues and when it comes to the Lieberman-Warner Climate (In)Security Act? This is a serious issue that can get some blood boiling. Privately, some have sent complaints that Plumbing Lieberman-Warner’s Shortfalls Doesn’t Meet Scientific Requirements wasn’t fair since it did not fully quote all the materials that a group sends out, cherry-picking from opening paragraphs to supporters without dealing with all the qualifications that were in the following paragraphs.
It is time to be a bit sexist for a moment, let us think about what message framing looks might look like in a domestic setting.
If a husband were to tell his wife: “Wow, honey, you’re really beautiful but you might look better if you lost a few pounds” that might be a disaster of an approach 99+% of the time. The first words would disappear and a fight would ensue … time for the marriage counselor.
If a wife were to tell her husband, “Wow, honey, you’re really handsome but you might look better if you lost a few pounds” then he probably stops listening with “but” and would smile brodly as he opened the next beer and opened another bag of chips.
Which is the right model from domestic life to talk about in terms of those who receive mass mailings? I see all these press release/such that say ‘L-W is wonderful’ and, by the way, we need to strengthen it. If we’re talking “wives”, then the focus will be on “by the way”. If we’re talking “husbands”, then focus will be on “wonderful”. Reality is, there are both on the receiving end, but there are far too many “husbands” for this to be the best framing approach.
As one who has voiced, repeatedly, criticism of S-2191, the Lieberman-Warner Coal-Subsidy Act, it is important to occasionally return to facts (rather than rhetoric) to underline its weakness. Thus, climate legislation Principle #1 is “Scientific integrity”, that climate legislation is line with what science says is required. Let’s plumb the depths of Lieberman-Warner’s failures just a little bit in this domain and highlight how some institutions are greenwashing those failures. [Read more →]
The McCain campaign realizes that they are in trouble, that it is critical for McSame McCain to blur the realities of McFlip, McFlop, McSame McCain to try to create appearance of quite substantive differences between himself and George W. Bush, to blur the reality that across issue after issue, it truly is McSame McCain.
McCain will … drive a triangulated contrast among himself, the Democratic nominee and President Bush.
Critical to creating an appearance of room between George the W and his anointed successor: Global Warming.
Differences between Bush and McCain will be “discussed at great length,” promises one aide.
“He’ll be direct about it. He’s never gratuitous, never disrespectful, but there are going to be policy breaks where it couldn’t be clearer.” Two areas of difference McCain will highlight: global warming and spending.
Yes, McFlip, McFlop, McSame McCain is different from George W Bush when it comes to Global Warming. Despite George’s recent speech, at least McFlip has one foot in reality when it comes to acknowledgment that Global Warming is a reality. Yet, there is always the McFlop. And, when it comes to McFlop, McSame McCain is about inaction.
Just as George W. Bush emphasizes technology as the solution to all our problems, so does McFlop McCain.
Just as George W. Bush emphasizes voluntary measures as a solution to Global Warming, so does a ‘reformed’ McFlop McCain, who has argued that his legislative approach for (an inadequate) cap on emissions would rely on voluntary, not compulsory, measurs.
Just as George W. Bush emphasizes nuclear power and (less deadly) “clean coal” as tools to deal with Global Warming, so does McSame McCain.
And, if elected, the differences between McSame McCain and the current Administration might be hard to find. As Joe Romm has so clearly laid out in No climate for old men: Why John McCain isn’t the candidate to stop global warming (long version), McSame McCain’s judges would not be strong advocates of climate protection; the Republican bench for appointees to federal agencies are not full of people who are closely associated with reality when it comes to climate change; and … well so many other things.
While the McCain campaign will try to blur reality, even though the words might be different, a McCain Administration would almost certainly turn out to be more of the McSame when it comes to substantive progress to solve our quite real Global Warming challenges.
Complicating factors …
Sadly, too many are contributing to the blurring of the realities of John McCain when it comes to Global Warming.
For example, this simply reinforces the political ineptitude of strongly supporting / praising Lieberman-Warner. Do we really want Democratic Party leaders (Senators) standing up praising Joe Lieberman just two months before he goes before the Republican convention to stand up in support of John McCain?
This crass political judgment puts aside the point that L-W utterly fails to meet the three basic principles that should guide Global Warming legislation.
* Scientific guidelines
* Polluters Pay
* Social Equity
Lieberman-Warner fails significantly on all three measures.
McCain’s proposals, to date, are worse than Lieberman-Warner. Bush’s are even worse. Bad, Worse, and Worst.
McCain campaign plan: blur McSame McCain into something good by making “not worst”, but simply “worse”, look like something good.
This has led, for example, Al Gore is playing in helping to blur the substantive differences between the Democratic nominee (whether Obama or Clinton) and McCain. For example,
Gore’s spokeswoman, Kalee Kreider, … was complimentary about the presidential candidates, including Republican Sen. John McCain of Arizona.
“Former Vice President Gore thinks that both candidates are very strong. Both of them have offered plans to address the climate crisis … as has Senator McCain,” she said.
“It’s a real turnaround to have candidates on both sides of the aisle offering, you know, solutions and plans to the climate crisis.”
Yes, John McCain acknowledges reality, that Global Warming relates. But he has shown himself unwilling to do anything serious to live up to his rhetoric. Al Gore needs to realize that the question is no longer ‘does someone acknowledge reality’ but whether they are willing to take action to deal with it. To date, John McCain is failing that test.
In any event …
This matters.
This is serious.
This is now not just survival of a livable planet at stake, but crass political concerns and positioning …
With crass political position at stake, maybe it can break through primary mania and get some attention.
When considering the reporting on Climate Change, there is a real problem. Is this a “science” or a “policy”/”political” issue? If the first, then there is a different approach than if the second. “Science” reporting will have respect for fact and truth, with “objective” being associated with truth, with the more serious effort to pay attention to the substance over the style (even if the style of reporting might be done in a way to attract/keep readers … most important is not necessarily reported over (perceived) most interesting). “Policy”/”political” will have more cautious wording to provide “objective” reporting that seems not to take sides. There will be a search, an effort to provide “balanced” reporting, even if that balance leads to distortion against objective facts and what science tells us about Global Warming.
Sadly, when it comes to Global Warming, too much of the reporting is driven from the “policy”/”political” angle, with “fair and balanced” seeming to be the motto, rather than true and truthful. And, we see that in press reporting on George W Bush’s mockery of a speech related to Global Warming earlier this week. Such as in the Washington Post article that seemed to go out of its way in caution. For example, Bush’s “target fell well short of what most leading scientists say is needed …” Well, quite simply, which “leading scientist” believes that George Bush’s is even near to what is required? Silence is the response, because there is none.
William Douglas at McClatchy seems to have navigated this with greater ease. The title captures the article’s substance:
Senator 
beautiful but you might look better if you lost a few pounds” that might be a disaster of an approach 99+% of the time. The first words would disappear and a fight would ensue … time for the marriage counselor.
for 