Showing the cluelessness of the True Believers, the NY Times Politics pages (say, how many trees that could suck up CO2 are killed every year to publish the Grey Lady?) goes stupid: Seeking to Save the Planet, With a Thesaurus
The problem with global warming, some environmentalists believe, is “global warming.â€
The term turns people off, fostering images of shaggy-haired liberals, economic sacrifice and complex scientific disputes, according to extensive polling and focus group sessions conducted by ecoAmerica, a nonprofit environmental marketing and messaging firm in Washington.
Instead of grim warnings about global warming, the firm advises, talk about “our deteriorating atmosphere.†Drop discussions of carbon dioxide and bring up “moving away from the dirty fuels of the past.†Don’t confuse people with cap and trade; use terms like “cap and cash back†or “pollution reduction refund.â€
EcoAmerica has been conducting research for the last several years to find new ways to frame environmental issues and so build public support for climate change legislation and other initiatives. A summary of the group’s latest findings and recommendations was accidentally sent by e-mail to a number of news organizations by someone who sat in this week on a briefing intended for government officials and environmental leaders.
If you have to reframe your talking points, it might not be the talking points, but the issue itself. Climate change didn’t work, because too many people understood that it was code word for “oh, sh*t, what do we call it when it is freakin’ cold outside, people can’t get to work or school because of snow and ice, and people are dying?” Granted, more people on average die because of heat then cold and winter weather on average every year (by about 170 to 59,) but, it can’t be helped that some people are too stupid to know to come inside and drink water during the summer. More people die each year falling out of bed (450.)
Playing the name game will not change American views that put AGW dead last among issues that are important. It won’t change American opinions that say “no” to raising energy prices – followed by a raise in price on everything – for an issue that even the Believers do not practice what they preach. And it won’t change a climate that seems to be stagnant, if not cooling.
And, seriously, people might take you Climahysterics more seriously if you did actually practice what you preach, particularly your leaders, who lead extravigant lifestyles, jet all around the world, and make lots of money pushing AGW, all the while telling everyone else to sacrifice.
The terms “global warming” and “the environment” used to be fine and are fine, by themselves. What made the terms become radioactive was the ideas behind them. The words “global warming” call to mind economic sacrifice because that’s what activists have been demanding. If they switch to new words, they may buy themselves a few years by the temporary confusion caused in people’s minds, but eventually – if the activists don’t stop demanding economic sacrifice – people will realize that the new words mean the same thing as the old words, the new words will become radioactive, and activists will have to find even newer words. Changing the words is a short-term fix. The long-term fix is changing the ideas behind the words.
And the word Green used to imply environmentally friendly policies, products, and activities, but, now, the Climahysterics have turned it into a joke, too.
