Repackaging Global Warming (Surprisingly, Not “Climate Change” This Time)
And speaking of fibbing, someone’s fingers slipped when entering recipient e-mail addresses and a draft memo outlining a … rebranding campaign for global warming got wider distribution than intended. From Friday’s New York Times; h/t Drudge.
The problem with global warming, some environmentalists believe, is “global warming.”
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.”
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.
“Cap and cash back”. Can we get a time frame on the second part of that phrase?
Other suggestions from the prematurely released memo.
“… remember to speak in TALKING POINTS aspirational language about shared American ideals, like freedom, prosperity, independence and self-sufficiency while avoiding jargon and details about policy, science, economics or technology,” said the e-mail account of the group’s study.
Mr. Perkowitz and allies in the environmental movement have been briefing officials in Congress and the administration in the hope of using the findings to change the terms of the debate now under way in Washington.
“Change the terms of the debate” now that we’ve figured out that cap-and-trade alone will cost every U.S. household $3,100. (We’re still waiting for the other wallet … er, shoe to drop on all of the “green energy” and “green jobs” promised by the administration.) What we haven’t figured out is how placing $366b in the hands of a public body not exactly renown for its fiscal restraint or dependability – i.e., Congress – would stop global warming, even if man is responsible for the phenomenon.
Why is all of this couching and reshaping necessary? Isn’t it clear to everyone that “the planet has a fever” and that cap-and-trade legislation is “the moral significance equivalent to that of the civil rights legislation of the 1960s“?
Environmental issues consistently rate near the bottom of public worry, according to many public opinion polls. A Pew Research Center poll released in January found global warming last among 20 voter concerns; it trailed issues like addressing moral decline and decreasing the influence of lobbyists.
Even behind moral decline? Yikes. Certainly, then, in their effort to raise consciences, advocates are justified in resorting to
pretty lies steroid-juiced euphemisms.