Anyone who's cringing at what's been happening in the town halls on health care won't feel any better after reading this post in the Wall Street Journal's Environmental Capital blog on groups mobilizing over the climate bill – using the health care fracas as a model.
Don't get us wrong – there's absolutely nothing wrong with mobilizing for or against any legislation, on any topic. And since Congressional town halls are classically an August phenomenon, we'll be spared some of the live theatre when Congress takes up the issue again this fall.
But the debate on the sweeping climate change bill poses at least as much potential to get out of hand as health care, for three reasons:
The public has a hazy grasp of key facts. We're not talking about whether global warming is real or not, although there are people who don't buy that it's real. We're talking about even more basic information. Public Agenda's Energy Learning Curve™ survey found that four in 10 Americans can't name a fossil fuel. Nearly half can't name a renewable energy source. Survey questions about energy or global warming have disturbingly high levels of "don’t know" answers.
Surveys show majorities of the public support taking action on global warming and energy policy, and several surveys show majorities favor cap-and-trade bounces. That support bounces around, however, depending on how the questions are worded. And even among energy issues, global warming is behind energy prices and energy security as public concerns.
The public's not getting what they need to wrestle with this issue. On health care, one of the biggest problems seems to be that people don't have basic facts and clear options. Without facts, you can't judge what's real and what's not. Without options, presented clearly and fairly, you can't decide what you're willing to sacrifice for change and what's a dealbreaker.
Sounds a lot like health care, doesn't it? And unless leaders embrace a different kind of discussion, the climate bill debate may turn out just as ugly.
- Scott Bittle's blog
- Login or register to post comments
2 comments for "The Climate Debate: Health Care All Over Again?".
1. We talk about CO2 all the time, but what about water vapor?
Hi Scott - After reading your blog posting I'm starting to become convinced that people know even less about global warming and energy than your survey captured.
The reason is because it seems like the emphasis on global warming is all about CO2 levels. I realize that this is a primary component, but so is water vapor, right? And with icecaps, glaciers and sea ice melting more (as well as more rapidly) every year, shouldn't there at least be some emphasis here?
I don't think ANYONE recognizes, let alone understands, that there's a strong connection between what melting does to generate more water vapor, and thus more greenhouse gasses (since water vapor itself is a primary greenhouse gas). All they know is that C02 levels are helping to induce more warming and thus more melting. Therefore the circular connection is broken since no one realizes that the cycle actually closes on itself.
Is there any way that you guys at Planet Forward and Public Agenda could work this into your studies and educational campaign?
2. How to educate people
I think much of the problem has to do with the exposure people have to main stream, "sound bite" media - it's far easier to get "drill, baby, drill" - 3 keywords - into people's conciousnesses, than 50 words on why rising carbon dioxide levels are going to kill everything on the planet.
Perhaps Climate Change action proponents should start yelling "Gas, baby, Gas" - maybe that would get attention. Or 140 Twitter characters.
It's Sales 101 - anyone who has ever attended a corporate sales training program will know the basics of sowing FUD - Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt. It's a strategy designed to sell your product against that of the competitor. Corporations know how to do this very effectively, and are successfully using it to manipulate the public debate.
It's time for climate change activists to fight back using the gut, instead of trying to appeal to people's brains - that's the only sure way to win this debate. Gut reactions win over rational reactions most of the time. (read up on The Old Brain).
Corporations have their sales people read "Sun Tzu - The Art of War". The executive revision, of course. Never doubt for a second that corporations view this as a war for their survival - which, of course, takes precedence over planetary survival, or the human good in general - and one which they must win, at any cost. Winning is what they do. Even if it means taking down the entire biosphere (recall the story of the frog that gives the scorpion a ride across the river?).
Saving the Planet isn't in the Corporate Charter. Maybe it should be.
While I don't necessarily advocate PETA's strategy, their ads showing blood pouring from runway models' fur coats sent a strong "gut" message. No doubt about what they were advocating.
Perhaps it's time climate change activists started taking the gloves off.
Why 3 keywords, by the way ? Another corporate sales tactic using the so-called "Rule of Three" - things that come in threes are inherently funnier, more satisfying, or more effective.
I'm all for a reasoned debate of the issues, but that can only happen on a level playing field, and the vested interests will make sure that doesn't happen. They will play the game of war to win - and tilt the field to their advantage.
If you're still waiting for someone to read the "Queensberry Rules", I think the fight's going to be over....