Broadening the Climate Coalition
David Roberts of Grist is determined to puzzle out the obstacles to action on climate change. Last week, he argued that a fierce column of hairy-chested conservative white men (CWM) blocked the path to victory.
If climate activists wanted to win the war against climate “deniers” (the rationale being that “deniers” are the main impediment to political action and wider public acceptance of man-made climate change), then climate concerned folk needed to stop acting like a wimpy 97 pound weakling.
It’s the Charles Atlas theory of climate action. Time to man up, advises Roberts, and take on the brawny (CWM) bully. Or, following Roberts’ logic, here’s another way to put it, also courtesy of the famous muscleman.
The Charles Atlas climate action plan would put some steel in the spine of the climate concerned community, so they could at least breathe fire at the “deniers,” like Roberts does here:
For my part, when I see people denying facts and bullying scientists in order perpetuate the dominance of fossil fuel interests that are killing people and threatening my children’s futures, I am inclined to tell them to go f*ck themselves. That won’t resonate with their social/tribal perspectives, but that’s because I find their social/tribal perspectives repugnant and worthy of social censure. I want to beat them.
This week, Roberts has a different approach that doesn’t involve stamping out “deniers.” It’s somewhat similar to the U.S. military’s “soft power” counterinsurgency strategy in Afghanistan, the goal of which is to win the “hearts and minds” of the clannish, battle-weary Afghan population. (It’s not worked out so well, but that’s another story.) The analogy is imperfect, but here is the crux of what I would consider the soft power approach to winning over climate fence-sitters, according to Roberts:
One thing that changes people’s minds is receiving signals that trusted people and institutions are in agreement on an issue, that it’s no longer contested, that it’s socially “safe” to accept it. This is why the right’s strategy has been so brilliant — they haven’t convinced the public that climate is a hoax, they’ve just managed to maintain the impression that it’s contested, controversial.
Good idea, but unfortunately it’s based on a faulty premise (that the broader public still sees climate change as contested). In fact, Roberts himself seems to have forgotten what he wrote last week:
The poll numbers are consistently on climate hawks’ side, but their support is shallow and fickle.
Now that much is true, and the rest of Roberts’ argument in his latest post, which suggests “bringing in nonpartisan voices” and widening the circle of communicators “beyond climate scientists and leftie activists,” strikes me as a winning strategy.
It’s that sort of coalition-building that broadened the Civil Rights movement to all sectors of society. Again, an imperfect analogy, but Roberts and others have argued that there is a moral imperative to climate change. If so, then you make it on the merits of your case, not by throwing sand back at your opponents.
“bringing in nonpartisan voices” and widening the circle of communicators “beyond climate scientists and leftie activists,” strikes me as a winning strategy.
Except these people are not likely to ring the alarmists bell.
If Romm, Roddy, Rabett etc, ‘Man Up’ any more than they are currently, I’ll just have to take my leave from this bloggy pastime.
It will not be pleasant.
Sashka,
That would be interesting to find out. And even if some didn’t, that still doesn’t preclude them from being concerned about climate change or making a moral case for action.
<i>widening the circle of communicators “beyond climate scientists and leftie activists,” strikes me as a winning strategy.</i>
The problem isn’t communicating the problem…the problem is that much of the communication related to ‘solutions’ is ‘pie in the sky’.
Of course people can be concerned and support some reasonable action and reject the alarmism at the same time. Basically, I have people like Freeman Dyson in mind. Among the non-scientific types, consider Fuller or Revkin. In my opinion (I hope I am objective) anyone who is to the left of them on climate is either distinctly partisan/leftist or out for lunch. I’m unaware of any counter-examples and I don’t believe this is a coincidence.
harrywr2,
I tend to disagree. The climate debate (as it’s reflected in the general public sphere and in the climate blogosphere) roughly breaks down to two areas: the science and the solutions.
Of course, they get mashed together all the time, for obvious reasons.
I got referred to Grist because Roberts came out for a bottom up approach, but couldn’t figure out how to comment there. The widening the circle of communicators is an admission that the progressives have become a drag on the process. Still, he clings to the deficit model. Doesn’t anybody follow the social sciences?
Sashka’s position in #1 is counterfactual. Many of the leading consensus scientists are avowedly conservative.
Richard Alley is a declared Republican. Kerry Emanuel calls himself a conservative. James Hansen calls himself a conservative.
The roots of the climatological community are in meteorology, oceanography, and geology. These fields served agricultural, aviation, military and mineral interests. There is no history of radicalism in the field at all. It would be a bizarre story if there were.
And “there’s no way to dismiss the null hypothesis that scientists are worried because the data are worrying”.
My position was to respond directly to the post. What’s yours?
“bringing in nonpartisan voices” and widening the circle of communicators “beyond climate scientists and leftie activists”
Did the bold face make my point clear enough?
Roberts is just extending the climate hawks tragedy. Hope they stay away from operational wind turbines.
It was just a year ago that everybody was lamenting the fact that this debate had become a left/right punching bag. Now it’s taken for granted.
‘Manning up’ hasn’t worked anywhere else. Is there any reason to suppose it would work here?
It’s just too transparent–Roberts, like Romm, wants to shut up any and all opposition and get on with what has been pre-determined as the political agenda to deal with climate change.
It’s not going to happen, and repeated and more vehement attempts just make them look foolish. There is nothing more wimpy than someone calling for macho posturing without any resultant exhibition of testosterone.
Maybe his dad can beat up mine.
Well I can second the argument that preachy high handed hyperbole from angry environmentalists is not a very effective strategy at this point (Al Gore, Joe Romm, etc.).
Anyone who has a public reputation to protect will likely not touch this toxic subject with a ten foot pole. They would need to be so convinced of CAGW that they would put their reputation on the line to speak out about it. Some already have, but I would suggest the volunteer line is rather short, and will stay that way.
Keith Kloor Says:
<i>The climate debate (as it’s reflected in the general public sphere and in the climate blogosphere) roughly breaks down to two areas: the science and the solutions.</i>
A)So what is the name of the principal researcher working on the Nickel-Chromium-Titanium alloys that will be required to make a commercially viable Molten Salt Reactor(Thorium or Uranium fueled)?
B)What’s the name of the researcher that spotted 3 or 4 dead polar bears in the arctic?
C)Who is Dr. Arun Majumdar?
D)Who is Dr Michael Mann?
E) What is ARPA-E target price for electricity produced form solar,wind,geothermal and nuclear in 2020?
Answers
A) Auger
B) Monnet
C) The head of the Advanced Research Projects Agency for Energy
D) Someone who worked on a controversial paleo-climate reconstruction.
E) 5 cents/KW
Here is the 2011 ARPA-E keynote speech..it has all of 2,366 views.
http://www.youtube.com/user/USdepartmentofenergy#p/u/2/26lGIrrlT8g
I’ll spoil the ending…Energy Innovation for National Security, Economic Security and Environmental Security.
Maybe this isn’t a “communication problem” at all?
If you control 80% of the world’s media and 100% of the world education establishment and still cannot win then maybe you’re never going to win.
And preaching to the choir is never a winning comms strategy.
Roberts states: “For my part, when I see people denying facts and bullying scientists in order perpetuate the dominance of fossil fuel interests “¦”
You have to wonder about Roberts’ sanity when he is worried about the bullying of warmists. Hansen would put his opponents in jail and Krugman has stated that it is treasonous to oppose drastic CO2 restrictions. How the warmists can be bullies (think also of Lomborg and Roberts previous call for Nuremberg trials of realists [later retracted]) and then claim to be victims is far beyond anything I can conceive.
JD
I have a suggestion. Perhaps we could all get together and create a plan that we know would address the issues of AGW. Perhaps instead of screaming at us, AGW advcates could quietly suggeest a workable plan and calmy and candidly tell us what the implications that this has for the standard of living.
They could candidly tell us that the state of climate science does not lend itself to firm predictions. They could tell us that thre is no certainty and that, as a result, the plan will need to be constantly monitored and reshaped. That is, that the plan depends on the developments in technology that are not assured. That is that the plan required a degree of trsut and cooperation.
　
People could accept this. What they cannot accept are constant statements that climate science has unequivocal knowledge. That the only people who doubt climate scientists are fossil fuel funded deniers. They cannot accept this because climate scientist make wild predictions that do not come true. The do not believe this because climate scientists can be relied upon to attribute every heat wave, drought, hurricane, sunny afternoon and gentle zephyr teh the pernicious effects of carbon when they have no scientific support for the claims
When people here these unjustified claims, they react as if they are being sold something and they are suspicious of the motivations of the salesmen.
Would you buy a carbon tax from a used car salesman.
Would you buy a triple A rated security that had been vetted by the economic experts of prestigious firms and institutions and supported by the consensus of the community economists and financial institutions with wide support in the peer-reviewed literature? Would you? Just what did the Dow do today? Would you like to buy some Greek bonds? The effect of the Euro is to being economic discipline to member countries. That is what all the economists said and they have peer reviewed papers to back up tehir learned opinion. Economists also say that carbon taxes are the way to go and they have extensive peer-reviewed papers to back their opinion up.
============
For my part, when I see people denying facts and bullying scientists in order perpetuate the dominance of fossil fuel interests that are killing people and threatening my children’s futures, I am inclined to tell them to go f*ck themselves. That won’t resonate with their social/tribal perspectives, but that’s because I find their social/tribal perspectives repugnant and worthy of social censure. I want to beat them.
=============
Isn’t this the problem. People read this and do not want to be lead by people who would write such things. If you despise the public, why should, they trust you?
Remember climate scientists are smarter than you are and uneducated house wives should just accept what they say as true. That was a meme tried out last year. It sound much like Robert’s statement above. Perhaps, as Robert’s writes, communication is the problem faced by climate hawks. People read what they write and want nothing to do with them or their proposals
Hilarious. What desperation. Blame Whitey!
At least they effectively admitted that the AGW project is not about science. It has always been a political project disguised as a science-based environmental issue.
#13 Jack Hughes summed it up very nicely.
Or maybe the AGW gang will all just cover their ears and eyes and scream Bullsh!t like their spiritual leader Failed Gore. At least that is more honest than when that missionary was screaming that “the science is settled” and “the debate is over.” That was just a pure lie, designed to stifle debate.
Based on very little reading, I say go easy on Roberts. Unlike MT and Romm, he may have the ability to answer that it is more important to reach a goal than to win an argument. I’d like to know more about his concept of a the bottom up approach. I wonder if he can get beyond non partisan voices to acting outside the political process. I wish I knew how to post comments on his site.
The main problem with action on climate change is not hairy-chested CWMs. It is this little thing: to cut global emissions by 50-80% by 2050, most countries will have to embark on a project that financially equals going to war. Burning money like there is no tomorrow.
Look at those countries who actually trying to achieve it. Denmark, the land of wind turbines, still produces 80% of their energy with fossil fuels. Electricity price is the highest in Europe (over 40 US cents per kWh), new cars have a 200% tax while electric cars have none.
Might this prove a tough sell in the US?
“Richard Alley is a declared Republican. Kerry Emanuel calls himself a conservative. James Hansen calls himself a conservative.”
err. MT remember when I suggested Alley as a spokesperson and you let your tribe accuse me of being a concern troll? ah nevermind.
Emanuel is broken. he had his chance to do the right thing and get some integrity. Hansen can call himself a conservative.
http://www.ottawasun.com/2011/08/10/august-11-2011
With the Charles Atlas ad illustrations in this posting, perhaps this editorial cartoon would be appropriate. It refers to the hubris and self-importance of Wall Street which is immune to its many many failures. However it could also be well apply to any institution which is averse to admitting even the smallest amount of failure. The IPCC does spring to mind
　
How will a new communication strategy deal with this attitude in the public?
What the climate coalition needs are powerful Christian voices — emissaries to that great American public space so feared by institutional lefties.
Brandon,
You are quite right. This guy has been at it for some time now. Lots of push-back from his own, though, as you can see from my link.
@ mosher
Could you expand on Emanuel?
Global warming denial is very much like a religious cult, and reaching the hardcore members is difficult. They trust their preachers over any qualified scientist, overwhelming evidence, or a rational argument, and are largely unreachable. But those who might have certain ideological tendencies, and are being recruited by the cult, can be reached. So Roberts’ approach is not really different, as Keith suggests. In the first comment, he’s referring to the hardcore active cult members. In the second comment, he’s referring to everyone else who may not be convinced but who’s mind is open at least a bit. And in the last suggestion, he’s essentially saying we need more than climate scientists (often sub-par on abilities to communicate with the public) and a few Al Gores to convince a very broad audience. Hard to do though. Anyone who isn’t currently perceived to be a “lefty” that comes out and supports climate science and serious efforts to reduce emissions is usually branded as such, RINO, or what not. That’s where deniers have been particularly successful – in convincing much of the right that global warming is a leftwing conspiracy. Scare them with stories of very high energy prices or taking away their freedoms and it’s easy to do.
The warmist arguments fail to convince a lot of people including CWM. And, more to the point, the warmist rhetoric simply alienates people.
A good communications strategy would be to have Gore, Suzuki, Hansen, Rohm and Roberts take a two or three year vacation while the public begins to forget their rudeness and arrogance. While they are on vacation, more sensible people could begin to speak calmly about what is know and what is not.
A place to start would be by acknowledging that the CO2 theory is not perfect and there is a good deal of work to be done to really understand climate. And it would be a good idea for that understanding to be rather more complete than it is at present before asking the public to make significant changes to their lives.
NewYorkJ Says:
“Global warming denial is very much like a religious cult, and reaching the hardcore members is difficult.”
Global warming belief is very much like a religious cult and reaching the hardcore members is difficult.