Stop talking about climate change

[tinrobot]

The First Rule of Fighting Climate Change: Don't Talk About Climate Change

Republican pollster Frank Luntz—the brains behind Newt Gingrich's "Contract With America" and the man who coined politically potent phrases like the "death tax"—wants to help environmentalists in their push for legislation to combat climate change. His advice? Stop talking about climate change.

The environmental community is "fighting the wrong battle," Luntz announced on Thursday at an event to mark the release of a new report by his polling firm, The Word Doctors, outlining strategies to help marshal public support for a climate bill. "The least important component of climate change is climate change."

Luntz's report, "The Language of a Clean Energy Economy," finds that the majority of the public across the political spectrum is convinced that global warming is happening and caused at least in part by humans. But, Luntz says, talking about the problem won't win support for the legislation that would solve it. Among both Democrats and Republicans polled by his firm, addressing climate change was the least important reason to support a cap-and-trade policy.

So what should environmentalists say instead? Luntz suggests less talk of dying polar bears and more emphasis on how legislation will create jobs, make the planet healthier and decrease US dependence on foreign oil. Advocates should emphasize words like "cleaner," "healthier," and "safer"; scrap "green jobs" in favor of "American jobs," and ditch terms like "sustainability" and "carbon neutral" altogether. "It doesn't matter if there is or isn't climate change," he said. "It's still in America's best interest to develop new sources of energy that are clean, reliable, efficient and safe."

http://motherjones.com/mojo/2010/01/gop-pollster-luntz-tells-enviros-stop-talking-climate

---

Normally, I don't like Frank Lutz, but he does have a point. Instead of talking doom and gloom, talk about the positives that fighting climate change will bring.

[blm]

1. Kerry did that in early 2002 and throughout his 2004 campaign, explaining alternative energy IS a

national security issue and that it will CREATE jobs well into the future.

Luntz worked against him and his policies. So did T Boone Pickens. Now Pickens adopted Kerry's exact language for his commercials and Luntz is repackaging them here.

Luntz and Pickens got their fascism and now they want to pretend they are good citizens of the planet. This is the next step to pretend that fascism will work if we only accept it.

[M155Y_A1CH]

2. DADT

Sounds a lot like another prescription I know of.

[wtmusic]

3. In other words, make it more palatable to Republicans.

Disagree. In their face, from all sides, until they feel like fools for even daring to suggest that anthropogenic climate change isn't real.

[tinrobot]

4. To some degree, yes, but I see it as talking about the positives.

Becoming energy independent, creating jobs, saving money, cleaner air, etc... These are all positive things that resonate with a lot of people.

Sometimes, environmentalists (including myself) can get a little gloomy, and talking about the end of the world turns a lot of people off.

Like Al Gore says, this should not be a political issue -- Democrat vs Republican. We need to get everyone working towards the solution. If that means rephrasing things to make it more palatable, then so be it.

[joshcryer]

5. If Democrats had any cummupance I'd agree with you.

But they're almost as bad as Republicans. So this is probably an effective strategy.

As much as it sickens me to admit it.

[The2ndWheel]

6. Bottom line, it's about one question

Is this whole thing about the amount of energy that we use, or is this whole thing about the type of energy that we use? Plenty of questions to answer no matter which fork in the road you choose to take, but, I think that's where it starts.

[hatrack]

7. Frank Luntz can suck my balls

If there's a hell, he'll burn there, along with his marketing expertise and buzzwords.

[kristopher]

8. This isn't news.

Long before Luntz it was recognized that there was a window of opportunity for enacting policy on climate change. This window was opened by the alignment of the interests of different groups that had previously been in opposition - specifically: Those concerned with national security see us as vulnerable on the energy security front, consumers that are normally indifferent or fearful of high energy prices are rocked by rapid swings in petroleum and natural gas prices, and the hollowing out of the middle class has created a strong constituency in the area of good, jobs that can't be exported.

This was noted shortly after 911 when the international and military costs of petroleum were at the forefront of everyone's minds.