Share this Post:

unEARTHED. The Earthjustice Blog

Reframing the Climate Change Debate


    SIGN-UP for our latest news and action alerts:
   Please leave this field empty

Facebook Fans

Related Blog Entries

by Trip Van Noppen:

(The following is a statement from Earthjustice President Trip Van Noppen in response to President Obama’s State of the Union Address.) We are ...

by Trip Van Noppen:
Obama Has Spoken, Now He Must Lead

Last week, President Obama demanded that Congress take action on climate change, or else he would. But, after years of political gridlock on the clim...

by Trip Van Noppen:
The Problem with An All of the Above Energy Policy

President Obama has said we need “an all-of-the-above strategy for the 21st century that develops every source of American-made energy.” H...

Earthjustice on Twitter

View David Lawlor's blog posts
26 January 2011, 1:11 PM
Obama’s emphasis on clean energy future plays to Middle America
Does it matter if climate change is addressed through the lens of a clean energy future? (Photo by Jeremiah Handeland)

Whether or not the United States addresses impending climate change hinges largely on the marketing message driving the discussion. Last night, President Barack Obama made his best pitch to reframe the climate change debate, casting it through the prism of a Works Progress Administration-style plan for achieving a clean energy future.

While Obama’s idea of clean energy is a bit skewed (he gave shout outs to nuclear and the soot-dusted unicorn dubbed clean coal), his approach is interesting in that it moves away from a climate change debate mired in a hyperbolic mish-mash of scare tactics and industry glad-handing. What’s more, Obama’s clean energy message plays to Middle America, where the mention of climate change still induces eye-rolling and chortles of empathy for the misguided believers.

In October 2010, Leslie Kaufman wrote a fascinating piece for The New York Times about climate change skeptics in a small Kansas town embracing notions of energy efficiency and clean energy infrastructure. Where the blue-collar residents scoffed at climate change science and hoped against new environmental regulations from the government, they enthusiastically cut their energy use and desired for the country to become energy independent.

The key to combating climate change in America’s Heartland, as the Kansas-based nonprofit group in Kaufman’s story discovered, was to avoid an argument over the reality of climate change and instead make appeals to people’s “thrift, patriotism, spiritual conviction and economic prosperity.” In other words, when the debate was reframed from conserving energy to stop climate change to conserving energy to save money, the climate skeptics started switching off the lights.

All this raises some interesting questions. Does it matter that we discuss clean energy instead of climate change? Do the ends justify the means? Andrew Revkin, environmental blogger for The New York Times, says they do not.

It’s one thing to cave to a wave of naysaying climate rhetoric and build a new American energy conversation on points of agreement rather than clear ideological flash points like global warming. It’s another to duck and cover entirely on climate, as President Obama did in his State of the Union message.

And while Revkin’s discomfort at the negation of the climate change discussion in the State of the Union address is somewhat valid, it’s also a bit shortsighted. In 100 years, our grandchildren will care about whether or not they have clean air to breath and clean water to drink—the debates, discussions and ideas that produced the clean air and water will be mere footnotes of history, the tangible results will be all that truly matters.

Former Believers Are The Majority Now.
Legitimate environmentalists were relieved the suffering from unstoppable warming was avoided due to the obvious 25 years of exaggerations and greedy fear factoring. The climate change mistake is dividing responsible environmentalism and dragging real progressivism down with it. Academia stood back and watched as Scientists polluted the planet with their chemicals and produced cruise missiles, cancer causing chemicals, land mine technology, nuclear weapons, germ warfare, cluster bombs, strip mining technology, Y2K, Y2Kyoto, deep sea drilling technology and now climate change. The 100% consensus truism that I have fairly looked into, I find is based on all scientists agreeing that the effects of CO2 “will” range from “nothing to negligible” to “unstoppable warming“. Any fool can see this was a free pass for lab coat consultants. That’s why all publicly funded research is for “unstoppable warming” and all independent and private research is soundly in the “negligible” camp.
Don’t follow the mainscream media anymore because the Net should be a learning tool, not an opinion search engine. This sewer of untreated information can lead to the truth or serve as a platter for your built in dogma.
System Change, not Climate Change.
Birth Control, not Climate Control.

I want to be progressive, accepting inclusive, tolerant, loving and open minded so therefore I will open myself willingly to learn both sides of climate change science and I will stop threatening my kids with DEATH BY CO2!

Post new comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Allowed HTML tags: <a> <em> <strong> <cite> <code> <p> <ul> <ol> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd> <blockquote>
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.

More information about formatting options

Type the characters you see in this picture. (verify using audio)
Type the characters you see in the picture above; if you can't read them, submit the form and a new image will be generated. Not case sensitive.