Comments on: How to talk about climate change

By: JB

JB — Thu, 03 Sep 2009 20:08:59 +0000

It may seem shocking, but quite a large number of Americans are actually against using the government to force others to do things at gunpoint.

By: Maggie

Maggie — Fri, 28 Aug 2009 16:28:02 +0000

Despite tireless efforts to inform the public and mobilize them (either through scare tactics or through inciting outrage), one of the problems in current climate change communication is the need to balance between holding industry and government accountable and making climate change a personal issue. Not in the sense that individual actions and actors can necessarily “fix” the “problem”, but in making people feel as if climate change affects them personally and what they can do personally about the problem, as Sharon Dunwoody (U Wisconsin) has observed.
fred’s comment illustrates the frustration shared by many people who have been overwhelmed with confusing and contradictory information that makes us understand complex climate change and its effects as weather patterns and as “simple” metaphors (eg. global warming, greenhouse effect, ozone hole). While elites are overrepresented in debates about climate change (with noted overrepresentation of climate change deniers vs. scientists in an attempt to provide “fair” and “balanced” coverage, working-class citizens and “everyday” Americans are underrepresented, making them feel as if the issue is not really about them.
Adding to this is the emphasis on money that confuses and alienates many who consume newsmedia, which makes many feel as if the issue is really about which party “wins” the prize. When we talk about climate change solutions and bring up issues such as a cap-and-trade or raising fuel prices (which is peanuts in comparison to fuel taxes in Europe), people not only feel that the issue is not about them but is about their money.
I’m not saying that we should not be paying more to support sustainability, but rather we should be framing the costs as a type of value. Yes we will be paying more if climate change bills are passed that require taxation but what we really need to understand is that we have been paying far too little the entire time. And that includes everybody- “ordinary” citizens, politicians, scientists, academics: Any raise in price should simply reflect the true social, environmental, political and cultural costs of our lifestyle and consumption. It is unfortunate that the individuals in Ed Maibech’s study are concerned about climate change yet unwilling to materially support it- this will require a major paradigm shift that posits us all as accountable and responsible actors in this situation.

By: Question your most rooted assumption: green consumers do not exist! – Sustainability & CSR Conversations

Fri, 28 Aug 2009 06:12:33 +0000

[...] policies such as the Carbon Tax in France or the Waxman-Markey bill in the US. As Marc Gunther’s interview of Ed Maibach from the Center for Climate Change Communication at George Mason University reminds [...]

By: fred

fred — Fri, 28 Aug 2009 01:24:54 +0000

Better add another couple of “america’s” to the list. Ticked Off, and Really Ticked Off. Mr. Gunthter, I suggest you take a leave of absence from your job, get a real job (manual labor) with some regular guys (better shave off that silly beard first), and live where they live on what they have to live on for at least a year. Hang out with them for a while. Ask them what they think about the high class academics who believe in global warming. Tell them just how much of their hard earned money would vaporize in Carbon Credits (and better yet, tell them where their money is going!). Watch out for bad and unpredictable reactions!! Mr. Gunther, the populace will not simply follow you and your ilke like sheep. You take away their money like this and they will react. BTW, I don’t “believe” in global warming. There is no global warming. I spend my working time in the open air. It has been colder the past couple of years. Oh YES, it has! Greenies “believe” in global warming–they have to believe, since there are no relevant facts to back up the belief, only their feelings. All is not lost Mr. Gunther. Everyone wants cleaner air, water, land. I want a car that runs at least one hundred miles to the gallon. Work that angle, you will get farther along. I don’t want my hard earned money taken from me in the form of Carbon Credit extortions for Al Gore’s hoax. No, I don’t. No I won’t.

By: Jay Cadmus

Jay Cadmus — Thu, 27 Aug 2009 19:37:23 +0000

“So Ed suggests that those who care about the climate change get away from descriptors like “greenhouse gas emissions” or “GHGs” or “CO2” and instead go with “heat-trapping pollutants,” a phrase that White House science adviser John Holdren has used.”

How about just “pollutants”? Wouldn’t that work?

The minute you start adding qualifiers you dilute the message and start the eyes-glazing-over phenomenon.

By: Peter T. Knight

Peter T. Knight — Thu, 27 Aug 2009 18:29:50 +0000

It is depressing, if it is true, that ordinary (but concerned) citizens are choosing to vote with their wallets rather than calling their political representatives.

Could the blame for this lie partly in the widely-held but deluded belief that we can make an individual difference to climate change, such as by unplugging our cell phone charger or buying a Prius? It is these green myths, widely peddled by those romantics who promote green lifestyles, that depoliticizes a problem which can only be fixed by politicians.

Peter T. Knight
Context America

By: jae

jae — Thu, 27 Aug 2009 16:26:05 +0000

I didn’t get past the first paragraph, because it is nonsense. Look at all the polls. Few people give a damn.