I guess I shouldn't be
shocked that environmental groups are using well-researched messages to
convince the public climate change is happening and something must be done
about it immediately. As someone who works in the energy field, you could say
it's just the pot calling the kettle black. We frequently test messages on a
variety of topics and carefully choose our words to get our message out. And I see it across the board in
other industries. You will be amazed about this one.
Ted Nordhaus and Michael Shellenberger wrote in The New York Times about the environmental groups'
strategy.
The big problem these
days is whenever there is a weather disaster, many immediately turn to the
cause as "climate change from carbon pollution." The problem, they
have found, is that when it's cold and snowy in winter - wait, that's not
climate change - that's just winter! Or when we don't get a lot of hurricanes,
or they're not too severe, then you can't blame a not-too-violent storm on
climate change. Even Superstorm Sandy, which resulted in tremendous financial
loss and was a human tragedy as well, was just a tropical storm hitting one of
the most heavily populated areas on the planet. That's just bad luck you can't blame on climate change.
So here are the marketing lessons from the environmental experts on how to market climate change:
- Claims that current
disasters are connected to climate change motivate liberals to support
action, but alienate conservative in equal measure. Not a good strategy if
you want to move people to your side.
- What works, say
environmental pollsters - Focusing on popular solutions. Note, I didn't
say real solutions. Popular ones only. Solar, wind and energy efficiency
reduce emissions while "strengthening the economy." But environmentalists
ignore the fact these options are not the least cost, nor are they
uniformly paid for by all citizens. What I mean by that is in a utility's
energy efficiency program, if you get a rebate and I don't, is not fair to
me. You get the benefit. Yes, it's available to me, but I only get a $250 rebate if I invest
$1,500 in a new refrigerator, money I may not have available. So limited
renewable solutions that ignore other, less sexy low carbon options, also
polarize people on either side.
- A conclusion from the
journal Nature Climate Change,
sponsored by - guess who - Environmental Defense Fund - says
"Communication should focus on how mitigation efforts can promote a
better society" instead of "the reality of climate
change and averting its risks." That's because the reality of climate
change doesn't fit the narrative that we're going to hell in a handbasket.
Or better said, that we have time to address the potential impacts of
climate change in a way that the economy can absorb without creating
severe economic disruption.
Interestingly,
nearly every major environmental organization rejects nuclear energy, and many
even oppose the move from coal to natural gas, which produces almost half the
carbon emissions. Together with the rhetoric about catastrophes around every
corner seen internationally on The Weather Channel, the result is that many
believe climate change is being exaggerated. They then conclude no action should be taken. After all, ask Nordhaus and Shellenberger, if climate change is a
planetary emergency, why take nuclear and natural gas off the table?
No comments:
Post a Comment