“Cap and Cash Back” — The Power of Positive Language
We can thank ecoAmerica for the “Cap and Cash Back” headline, which I gleaned from this weekend’s NYT story about how environmental communications are being framed by both “sides” of each environmental debate, from “clean coal” to “safe nuclear power.”
It certainly is catchier than “Cap and Trade” and coming from a jargon-jammed business background, I’m grateful when people use words that both insiders and outsiders readily grasp. Your politics will determine whether you agree with the substitution of “cap and cash back” for “cap and trade” but my point about the need for clear communications stands.
Environmental and Financial Services Writing Prompts:
- The NYT article quotedRobert J. Brulle of Drexel University, an expert on environmental communications, as saying “ecoAmerica’s campaign was a mirror image of what industry and political conservatives were doing. “The form is the same; the message is just flipped,” he said. “You want to sell toothpaste, we’ll sell it. You want to sell global warming, we’ll sell that. It’s the use of advertising techniques to manipulate public opinion.” Do you have evidence that either side is entirely in command of the facts about global warming/climate change? Or is this simply a war of words driven by savvy PR pros?
- Mr. Perkowitz, who started ecoAmerica, said the reason environmental issues consistently trail issues like addressing moral decline and reducing the influence of lobbyists, is “When someone thinks of global warming, they think of a politicized, polarized argument. When you say ‘global warming,’ a certain group of Americans think that’s a code word for progressive liberals, gay marriage and other such issues.” Do you have reason to agree or disagree with Mr. Perkowitz? Support your view with an anecdote or case study.
- A summary of ecoAmerica’s latest findings and recommendations was accidentally e-mailed to a number of news organizations before the formal paper was published, which raises the question, Have you or your organization authorized talking points or key words for use in environmental communications? If so, can you speak to the immediate and longer-term effects of using prescribed language (or avoiding proscribed langugage) on your organization’s objectives?
Interesting post. Several years ago, George Lakoff was working with a number of environmental organizations about their use of jargon and framing their arguments. I think that got suspended, however, for some reason and did not arrive at any conclusions to my knowledge.
When I worked for The Nature Conservancy, I grew increasingly concerned about terms like “global warming” and “ecosystem services” and wrote about it in a post: http://greenskeptic.blogspot.com/2006/03/global-warming-other-misnomers.html
That post was actually in response to a post by Seth Godin on “The trouble with global warming.”
I don’t think we’ve resolved these issues — and I applaud ecoAmerica for trying to tackle it head-on. Framing is important, especially if you want people to take action.
I’m not sure I agree with Mr. Perkowitz on his assertion that the reason environmental issues trail other issues of concern is because of the moral or immoral issues in its framing.
Environmental issues are sometimes too complex, unpredictable, and remote from most people. At least in perception. It is hard for most Americans to see or feel the impact of changes to their environment — unless they lived at Love Canal. The plight of the polar bear means very little to people who are having trouble putting food on the table or stopping gun violence in their neighborhood.
And, to some, increasing the temperature by a degree or two may sound attractive, especially in the dead of winter. We still have a long way to go.