George Lakoff’s Don’t Think of an Elephant is a key publication to the art of framing.
Guest Post by Heleen van Soest
To get an idea of climate, energy and biodiversity policies in the US, Heleen van Soest visited Washington DC, in January and February 2014. She attended the 3 days conference Building Climate Solutions, and had interviews at a number of institutions and think tanks. In a couple of guest posts, she shares her thoughts.
Post 5: Framing, framing, and, once again: framing
To set the stage, already on conference day 1 of Building Climate Solutions: three panels on framing. More precisely, on framing climate change science, framing the challenges facing society, and framing solutions. One remarkable answer to a question, in my opinion, was this. The question was “How do you deal with climate change deniers?â€. The answer, by Virginia Burkett (U.S. Geological Survey and IPCC): “By presenting the facts.†Remarkable, since what I have read about the topic indicates that that won’t necessarily work. Many psychological factors, including world views, play a role here; the ‘facts’ won’t make much of a difference in this case. What came back regularly in these panel discussions and further in the conference, was the framing of climate change as a human health issue. People tend to care more about their own and their children’s health than about polar bears. Framing the message in terms of human health makes it match better with people’s mental models (Edward Maibach, George Mason University). During lunch, I decided to attend ‘Action on Climate Change as a Moral Imperative: Conversing with the Religious Community’. As religion seems to play a larger role in the U.S. than in the Netherlands, I was interested in how to (there it is again) frame climate change messages in such a way that they resonate with the religious community. Again, talking about human health impacts would help. Joel Novi made an interesting point, by explaining what she would have to do in order not to care about climate change. It would mean not caring about people outside of the U.S., not caring about the next generation, and not caring about other, non-human, species. But all of those contradict the basic teachings of religion and would make you lose your sense of interconnection. Talking to people in their congregation can make a difference, because they listen with their moral ears there. Moreover, they are heard differently when they are moved and speak out. The second day of the conference started, after a nice breakfast, with Walmart’s Jack Sinclair (Executive Vice President of the Grocery Division). I had heard about Walmart’s sustainability policy and their 100% renewables and zero waste goals, but not from Walmart people themselves. Sinclair said: “Sustainability is good for our business and good for our customersâ€. It’s probably not the first company that sees sustainability that way, but there’s more: instead of seeing sustainability as a competitive advantage, Walmart is working on improving the sustainability of their supply chains and the market as a whole. I think that is the way to go, as the food system is complex and asks for a system perspective. It is also, in my opinion, a nice example of… guess what? Framing. Over breakfast on the last day, I spoke with some people from Austin, Texas and from Colorado. Framing came back here as well: in Austin, which is liberal, you can talk about climate change. But in more regional communities, you never mention climate change or global warming. Instead, you talk about things like risk management, extreme weather, and the current droughts. When talking to conservatives about climate change, what they hear is a growing government, certain (emission) caps, regulations, and the taking away of their liberty. Climate science is in direct conflict with deeply-held beliefs of conservatives. Robert Inglis’ experience has taught him that much. So, Inglis says, you should tell them you think their world view is right, or at least that you respect their view. Conservatives don’t ‘believe’ in climate change, because they assume the solution is government/regulation. So you should show them that that is not the case. We don’t need more regulation if we can cut income taxes and instead assume a carbon price that China copies (something with border adjustment and the WTO….). Then, just maybe, you can mention ‘carbon tax’, although it might still make conservatives go into anaphylactic shock (Inglis’ own words).
Heleen van Soest is an independent researcher at HvS Earth System Research. On Twitter: @Hel1vs
