{"id":1354,"date":"2009-06-18T10:51:52","date_gmt":"2009-06-18T14:51:52","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/esa.org\/esablog\/?p=1354"},"modified":"2009-06-18T10:51:52","modified_gmt":"2009-06-18T14:51:52","slug":"should-we-frame-climate-change","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/esa.org\/esablog\/2009\/06\/18\/should-we-frame-climate-change\/","title":{"rendered":"Should we “frame” climate change?"},"content":{"rendered":"

\"\"If we want to convince people to take action against global warming, maybe we need to take advice from advertising. A report by the nonprofit EcoAmerica<\/a>, as reported by The New York Times<\/a> in early May, suggests that terms like \u201cgreenhouse gas\u201d and \u201ccarbon dioxide\u201d turn people off.\u00a0 Instead, they say, climate activists should change their rhetoric, emphasizing a \u201cmove away from dirty fuels of the past\u201d and a \u201cpollution reduction refund\u201d (instead of \u201ccap-and-trade\u201d).<\/span><\/p>\n

In a SEED magazine article<\/a> last month (highlighted in the NYT\u2019s Dot Earth blog<\/a> this week<\/a> ), climate scientists were asked what jargon really bugs them within the climate debate, and what they would do to change the conversation.<\/span><\/p>\n

Ann Kinzig, the representative ecologist, points out that people process negative information differently than they do positive information, citing that more patients \u2014 and even doctors \u2014 will opt for a procedure if they\u2019re told it has an 80 percent success rate than if they\u2019re told it has a 20 percent failure rate.\u00a0 In her words, so-called \u201csloganeering\u201d is a first and small step towards the larger goal of deeper engagement and understanding.\u00a0 She says that the right words need to be in place to make people \u201cpause long enough to hear\u201d an argument.\u00a0 To her, language is never neutral, even in the scientific world.\u00a0 In her words:<\/span><\/p>\n

\u201cMy own personal opinion is that we (scientists)\u2009\u2013\u2009writing and thinking in our robust homes, from a room devoted exclusively to study, fueled by three square meals a day produced in another room devoted exclusively to cooking\u2009\u2013\u2009tend to think more negatively about humans and their impact on the nature we so love. People are apart from nature. They are \u2018shortsighted\u2019 and they \u2018destroy\u2019 environments and their behaviors need to be controlled. They are not integral parts of nature, capable of observing problems and reacting with innovation and thoughtfulness, even if that cycle is imperfect. The labels and phrases we use now reflect the values and social norms of the scientists. If we accept that language is never neutral, why not adopt the terms that resonate with a broader swath of the public?\u201d<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Read what other scientists, including geoscientists, meteorologists and social scientists, have to say about climate communication in the full SEED article<\/a><\/a>.<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

If we want to convince people to take action against global warming, maybe we need to take advice from advertising. A report by the nonprofit EcoAmerica, as reported by The New York Times in early May, suggests that terms like \u201cgreenhouse gas\u201d and \u201ccarbon dioxide\u201d turn people off.\u00a0 Instead, they say, climate activists should change their rhetoric, emphasizing a \u201cmove…<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":50,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,10,48],"tags":[60,275,276],"class_list":["post-1354","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-conservation","category-ecology-in-policy","category-ecology-and-society","tag-climate-change","tag-communicating-science","tag-scientific-jargon"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/esa.org\/esablog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1354","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/esa.org\/esablog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/esa.org\/esablog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/esa.org\/esablog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/50"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/esa.org\/esablog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=1354"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/esa.org\/esablog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1354\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/esa.org\/esablog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1354"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/esa.org\/esablog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=1354"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/esa.org\/esablog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=1354"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}