Scientists and environmentalists are between a rock and a hard place.
As we’re set to blow by international climate goals, and as extreme weather disasters pile up, scientists are using more and more urgent language in a desperate attempt to get politicians to pass climate policies.
But going forward, such policies are only likely to pass with bipartisan support. And the very language used by scientists and activists may be pushing away the entire Republican Party.
“Personally, I do view the situation as urgent, but there’s also a sense of fatalism that settles in if the message is consistently ‘the sky is falling,’” said Colin Polsky, PhD, founding director, Florida Atlantic University School of Environmental, Coastal, and Ocean Sustainability, in a recent webinar on messaging to conservatives. “We’re absolutely not going to get anywhere unless there’s good faith conversations across the [political] spectrum.”
A new analysis by The Washington Post finds that in the last seven years alone, the term “climate emergency” in academic papers has increased 26-fold, from 33 to 862 papers.
Despite this trend, there has been very little meaningful change among Republicans’s view on climate action, according to a recent poll by NPR:
70% of Republicans said climate change is either a minor threat or no threat at all (nearly 90% Democrats said climate change is a serious threat).
72% of Republicans prioritized economic issues over climate change, even at the risk of ignoring climate impacts — that’s up 13 points since 2018.
So is it time for a new plan of attack?
If we want bipartisan climate policy, we should go straight to issues that both Republicans and Democrats agree on. And that starts with listening to conservative priorities.
“Private sector innovation, American resources, and R&D investment have resulted in lower emissions and affordable energy,” reads the mission of the Conservative Climate Caucus, which comprises 81 Republican House members. “Climate change is a global issue and China is the greatest immediate obstacle to reducing world emissions… Practical and exportable answers can be found in innovation embraced by the free market.”
In other words, by lifting resources in our own backyard (e.g., solar, wind, and nuclear), alongside the good ol’ fashioned American ideals of free market and innovation, we can get more conservatives on board.
Similarly, by framing climate action as a competition with China, we can exploit most Americans’ shared desire to defeat an enemy. Remember the Space Race with the Soviet Union? Why can't we do the same thing with climate against China?
But on top of noting issues that bring us together, we can’t forget what drives us apart. I’m particularly worried about an upcoming national tour by progressive Democrats that heavily features the Green New Deal — a plan to rapidly decarbonize the U.S., with an emphasis on environmental justice.
Conservatives have repeatedly, and successfully, used the Green New Deal as a stand-in for radical liberalism, falsely saying the deal would attack everything from people’s gas stoves to their meat consumption.
By touting a climate plan that so many view as liberal, progressive Democrats double down on the long-standing connection between environmentalism and the left, rather than identifying the climate ties that bring conservatives and liberals together.
I’ll end with a bit of linguistic mastery that happened in the debate around the Inflation Reduction Act.
Biden’s signature climate law was initially billed as Build Back Better, but over time, that terminology became too associated with the left. So when Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) and key swing vote Sen. Joe Manchin (D-WV), the most conservative Democrat in the Senate, hashed out the final text of the bill, what emerged was a new bill altogether, with a new name to match:
Perhaps sensing pressure from his dripping-red contingent in West Virginia, Sen. Manchin rebranded the bill as the Inflation Reduction Act — inflation being an issue much more top of mind for West Virginians than climate.
When things become particularly dire, we use language that reflects the severity of the threat. And when “urgent” or “immediate” doesn’t quite cut it, we raise the stakes by calling the problem at hand a “climate crisis” or “climate emergency.”
But if we truly want to hit climate goals, we must bite our tongues — or at least explore new ways to talk about climate. The boy who cries wolf, even when he sees a wolf every day, is still doomed if no one listens to him.
Oooooh this is such an interesting point I’ve not considered. Our language is so SO important!