Framing Global Warming/Global Climate Change

Welcome to my blog, "PR Goes Green." In this blog, I plan to combine my two passions: teaching public relations principles and practices that can foster ethical communication; and working toward solutions to global climate change.

Public relations is all about relations with publics -- Whom do we interact with? What do they want/need? How can we best meet their needs and those of our clients? How can we inform, persuade and move our publics to act?

One theory that will influence my discussions is framing, or how verbal and nonverbal cues shape the way we think about and respond to various issues. One of the leading theorists of framing is linguist and cognitive scientist George Lakoff of the University of California at Berkeley.

Here's an example of framing. The term "global warming" accurately reflects the fact that the AVERAGE temperature of the earth has risen between 1.2 and 1.4 degrees Fahrenheit over the last century, according to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. To come up with the "average" means that some temperatures have actually dropped while others -- such as the temperature in the Arctic -- have doubled. The steep rise in greenhouse gases (and thus, the earth's temperature) corresponds to our increased use of carbon fuels to heat and cool our homes, run our vehicles, and operate our businesses ... linked to the impact of the Industrial Revolution.

Those are the facts.

But how you understand those facts varies, depending upon your "frame." If you believe global warming is real and that the current rise in the earth's temperature is caused primarily by humans, then the facts would confirm your belief. And it makes sense, therefore, that humans must change their behavior to address global warming.

However, if you believe global warming is hogwash, that the extreme rise in global temperature is simply a cyclical event for which humans have not played a role, then you would look at the facts differently. Cool weather last summer in New York City would be proof that global "warming" cannot be real. And if weather changes are cyclical, then changing human behavior would be more than pointless; it would be misguided and would bankrupt our world.

How can people look at and respond to the same set of facts so differently? According to the Frameworks Institute, "if the facts don't fit the frame, it's the facts that are rejected, not the frame."

This is one reason some people choose to use the term "global climate change" rather than "global warming," even though the terms technically mean something different.

Cooler-than-usual summers in New York and lack of snow in January in Minnesota could be examples of "climate change," even if you don't buy into the concept of global warming.

Once someone says the words "global warming" (or even if people THINK you are saying "global warming," even if you are saying "global climate change"), your brain starts filling in the pieces:

Global warming/climate change = It's real; it's caused by humans; and we must change our ways to counteract dangerous consequences.

Global warming/climate change = It's false; it's cyclical; and changing our behavior is not only unnecessary, it's also dangerous.

I hope you will join me as I explore global climate change from the perspective of a public relations educator and professional.