Storytelling: How to Make a Difference in the Global Climate Crisis

It’s hard to wrap your arms around a problem as massive as the global climate crisis. Although it threatens our very existence, it can be hard to see. A melting iceberg here, a receding glacier there ... but our lives continue, for the most part, exactly as they have for years.

We get up in the morning in our warm houses, take refreshing showers from a seemingly endless source, wear recently purchased clothing made somewhere in Southeast Asia, eat food packaged for our convenience, connect to our charged cell phones and plugged-in computers, drive – usually by ourselves – to wherever we need to be, toss aside a no-longer-useful Starbucks cup ... all with no thought as to the “cost” of what we have just done.

How do we, as PR professionals, address a topic so huge, so important, and yet so abstract and intangible as the climate crisis? Through stories.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/28/opinion/28hedin.html

Take this story, “An Almanac of Extreme Weather,” which appeared as a Nov. 27 op-ed in the New York Times. It was written by Jack Hedin, a Minnesota farmer:

"THE news from this Midwestern farm is not good. The past four years of heavy rains and flash flooding here in southern Minnesota have left me worried about the future of agriculture in America’s grain belt. For some time computer models of climate change have been predicting just these kinds of weather patterns, but seeing them unfold on our farm has been harrowing nonetheless.

"My family and I produce vegetables, hay and grain on 250 acres in one of the richest agricultural areas in the world. While our farm is not large by modern standards, its roots are deep in this region; my great-grandfather homesteaded about 80 miles from here in the late 1800s.

"He passed on a keen sensitivity to climate. His memoirs, self-published in the wake of the Dust Bowl of the 1930s, describe tornadoes, droughts and other extreme weather. But even he would be surprised by the erratic weather we have experienced in the last decade.

"In August 2007, a series of storms produced a breathtaking 23 inches of rain in 36 hours. The flooding that followed essentially erased our farm from the map. Fields were swamped under churning waters, which in places left a foot or more of debris and silt in their wake. Cornstalks were wrapped around bridge railings 10 feet above normal stream levels. We found butternut squashes from our farm two miles downstream, stranded in sapling branches five feet above the ground. A hillside of mature trees collapsed and slid hundreds of feet into a field below."

Hedin continues his story, adding details about how seven years of unusual rainfall have ruined his farm. He adds: “Climate change, I believe, may eventually pose an existential threat to my way of life. A family farm like ours may simply not be able to adjust quickly enough to such unendingly volatile weather.” Powerful stuff.

Scientists warn us not to confuse “weather” with “climate.” Weather changes all of the time, from season to season. But the climate? Well, regular variations are the norm. However, many scientists are noticing patterns or conditions that are ripe for creating unusual weather events – heavier rains or more severe droughts, floods or fires, hurricanes or dust storms.

I’m not a scientist, and I can’t feed you the facts to support my experiences. But I know that the climate has changed drastically since I was a child. Late August in Minnesota used to be HOT! Every year on my birthday – Aug. 26 – I would spend the entire day at the Minnesota State Fair, never needing a jacket. On the other hand, Minnesota winters were COLD, with snow often blanketing the ground several feet thick. The lakes were frozen solid, making ice fishing ... and lake golf ... seasonal sports. Whereas Floridians brace for hurricanes, Minnesotans prepared themselves for tornadoes.

When I speak with my family in Minnesota these days, they tell me of unusually warm winters with little snow cover, which is so necessary for crops to grow in the spring and summer. My August birthday often is chilly. Parts of the Upper Midwest have been hit recently with unusual tornadoes in the fall (typically, the “second tornado season” hits further south, but the tornado window seems to be expanding). One Friday this fall, the temperature was in the 60s in Minneapolis and St. Paul. And then the next day, the temperature dropped rapidly as a foot of snow clogged the city streets.

In my neighborhood here in Tallahassee, plants seem to be blooming earlier in the spring, only to be damaged by a late frost. The allergy season seems to be expanding as the blooming time expands. Last year was our warmest summer in Florida ... and our coldest winter. That match-up isn’t supposed to happen. I know all of this is anecdotal, but as PR practitioners, we know that one of our research tools is observation. So this is the story of what I’m seeing.

Scientists tend to be reluctant to tell stories, choosing, instead, to focus on facts. Maybe it’s our job as PR practitioners to find the stories to help complete the picture of the impact of the global climate crisis.

Why I Choose to "Do 10 for 10-10-10"

When I was in my early 20s and newly married, having children was the last thing I wanted. Fast-forward to my late 30s when, with a new husband and a new outlook on life, I suddenly heard my biological clock ticking. I am one of the lucky ones who was able to get pregnant and have a baby at age 40. For me, becoming a parent was truly an act of faith ... faith that the world could be a safe place for our son to survive and thrive.

Fast-forward again to today. Our son is almost 23, but the world is not the safe place I had hoped it would be. I’m not talking about the “war on terror” and the loss of civility and tolerance in society – both of which are scary enough. No, I’m talking about the global climate crisis. We no longer have time to avoid climate change. Rather, we now need to adapt to the world we have created. And that’s a scary place.

The planet is warming, polar ice caps are melting, glaciers are disappearing, deserts are expanding, oceans are rising and becoming more acidic, fresh water is more scarce, pests and diseases now thrive in regions where they once did not, severe weather events are more severe, and dirty energy (e.g., oil, coal, gas) is heavily subsidized whereas clean energy (e.g., wind, solar, hydrothermal) is not.

Sadly, many people do not believe the climate crisis is real, despite the fact that the vast majority of the world’s climate scientists agree that there is a greater than 90 percent chance that the planet is warming and that humans are mostly responsible. The facts support these scientists’ claims. If you don’t believe me, check with the Environmental Protection Agency, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Weather Service, World Glacier Monitoring Service, UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and the national academies of science of 45 nations, including the Vatican.

I’ve always been an optimist, believing that good will prevail and that everything is possible with enough effort. But the global climate crisis has raised personal responsibility to a whole new level ... which leads me to why I have chosen to “Do 10 for 10-10-10.”

“10-10-10” stands for Oct. 10, 2010. And by “Do 10,” I mean that I am choosing to make at least 10 changes to my lifestyle by 10-10-10 to cut my “carbon footprint,” or my impact on the earth.

Here are some of the changes I have chosen to make: switch to compact fluorescent light bulbs; unplug appliances and turn off lights when not being used; use a water bottle rather than bottled water; print two-sided and use the back side of old paper; eat less meat; and refuse to buy Styrofoam.

Do I believe these small changes will “stop” climate change? No, that train has long-since left the station. But I DO believe that if enough of us make enough small changes, we will eventually create an atmosphere – a tipping point – in which conservation and personal responsibility replace consumerism and “free” enterprise as core values by which we live. If we – the people – are willing to act, then so, too, must our businesses and government.

On 10-10-10, hundreds of thousands of people will be gathering at more than 5,600 Global Work Parties in 183 countries to address the climate crisis. They’ll be installing solar panels and windmills, planting trees and community gardens, laying out bike paths, cleaning up beaches and parks, and much more. Here at FAMU, we’ll be installing a rainwater-collection system on Jackson-Davis and repainting campus recycling bins as part of the FAMU Green Coalition’s 10-10-10 initiative.

The 10-10-10 call for action has come from 350.org, a group founded by well-known author and environmentalist Bill McKibbon and his colleagues. The number “350” refers to 350 parts per million of carbon dioxide (a greenhouse gas), the level that scientists believe the earth can sustain and maintain human life as we know it. Unfortunately, we’re at about 390 ppm and rising. In my lifetime, the carbon dioxide level will never return to what it was when I was born.

You cannot use the excuse that “I didn’t know” when you finally start to connect the dots between the way you live and the realities of the climate crisis. Letting your car idle as you sit for 10 minutes in a drive-through so that you can purchase a hamburger, for example, is an incredibly “expensive” habit (in earth terms). According to an article in “Scientific American,” “... producing half a pound of hamburger for someone’s lunch ... releases as much greenhouse gas into the atmosphere as driving a 3,000-pound car nearly 10 miles.”

So I challenge you to “Do 10 for 10-10-10” for YOURSELF and for all living things on the planet. You can download the pledge card from the FAMU Green Coalition's website. Turn in your pledge to any dean’s office, SGA, Coleman Library, Student Health Services or Room 3022 SJGC by noon, Oct. 11. Speak loudly. Act boldly. And be part of the tipping point.

Behind the Tea Party: Grassroots or Astroturf?

I was listening to NPR Friday, Sept. 17, 2010, when I heard a story about how the Tea Party isn’t as much of a grassroots movement as we have been led to believe. True, there are many people who of their own volition have joined together to share their displeasure with the way our government is being run. The Tea Party could be a case study of how the “New Influencers” (or “people like us,” as Paul Gillin defines them) are using social media to build communities without the interference of traditional institutions and organizations.

But then, as radio great Paul Harvey used to say, here’s “the rest of the story.” It turns out that much of the money funding the “spontaneous” outpouring of political angst within the Tea Party actually comes from some of the same people who funded (and continue to fund) the tobacco debate. Rather than simply being “grassroots” operations of and by “the people,” both the National Smokers Alliance and the Tea Party movements either arose as “astroturf” – or fake grassroots – movements or were hijacked by special interest groups.

Let’s look at the tobacco story first.

Over the years, Philip Morris hired two PR giants – Burson-Marsteller and APCO International – to mobilize smokers to “fight for their rights” by forming the National Smokers Alliance, among other things. These PR giants used time-tested strategies to persuade smokers that the issue really wasn’t about “health” but rather about “free choice.”

By denying any wrongdoing, Big Tobacco argued that lots of things cause cancer and that the link between tobacco smoking and cancer was never “proved” beyond a reasonable doubt. They attacked the character of their opponents, saying that anyone who tried to educate people or legislate against tobacco was simply trying to create a “nanny state.” (You hear this same argument today regarding healthcare and the global climate crisis.)

[For more information about how PR has been used to reframe the issue of smoking and cancer, read “Do the Right Thing” and “Climate Cover-Up” by James Hoggan with Richard Littlemore. These authors also show how PR strategies and tactics – not science – are being used to persuade people that the global climate crisis is not real, despite significant scientific evidence that it is.]

Big Tobacco advocates also spoke of “sound science” (or anything that contradicted the link between tobacco smoking and cancer), implying that “regular science” (which showed a clear link between smoking and cancer) was somehow not “sound.” The tobacco companies reached out to other industries – especially the Big Energy companies (oil, gas, coal) – to join the “sound science” crusade. And Big Energy answered the call.

Now, let’s look at the Tea Party movement.

Ron Paul, libertarian candidate for president in 2008, has been pushing the Tea Party agenda for years. In 2007, he broke the one-day online record for fundraising up to that point, raising $4.3 million from 40,000 individual donors in support of his Tea Party campaign. So lots of people supported Paul’s approach to governing. But something interesting happened along the way.

On Feb. 19, 2009, CNBC on-air editor Rick Santelli gave what has been dubbed the “Santelli Rant,” urging viewers to create a Chicago-style Tea Party to show their displeasure with the way the Obama administration was handling the mortgage crisis. Santelli claims his remarks were not scripted to start a Tea Party movement. And that may be the case, despite the claim in a “Playboy” article by journalists Mark Ames and Yasha Levine that “Santelli’s tirade was a ‘carefully planned trigger’ for the Tea Parties.”

But “someone” WAS ready to start a national Tea Party movement. Within hours after Santelli’s piece aired, the blog OfficialChicagoteaparty.com went live, registered to Eric Odom. Ames and Levine report that this is the same Eric Odom who, in 2008, organized a Twitter-led “DontGo.com” campaign to press Congress and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi to “not go home” until they had passed an offshore oil drilling bill. Odom has an interesting résumé, among other things serving as the “new media coordinator” for the Sam Adams Alliance (as in the historical Sam Adams, who led the original Boston Tea Party). The Alliance is affiliated with Koch (pronounced “coke”) Industries. Let’s take a look at that company.

A major beneficiary of an offshore drilling bill is Koch Industries, which, according to SourceWatch.org, “is the largest privately owned company in the United States … . Operations include refining, chemicals, process and pollution control equipment, technologies, fibers and polymers, commodity and financial trading and consumer products.”

According to an Aug. 30, 2010, article by Jane Mayer in “The New Yorker” magazine, Koch Industries is one of the top 10 polluters in the U.S. and spent even more money than ExxonMobil to fight climate change legislation. So the company has a vested interest in any movement that intends to limit government regulation of the energy industry.

Brothers David and Charles Koch, Mayer reports, have funded “foundations, think tanks, and political front groups. Indeed, the brothers have funded opposition campaigns against so many Obama Administration policies – from health-care reform to the economic-stimulus program – that, in political circles, their ideological network is known as the Kochtopus.”

Mayer describes the huge role the Koch brothers have been playing in the Tea Party movement, funneling $45 million just for the midterm elections through such groups as the Americans for Prosperity Foundation, of which David is a founder.

In an Aug. 28, 2010, op-ed piece in “The New York Times,” Frank Rich wrote about yet-another Tea Party sponsor, Dick Armey’s FreedomWorks. “Under its original name, Citizens for a Sound Economy, FreedomWorks received $12 million of its own from Koch family foundations.”

And in a front-page story in the Sept. 19, 2010, edition of “The New York Times,” reporters Janie Lorber and Eric Lipton wrote about the Tea Party Express, run by long-time Republican operative Sal Russo. “Mr. Russo’s group, based in California, is now the single biggest independent supporter of Tea Party candidates, raising more than $5.2 million in donations since January 2009, according to federal records. But at least $3 million of that total has since been paid to Mr. Russo’s political consulting firm or to one controlled by his wife, according to federal records.” Tea Party candidate Christine O’Donnell, who just won the Republican nomination for senator from Delaware, specifically thanked the Tea Party Express for its help in her win.

So be careful when you hear about “grassroots” organizations. While some of their members may truly embrace the messages of “freedom” and “the right to choose” and “small government,” it’s also quite likely that these groups may also be “astroturf” organizations, funded behind the scenes by industries that stand to prosper greatly from their success. But don’t take my word for it; do your own research.

Not all “New Influencers,” I would argue, are “people like us.”

Coal, Oil & Gas: Digging into the Olympic Moment

I just watched the final televised coverage of the 2010 Winter Olympics in Vancouver. Great games. Engaging TV. And ugly advertising.

The coal, oil and gas industries ran numerous advertisements during the games in an attempt to persuade us that we need these "American" industries ... just the way they are.

One ad by the coal industry uses patriotism to promote "clean coal," an oxymoron if there ever was one. A young coal worker talks about why he feels so proud to be doing his part to "make America secure" in the same way that his brother -- a solider -- is doing overseas. Geez!

Or take this ad by API, the American Petroleum Institute, self-dubbed "The people of America's oil and natural gas industry."

An attractive blond woman rides a pristine, computer-generated elevator supposedly down below the earth's surface. She tells us about the 9.2 million American jobs the oil and natural gas industry has created. As she rides back up, she says: "So the next time we discover more natural gas together underground, think of all the good that means above ground. Log on for more information" [emphasis mine].

After the 10th viewing of the ad, I finally logged on to energytomorrow.org, where you will be urged to write to Congress to protest "massive new taxes and fees on America's oil and natural gas industry" that will "kill jobs" and "hurt consumers and businesses."

Sounds bad. No one wants to "kill" jobs and "hurt" anyone.

BTW, this is an example of Astroturfing, or a fake grassroots campaign. API is trying to persuade us Americans to tell our legislators that we (not API) are "sick and tired and won't take it anymore."

Let me reframe the discussion this way.

How many people and other living things have been killed or hurt as a result of the polluting effects of oil and coal? We have chosen to subsidize these industries, thus making it seem as if they provide "cheap" energy. We conveniently forget the economic, political, environmental, health and social justice costs that come along with chopping off the tops of mountains, spewing particulate matter into the air, and dumping toxic wastes near low-income or minority communities that usually don't have the political power to fight back.

Last November, I participated in an online workshop titled “Covering the Green Jobs Debate: What You Need to Know.” This session was offered by Poynter NewsU to help reporters understand how to interpret information about green jobs. I learned that the common element of green jobs is energy, whether it be renewable energy or energy efficiency.

Why do green jobs matter? While President Obama has planned for $100 billion in additional stimulus bill funds to support alternative energy sources, China plans to spend $200 billion on green jobs, and the G-20 industrialized countries plan to spend $400 billion. We've got to get on board if we want to remain leaders in the world economy.

I learned that according to the Pew Charitable Trust, only about half of 1% of all U.S. jobs (770,000) are clean, renewable-energy jobs. However, green jobs are growing faster – 9.1% to 3.7% – than are those in the traditional energy sector, such as oil, gas and coal ... the dirty, nonrenewable energy sources.

According to the New York Times, the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity (ACCCE) decided in 2007 to commit between $35 million to $40 million a year through 2010 or 2011 to "protect coal" -- not to explore alternative energy sources or to clean up the way they do business. No, the goal is simply to protect the way they are. And they're being quite effective. Obama has spoken of "clean coal," and the Times reports that lawmakers are hesitating to support energy and climate bills considered "too draconian" because they "would kill jobs and raise energy prices." Really?

So I ask, what is the truly patriotic and American thing to do? Spend money to promote yourself in the short-run, with long-term negative consequences to your industry and to the people you purport to serve? Or spend money now to find ways to maintain your industry's health in the long-run while promoting the well-being of your employees, investors and the consuming public? Seems an easy call to me.

Coal and oil are dirty -- Have been. Always will be. Renewable energy (e.g., solar, wind, hydroelectric) is clean. A green economy creates jobs and promotes sustainability. Go green.

Why We Need a Green Tea Party

You’ve heard of the Boston Tea Party, right? As the story goes, Boston colonists in 1773, upset with a British tax on tea, decided to protest the “taxation without representation” by throwing the tea into the harbor. There’s much more to the story than this, but the event has served as a model for anti-tax, anti-government protests ever since.

Today we have the Tea Party movement, which took force in early 2009. People are expressing their anger with President Obama and Congress for spending “the people’s” money on things “the people” don’t like – taxes in general, health care, the stimulus bill, banking and auto bailouts, etc. Things they value include fiscal responsibility, free markets, limited government, upholding the Constitution and, as former Rep. Tom Tancredo said in his opening remarks at this month’s Tea Party Convention in Nashville – “... a commitment to passing on our [emphasis mine] culture – and we do have one you know! It is based on Judeo Christian principles whether people like it or they don't! That's who we are! And if you don't like it, don't come here! And if you're here and don't like it go home! Go someplace else!” Which "home" is he suggesting Americans who disagree with him should go to?

This populist movement is infused with “astroturfing,” – that is, well-financed entities, such as the Freedom Forum, are helping to frame the debate by creating fake grassroots movements (see Paul Krugman, NYT, April 12, 2009). And, sadly, there’s a strain of racism among some in the movement – people who picture Obama as a witch doctor, who label him as a modern-day Hitler, who still do not believe he was born in the U.S., who believe that those who voted for him are illiterate, and so on. But that's another story.

The Tea Party movement has been very effective in rallying a group of people with strong beliefs and in getting their message before the media and elected officials. But they are pushing more than just information and persuasion; they are making things happen, too. For example, members of the Tea Party have claimed credit for Republican Scott Brown winning former Democratic Senator Ted Kennedy’s seat in Massachusetts. We can learn a lesson or two from this group.

It’s time we established a Green Tea Party, a grassroots group dedicated to making elected officials act responsibly by supporting clean energy, creating green jobs, promoting energy conservation, and addressing climate change as the real, human-caused phenomenon it is.

We need to repeat our messages through a variety of media and repeat them often.: We must care for our world, care for our environment, invest in our children’s future, be wise stewards, create green jobs, grow the economy responsibly, and so on. We need to let our elected officials know “We’re angry as heck, and we’re not going to take it anymore.”

A Green Tea Party has already started to take form. On Feb. 13 at more than a dozen locations across Florida, people gathered for “Hands Across the Sand” events to protest planned drilling off Florida’s coasts. “Think, baby, think” was the chant – a counterpoint to Sarah Palin’s rallying cry of “Drill, baby, drill.” On Oct. 24, 2009, as part of “International Day of Climate Action," I organized “Tallahassee 350,” which was one of more than 5,200 similar events in 181 countries. This worldwide effort drew attention to the fact that scientists say the earth can sustain 350 ppm of carbon dioxide and maintain human life as we know it. Sadly, we’re at 390 ppm and rising. People around the world are getting the message and spreading the word.

I’m on the mailing list for at least a dozen organizations – such as the Southern Energy Network, the Natural Resources Defense Council, 1Sky, Repower America, Citizens Climate Lobby – that are seeking to educate the public and our elected officials on the urgency of addressing climate change. Communities across the country – indeed, across the world – are taking action.
Malcolm Gladwell in his seminal book “The Tipping Point” argues that small changes can bring about a social epidemic. We’re already facing an environmental tipping point (think about the unusual weather patterns this past year and the rapidly melting Arctic ice shield). We need to create a social epidemic – a Green Tea Party – to mobilize the political will of the masses to address this most-important issue facing humankind: climate change.

Won’t you join me?

Supreme Court Decision Could Affect Climate Debate

On Jan. 21, 2010, the U.S. Supreme Court, by a 5-4 margin, voted to grant corporations First Amendment rights to free speech. The majority argued that the government should not be able to regulate political speech, even if it is by corporations. This decision overruled legal precedence, something the high court usually tries not to do. Even President Obama expressed his dismay over this ruling during his State of the Union address last week.

The dissenting justices expressed concerns for the very nature of democracy if corporations were allowed to use their money to shape the public debate at any time in the campaign cycle. The New York Times reported that the 2002 McCain-Feingold campaign finance law banned the broadcast of "electioneering communication" from the general funds of corporations or labor unions within 30 days of a primary and 60 days of a general election. These broadcasts are not paid for by the political parties, but they definitely affect the campaign messages.

This decision is bad news for those of us who believe that recent climate change is real and primarily caused by human activity. According to ExxonSecrets.com, Exxon spent more than $20 million in the 10 years after the Kyoto Protocol was established to support efforts that questioned whether climate change was real. If the Exxons of the world are allowed to spend as much money as they want to make people believe climate change is not an important problem and is not caused by humans, then the scales of public debate surely will be tipped toward the side of the deniers. That, in turn, will affect public policy as politicians seek to address "more pressing" needs facing their constituents. We, the people, need to step up and make sure our message on the need to tackle climate change, now, is heard.

Hats Off to Walmart

First, dear readers (assuming there are any of you out there), I apologize for not having written anything for awhile. I was busy getting ready for my classes to begin at FAMU, so I didn't have the energy to blog.

But now that we're a week into classes, I'm feeling the urge to write again. Thus my "Hat's Off to Walmart." I know that many of my greenie friends hate Walmart for being the behemoth that destroys local economies and treats its employees poorly. I must confess, I've been a Walmart naysayer myself at times (especially when Walmart tried to open its first store in Vermont, where I lived for 16 1/2 years, and when it approved the Edelman-created fake blog).

But I've been impressed by some of Walmart's recent sustainability initiatives (e.g., committing to selling 1 million CFLs in a year; introducing a scorecard to pressure suppliers to decrease their packaging; and opening a green supercenter in McKinney, Texas -- why aren't all of its new stores green?).

I just read on promomagazine.com that Walmart is asking its suppliers to analyze and cut their own carbon footprints. The next step? Walmart supposedly will ask its customers to analyze the sustainability of Walmart products. Interesting. I wonder if this means Walmart will choose to stop selling cheap items that may not cost much to us in the U.S. but that "someone" assuredly has "paid for" in other ways. Maybe Walmart execs should simply watch "The Story of Stuff" and stop selling unsustainable products. Hmmm.... This online video clearly explains the connection between production and consumption (as if Walmart didn't already know). Watch it, if you haven't already seen it.

Speaking of "The Story of Stuff," check out "The Story of Cap and Trade" if you want to understand what that proposal is all about. Annie Leonard and gang are soon launching two other educational videos: "The Story of Electronics" and "The Story of Bottled Water."

Back to Walmart. If the largest retailer in the world is willing to make changes in the way it does business, demand sustainability changes from its suppliers and support sustainability initiatives by its workers, then there may be hope for us all.