PR Goes Green

Being on the Wrong Side of History: Denying the Climate Crisis Is Real

2011-03-19T21:59:00.000-07:00

We study history while in school, but sometimes we forget that we are living through history right now. I wonder what historians will write in 2021 about how politicians responded in spring 2011 to the global climate crisis. Let’s take a peek at what that chapter might include.

A Little History

In summer 2008, the Supreme Court ruled that the Environmental Protection Agency had the authority to regulate greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act. Democrats in 2010 tried to pass legislation that would have capped greenhouse gas emissions, but the bills died as a result of Republican filibusters. So President Obama followed up on the Supreme Court ruling and authorized the EPA to use its regulatory authority to control greenhouse gas emissions, starting in January 2011.

On Tuesday, March 15, 2011, members of the House Energy and Commerce Committee voted 34-19 on a bill to permanently block the EPA from regulating greenhouse gas emissions. Every Republican on the committee plus three Democrats – Reps. Mike Ross (Ark.), Jim Matheson (Utah) and John Barrow (Ga.) – supported the bill. The full House of Representatives is expected the vote on the bill before the Easter recess. And the Senate is considering parallel legislation now, as well.

The House bill, by the way, is titled “H.R. 910: The Energy Tax Prevention Act.” Proponents are framing the bill as a “tax” that would “prevent” the economy from recovering.

Not so coincidentally, all of the representatives who voted for the bill have received thousands of dollars in donations from the billionaire Koch (pronounced “coke”) brothers, who own the largest privately owned company in the United States. According to www.sourcewatch.org, Koch Industries’ operations “include refining, chemicals, process and pollution control equipment, technologies, fibers and polymers, commodity and financial trading and consumer products. The company operates crude gathering systems and pipelines across North America. One subsidiary processes 800,000 barrels of crude oil daily in its three refineries.”

Follow the Money

Why do I single out the Kochs? Because the climate-change-denial campaign has a lot to do with “following the money.” Who benefits from legislation that would allow unregulated emissions of greenhouse gases, which scientists have proved affects global warming? Is it the people who suffer from asthma caused by air pollution, or is it the residents of “cancer alley” in Louisiana who suffer higher than “normal” levels of cancer? No, it’s the oil, gas and coal industries – and the people who support them – that believe they have much to lose in the short term from stricter regulations of air pollution. In the long term, however, it’s in the industries’ best interests to retrofit their businesses and invest big time in clean energies necessary for the future of human life as we have known it.

For more information about the Kochs, check Jane Mayer’s piece in The New Yorker magazine: “Covert Operations: The billionaire brothers who are waging a war against Obama.” .

For the Koch Industries side of the story, check here.

Impact of H.R. 910

Back to my story. According to Ashley Braun’s post at DeSmogblog.com, H.R. 910, if passed, would be:

· “Prohibiting the EPA from regulating greenhouse gas emissions (carbon dioxide and six others) in connection with climate change.

· “Repealing previous EPA actions and rules on climate, overturning the EPA's science-based endangerment finding stating that greenhouse gases, including carbon dioxide, threaten public health and therefore are ‘air pollutants’ which must be regulated.

· “Prohibiting Clean Air Act standards for improving vehicle fuel efficiency after 2016.

· “Preventing the EPA from allowing ambitious states, such as California, to set tougher vehicle emissions standards for greenhouse gases.”

Framing the Issue

On the FOXNews.com website, conservative pundit Phil Kerpen opines that senators who vote against a Senate version of the House bill would have to explain to their constituents “why they want to outsource our energy and economic future to unelected bureaucrats in the EPA – especially at a time when the economy remains weak and EPA regulations threaten to destroy millions of more American jobs. If the Senate refuses to stop the EPA, the biggest winners will be our global competitors like China and India.”

Democrats, on the other hand, are framing the bills as a threat to human health and welfare and as an affront to science.

House Democrats offered three amendments to H.R. 910 that, as Braun wrote, were “designed to get Republicans on the record on climate science.” The amendments called on Congress to agree that:

1. Climate change is occurring – amendment offered by Rep. Henry Waxman (D-Calif.)

2. Climate change is caused largely by humans – amendment offered by Rep. Diana DeGette (D-Colo.)

3. Climate change endangers human health and welfare – amendment offered by Rep. Jay Inslee (D-Wash.)

In contrast to FOXNews.com, Lucy Madison wrote on the CBSNews.com website that “The global scientific community is largely unified in the belief that the climate is warming as a result of human actions, among them the release of greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere.” Madison quoted Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-Ill.) as saying that “the Republicans’ rejection of Waxman’s amendment showed ‘what it means to be on the wrong side of history and the wrong side of science.’”

While some Republican legislators are still publicly arguing that “the science is not settled” and that the climate crisis is not real, others are taking the more cautious approach by arguing that the issue isn’t about science; it’s about whether the EPA should have the authority to do what Congress should be doing.

House Republicans and Democrats finally agreed upon a weaker “sense of Congress” amendment proposed by Rep. Jim Matheson (D-Utah) that says there is “scientific concern over warming of the climate system.” Concern – but not proof. Waxman, understandably, is upset with this “better lame than nothing” amendment.

John M. Broder reported in the New York Times that Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), the Republican Minority Leader, has attached an amendment to a small-business bill currently being considered in the Senate that has almost identical wording to that in H.R. 910. In his article, Broder quoted portions of a statement McConnell released to the press: “[Democrats] are attempting to do through regulation what they couldn’t do through legislation – regardless of whether the American people want it or not. … This is an insult to the millions of Americans who are already struggling to make ends meet or find a job.”

Broder added that “A vote on the McConnell amendment will be a test of anti-E.P.A. sentiment in the Senate, where a bill similar to the House measure has the support of most Republicans and one Democrat, Joe Manchin III, of West Virginia.” The major industry in West Virginia, by the way, is coal mining.

How Will the Chapter End?

So as historians write the chapter about what our politicians did in spring 2011 regarding the EPA, what will they say “we,” the people, did? Did we sit back and let history unfold? Or did we contact our legislators, demanding that they vote to support the EPA, improve vehicle fuel efficiency and allow states to pass their own stronger environmental laws?

What will history say YOU did?

If you want to send an e-mail to Florida’s two U.S. senators and the U.S. representative from our district, complete the contact forms available at these sites:

Sen. Bill Nelson (D-Fla.)

Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.)

Rep. Steve Sutherland II (R-Fla.)

You simply fill in the forms, include your message, and hit "send." You can send three messages in less than 10 minutes.

So the end of the story is up to you. You can either be the difference, or you can be indifferent. The choice is yours.

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

2010-12-01T14:18:00.000-08:00

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"

2010-10-02T15:31:00.000-07:00

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?

2010-09-19T17:42:00.000-07:00

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

2010-02-28T17:02:00.000-08:00

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

2010-02-15T11:15:00.000-08:00

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

2010-01-26T21:07:00.000-08:00

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

2010-01-14T22:23:00.000-08:00

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.

Framing Copenhagen

2009-12-16T10:57:00.000-08:00

Copenhagen. Nopenhagen. Hopenhagen. Which term works for you?

The U.N. Climate Change Conference is nearing the end of its 12-day run. It has received some mainstream media coverage, but not nearly as much as you might expect for a conference that is dealing with the future of our very existence. According to Agenda Setting Theory, the media tell us what to think about, not how to think about it. According to Framing Theory, the media tell us what to think about AND how to think about it.

Let’s see WHAT the major TV news networks think we should be thinking about – and maybe HOW to think about those topics. As of noon, Wednesday, Dec. 16, here’s what I found as their top-of-the-page, lead photos and stories on their homepages.

ABC News: We need to know that the husband of missing Utah woman is the lead suspect in her disappearance. A photo and story about Senator Joseph Lieberman and his influence on the health care reform legislation had been the top story minutes ago. Next major story: Tiger Woods. Where is the story about the climate summit? Eight sections down under “Science & Technology” is a link to a story about Schwarzenegger and Gore speaking at the summit. Oh, and there’s a story about the tiff between Schwarzenegger and Palin over whether humans cause climate change and which governor has/had a better track record on addressing the environment.

CBS News: This network believes we need to know that Tiger Woods has been voted AP Athlete of the Year. Under “Hot Topics,” the 9th link was to a story about the 40,500-ton carbon footprint being made at the climate summit. Gotta really look for it.

CNN: The lead photos and stories at noon were about a British Airways strike and about a modern-day Huck Finn traveling on the Mississippi River. Really? On the left under “Latest News Link,” the #3 story is about 250 people being arrested at the climate change summit. The #1 story? Tiger Woods.

Fox News: A large photo showed police confronting protesters at the summit. Links took you to several other stories, including a story about the internal conflict among delegates and the fact that the Danish climate minister had resigned so that her boss, the higher ranking Danish prime minister, could take over as leader of the summit. There was also a link to a nonscientific survey, showing that 98% of those who chose to respond to Fox’s online survey believe that “With the U.N. climate conference in disarray and its president resigning,” [hear the framing?] President Obama should not sign any agreements in Copenhagen without first getting Congress’s approval. Shortly after 1 p.m., the climate photo was gone (although the story links were still at the top of the page). Instead, there was a photo of a father whose son was sent home from school for drawing a picture at school of Christ on a cross.

MSNBC: This network, too, emphasized the conflict between the police and the protesters, but its photo was a closeup of an shouting protester, not the police. The headline was “Climate Talks Stumble as Protests Turn Violent.” The accompanying article discussed the change in leadership at the summit and contained brief synopses of some of the major issues confronting delegates. Helpful.

So only Fox and MSNBC gave the summit top billing, and both emphasized the news of the protests – an important piece, but only a piece, of the whole story.

In my early morning stupor, I decided to watch CNN to see how the climate conference was going. Between 7:30-9:30 a.m., the conference protests were mentioned twice: at about 8:08 a.m. and again at 9:06 a.m. – both times for about 10 seconds. So we know how important CNN thinks the climate change conference is to us as consumers of news.

If it weren’t for bloggers (e.g., Mother Jones, Florida Climate Alliance, etc.), I wouldn’t know about some of the issues being addressed or the events taking place.

Shame on you, news media. I know you define your job as finding the “news” you think most important to your readers/viewers. But please, you need to help the rest of us by putting into context the importance to our very survival of addressing climate change … now. Give the story priority. Explain its complexities in easy-to-relate-to terms. Interview REAL experts. Take back your role as the Fourth Estate.

U.N. Climate Conference: A Well-Kept Secret

2009-12-08T09:17:00.000-08:00

Many years ago while waiting for the school bus, I commented to an elementary school classmate that finally the big night had arrived. For what? she asked. For what? Well, the World Series, of course, where my beloved Brooklyn Dodgers were playing the hated New York Yankees. (The Dodgers won, by the way.) I thought everyone knew about – and cared about – the World Series. It was an eye-opening experience for my 8-year-old self that not everyone cared about the same things I did.

We’re facing a similar scenario in this country regarding the United National Climate Change Conference, which began Dec. 7 in Copenhagen. Those of us who have been active in the “environmental movement” (or “life-survival activities”) have been anxiously awaiting the summit, hopeful that world leaders will take strong action to combat climate change. Certainly “everyone” knows the purpose of the U.N. summit, right?

However, a November 2009 Harris Poll of U.S. Americans showed that about 70% of the respondents were not even aware of the topic of the conference. How could that be? In a January 2009 survey the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press found that of 20 possible “top priority” public policy issues, U.S. respondents rated the environment in 16^th place and global warming in the 20^th or last place. The top three issues were the economy, jobs and terrorism.

In at speech given at the Florida State University School of Law on Dec. 1, Frank Loy, U.S. Under Secretary of State for Global Affairs from 1998 to 2001, said that “In the United States, in contrast to every other country, our appreciation of the urgency [of addressing climate change] is at a totally different level.”

To make matters worse, the same November 2009 Harris Pol l found a drop of 20% – from 71% to 51% – in just the last two years in the number of U.S. Americans who believe global warming is caused primarily by humans. The researchers’ interpretation was that more U.S. Americans seem confused as to whether humans are responsible for the dramatic rise in carbon dioxide, which is identified as the cause of global warming.

It’s not surprising that many U.S. Americans are confused about the realities of climate change. And the mainstream media certainly haven’t helped. The journalistic guideline has been to assume there are two “equal” sides to an issue – ignoring the fact that one “side” may be significantly more valid than the other. So, the rule dictates, if you quote someone “in favor of” climate change, then you must quote someone “opposed to” climate change ... as if “the facts” about climate change were something you could be in favor of or oppose.

Many of us want to believe scientists have the key to solving our problems, and yet we’re often confused by what we’re told (think about recent recommendations regarding whether women of a certain age need to have regular mammograms). And then there’s the story out of the University of East Anglia (dubbed “Climate-gate” by conservative commentators and repeated on all media outlets). In case you missed the story, thousands of stolen e-mails from the Climatic Research Unit at the UEA were posted on the Internet. The e-mails contain references to “tricks” and other activities that global warming deniers have said prove climate change isn’t real. Bad form, CRU. As FoxNews.com frames the issue, “There is no precedent for so many academics engaging in coordinated efforts to distort research for political ends.”

Scientists need to make the peer-review process more transparent and help us nonscientists understand why they are so convinced climate change is real. The media can help as well, and some networks are trying. On last night’s evening news, NBC carried a major story in its feature titled “A Perfect Storm” about how much of Bangladesh is under water as a result of rising tides caused by global warming. CBS carried a similar story about the Maldives Islands, where officials are making plans to desert the likely-to-be-submerged islands and move everyone to another country on higher ground.

Fox News, on the other hand, has been focusing on why it believes the mainstream media have ignored the CRU story (head’s up: they haven’t), analyzing the carbon footprint of the U.N. summit (which it has dubbed “Carbonhagen”), predicting the formation of a “new world economy” to address climate change (translated as “Watch out, U.S., we’re being taken over by other countries!”), and that the rise in sea level is “the greatest lie ever told."

Even CNN’s Campbell Brown is hosting a show tonight titled “Global Warming: Trick or Truth?” We’re told to “Tune in to Campbell Brown tonight for a look into the science, skepticism, and secrets surrounding global climate change.”

It’s a clever title, but it frames the issue of climate change as factually questionable. No wonder people are confused!

But even if you can’t understand all of the science of climate change, just think of melting glaciers, rising sea levels, increased intensity of droughts and forest fires, increased health problems – especially in low-income communities – as a result of poor air quality and other forms of pollution, and so on. The EPA just released a statement publicly linking greenhouse gases to public health, which many people have been saying for years.

Something IS happening to our planet. So what is causing the disconnect between what we “see” and what we “feel”? Why is it that “if the facts don’t fit the frame, it’s the facts that are rejected, not the frame”?

A story published Dec. 7 on NPR.org quotes psychologist Kari Marie Norgaard of Whitman College in Walla Walla, Wash., as saying that the reason we don’t or can’t accept the critical nature of climate change is that “… as people start to feel overwhelmed by the scope of the problem, they simply turn away from the topic. It's a form of denial, she says. ‘We just don't want to know about it, so we are actively distancing ourselves from it or trying to protect ourselves from it.’”

At the FSU conference I mentioned earlier, one participant – and international student working on her doctoral dissertation – said she’s studying why U.S. Americans can’t seem to grasp the seriousness of climate change. Her conclusion: We haven’t figured out yet that climate change is and will affect us … and not just people in other parts of the world.

I suspect the reason also has something to do with our history as a relatively new nation, our Manifest Destiny, so to speak, of being “right” and “privileged” to do whatever it is that we do … because, of course, we’re right. And change is scary.

So hang onto your hats. The ride is sure to be exciting. Let’s just hope it ends as safely as possible for humankind.

Pollution Lobby vs. Lobby for Truth

2009-11-25T20:46:00.000-08:00

President Obama announced today that he would be attending the U.N. Climate Change Conference this December in Copenhagen on his way to accepting his Nobel Prize in Sweden. Well, it's about time that he decided to go.

It will be interesting to see how climate change deniers discuss the meaning of his upcoming visit. Jim Tankersley, in his blog "The Swamp," wrote:

Obama's attendance carries political risks at home, where his energy and climate bill has bogged down in the Senate behind health care, and where critics figure to pounce if he fails to lead the world to a climate agreement. Republicans in particular are mindful of Obama's trip to Copenhagen earlier this year, when he lobbied unsuccessfully for Chicago's bid to host the 2016 Summer Olympics.

So watch for connections between the two Copenhagen visits -- regardless of whether they are really related. If you frame Obama as a failure, then you would see his lack of success in securing Chicago as the host for the Olympics as proof he doesn't know how to get things done. His return to Copenhagen probably will be framed as further proof of his failure as a leader.

On the other hand, the fact that Obama is going to the U.N. Climate Conference is proof, to those who frame him as a strong leader, that he's taking his rightful place on the world stage and helping shape world energy policies.

Let's see what happens. Tonight, I got an idea of what we can expect.

On CNN's "The Situation Room with Wolf Blitzer," host Suzanne Malveaux asked her guests -- Democratic strategist James Carville and Republican strategist Ben Stein -- what they thought the president could do "on this issue" being address in Copenhagen.

Carville said "not very much." He said he hoped that "talk radio and the Pollution Lobby were right that global warming is not a problem and 940 peer-reviewed scientific articles are wrong. That's about all we can hope for." Talk radio and the Pollution Lobby, he added, were winning the battle to persuade the American public -- including Congress -- that climate change is not a real threat.

Ben Stein reframed the argument by saying: "Calling the people who want to keep Americans free to use the kind of energy they want to use 'the Pollution Lobby' is a wild smear ... It's not the Pollution Lobby. It's the Lobby for the Truth. The truth is that the global temperature peaked around 1998. It has not gotten any hotter. In fact, it has gotten cooler. The truth is ... ." And he continued to share other "truths" that deny the reality of climate change, saying "...the whole thing about fighting global warming may be based on a false premise."

Stein was brilliant in his framing. He referred to Americans being "free" to do whatever they want to do ... which means "Government, keep your hands off my business!" When Carville tried to provide proof of the existence of climate change as presented by 940 or 958 or 950 peer-reviewed scientific articles (the number kept changing), Stein responded that there was a "cabal" of peer reviewers "determined to suppress information that challenges the conventional wisdom about climate change."

Carville wasn't as effective as Stein in framing his arguments. It's a shame Carville is often called upon to present the liberal or progressive case in televised debates.

Suzanne Malveaux pointed out that Americans are divided on whether global warming is really happening. She quoted an ABC News-Washington Post poll from Nov. 12-15 that among Democrats, the number who believe global warming is real has dropped from 92% to 86% since March 2006, a time when President George W. Bush was denying global warming was real. Among Republicans, the number has dropped from 76% to 54%, and among independents, the number has dropped from 86% to 71%. This is scary. Still, the majority in this study believe climate change is real.

But here is where Malveaux -- and other journalists -- failed us. Rather than bringing up facts from reputable scientists about the existence of global climate change, she hid behind the journalistic sense of "fairness" by saying, "Well, we could debate whether this [global warming] is real or not ... ."

For real?

Framing theory tells us that the media not only tell us what to think about; they also tell us how to think about it. In an effort to be "fair," many mainstream journalists are, by default, telling us that climate change is not real -- despite what the facts are.

Framing Global Warming/Global Climate Change

2009-11-15T18:49:00.000-08:00

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.