Environmental Negotiation pt. 1: The Basics

In the quest for positive environmental policy, it's always helpful seek council from some success stories. Dale Gorczynski provides such tales of triumph in his 1991 book Insider's Guide to Environmental Negotiation. Working on Houston City Council for over eleven years, Gorczynski has spearheaded negotiations that removed raw sewage from Lake Houston (the city's major drinking water source), developed a less intensive water consumption policy for Houston, and a wide range of other environmental issues ranging from the disposal of toxic wastes to the protection of park lands.

He begins by assuring readers that environmental negotiation is a "game" (p. 4). All too often [and I'm definitely guilty of this] negotiations over environmental policy can become heated as the issues at stake appear drastically different to each side. Environmental activists easily become enraged just by the sheer existence of a new coal plant proposal, while the industrialist simply sees it as means towards making a living. Gorczynski calls environmental negiation a game in part to eliminate this contention. If you view the opposite side as an opposing team in a game, then you can prepare defensive strategies based upon their strengths, rather than reverting to anger and unflinching statements of opinion.

Gorczynski's second bit of wisdom is that environmental negotiation favors the generalist and interdisciplinarian. Environmental activists often don't know enough about politics and focus purely on ecology and public health, ignoring the economic or political elements of a proposal "You must be willing to go outside of your discipline; there is no way around it," he states (p. 9).

Environmental negotiations are further complicated in that they are unlike traditional negotiation, such as sitting down with your boss to negotiate a salary rase. Rather, they are informal negotiations. Some parties can't negotiate [trees, watercourses, animal species] and some parties refuse to negotiate at all [community next to a proposed sewage treatment plant]. Oftentimes there is complete lack of mutual respect between parties, each feeling they have the moral obligation to do whatever they want [e.g. our environmentalist v. coal plant industrialist] (p. 12).

The game of environmental negotiation is therefore quite difficult to play. Yet Gorczynski offers a five-step path, which he claims are the "heart and soul of successful environmental negotiating strategy" (p. 100).:

Step 1: Do research. This is when the need for level-headedness comes largely into play. Most environmental debate arises because one party feels greatly threatened by the behavior of another. In our example of the proposed coal plant, the activists case must be bolstered by adequate research. One must learn everything possible about the company in question, particularly their history of coal plant building [proposed size, standards for emissions, environmental problems associated with past plants, etc] (p. 105). [This, of course, is useful advice for both sides of the debate, but I haven't kept my personal bias a secret thus far, so why start now?]

This may seem like obvious advice, but according to Gorczynski, one common mistake made in the "do research" step is researching the individual environmental perpetrators themselves. What specific members of the company are supporting the coal plant? What is the extent of their influence [both internatl and external to the company]? This information becomes priceless in the negotiation process, as certain individuals follow patterns of behavior depending on their values (p. 108).

Step 2: Take Stock. Take account of those who support your cause and all accompanying allies. Not only should our environmentalist take into account the abilities of all vocal opponents to the coal plant, such as non-profit organizations or concerned citizens, but also potential allies who might not know about the proposition. For example, experts in public health, Congressmen from the districts in question, local councilmen, can offer resources and influence the outcome (p. 112). Furthermore, combining steps 1 and 2 enables one to imagine likely scenarios for victory. For example, if the coal companyt has funded extensive scientific research, support from public officials might be more helpful than environmental consultants (p. 120).

Step 3: Organize. Educate your team and the public, actively and continuously engage new allies for your cause. Delegate duties towards appropriate strengths to maximize efficiency (p. 124).

Step 4: Act. Clearly action is key towards victory. However, it is crucial that action be calculated and strategic. Our activist coalition mustn't get trapped in an endless internal debate, but must act once steps 1-3 are adequately achieved. Engaging the coal company too soon or too late could be detrimental (p. 143).

Step 5: React. Dale Gorczynski claims that the reaction step is most crucial in environmental negotiation. Particularly, it's essential to react appropriately to the oppositions reactions. For example, highlighting the bad behavior of an overtly hostile reaction from the coal company could fuel your team in resolve and possibly enlist support from previously neutral groups (p. 159).

Philosophical Considerations: Paradigms, Permanence, & Policy

Inspired by my talk with Dr. Bannon [see post from last Monday] and admittedly the product of a weariness from immersion in the semantics of divisive political discourse, the following takes a look at several philosophical considerations behind environmental policy.

Known by many as the father of environmental policy studies, Dr. Lynton Caldwell in his book Environment as a Focus for Public Policy articulates one underlying problem that arises from meshing defense of the earth with public policy. Caldwell begins with the claim that we each attribute certain significance to our surroundings based on our specialized training or other experiences:

You see a picture of a traffic jam on a Los Angeles Freeway. This may be all that some see. Others, depending on the specialized character of their interest and perception, may see problems of transportation, public health, or engineering; or perhaps, problems of urban design, metropolitan government, or public finance (p. 28).

And this is the ordinary individual’s encounter. However an alternate, less prevalent social viewpoint, “sees the congested freeway as an aspect of human environment, all of these things and many others come into focus simultaneously, forming a profile of one aspect of our society” (p. 28). The problems we usually run into with environmental policy, according to Caldwell, stem from deviation from this encompassing consideration. The world around us is our environment, our shared habitat full of vast complexity both inherently and subjectively to each person’s field of vision. Narrowly focused approaches towards “correct” visions of the environment, therefore, raise blinders to all other social data-points. This disservices not only the deafened voices but also the object of the analysis itself. Alienation yields contention and often dissent.

So then what does this mean for environmental policy? According to Caldwell, the grand unifying conceptual potential of the environment is often lost in political discourse as it becomes merely a “general object of public policy” (p. 30). Caldwell not only demands a paradigm shift towards a unifying vision the environment but even suggests that charging administrations as sole executors of environmental policy is a fundamentally flawed practice. The solution towards achieving positive environmental progress (under a comprehensive scope) requires redefinition of “social responsibility” and “public authority” (p. 98). No longer can we rely simply on unilateral policy legislation within Congress or EPA regulation. Rather, reform must take place via multi-faceted public engagement:

A mutually reinforcing relationship among major social institutions is needed. Schools, laws, and the administrative agencies of government are especially critical, but certain sectors of the professions and the business community must also be brought into a concerted effort toward environmental protection and improvement (p. 102).

Caldwell’s cooperative, grand vision sounds great. It only takes a quick glance at current environmental policy efforts to reveal the vast potential for policy-makers to muck things up [see various postings below]. However, how do we get there from here? Current widespread concern for specific crises, such as global warming, has seen a public uprising similar to the “mutually reinforcing relationship” within sectors of society of which Caldwell speaks. I can’t go a day without seeing a television commercial warning of impending climate change and touting the benefits of “going-green” in one’s own life.GE’s Ads Even these days are exclusively about clean energy.

But I’m not sure this global warming trend is the solution to Caldwell’s critique of our flawed, narrow view of the environment. Given Caldwell’s premise, global warming concerns seem to certainly unite us, even extending beyond the domestic scope of his argument. [It is, afterall, a global problem]. However, what happens when this craze is over. Assuming we’re not all floating in inner tubes within fifty years, it would seem that once at least mitigating global warming to acceptable levels, the problematic paradigm would persist. Caldwell was not talking about a hip, singular ecological crisis to permanently change our cultural views. He was talking about an expansive recognition of our deep personal relations with the environment.

To this assertion I would like to enter the work of philosopher Edward Casey. Casey’s Getting Back into Place (1993) is a metaphysical examination of the “place” concept, which provides some insight to Caldwell’s introduction. To Casey, the concept of “place” is primary to human existence; it is what Caldwell might term environment. Humanity is emplaced in that we each have bodies which occupy a place [“space” and “time” are irrelevant to Casey, as they represent mere attempts to order “our embodied emplacement” (p. 15)]. Casey discusses that our embodiment enables us to interact with places and foster significant relationships with certain landscapes (p. 16). This process is known as “cultivation” and represents our acquisition of familiarity with places as we both construct them with our own values and derive reciprocal significance from the places themselves (p. 173). The most obvious example is one’s home, the epitome of cultivating a familiar place. However, we also cultivate relationships with natural locations—outdoor sporting complexes, local nature preserves, National Parks.

What all this means is that our relationship with the environment [Casey’s “place”], is the essential unifying element of human existence. Furthermore, our significant interactions with [for our purposes] natural landscapes, cultivate relations of familiarity and help us derive value from the place. Herein lies a link to Caldwell’s proposed paradigm shift. Indeed if we learn to cultivate personal relations with certain landscapes, then familiarity will breed caring. In fact, this task could be performed on a regional, or even individual basis, as each member of society would only need to connect with their particular place [see Dr. Bannon’s mention of bioregionalism in our prior interview]. This could be achieved by reexamining our natural place construction with a critical eye, so as to imply human-nature mutual interactions, not simply preserved pristine nature. Perhaps by cultivating significant familiarity with our natural landscapes we can obtain the paradigm shift necessary to instill a more permanent eco-caring within society—not simply a hysteria-induced, transient trend, such that I feel global warming represents.

EPA: Enviro-policy Policemen

Thus far my focus has been primarily on policymakers. But what about the policy enforcers? The strictest climate legislation possible would be worthless in the hands of a do-nothing EPA. Time to take a look at the Environmental Protection Agency's role in all of this policy talk.

Over the past eight years it's been easy to forget the EPA's roles outside its presidential bedfellow services. Under Bush the agency determined to work for "a cleaner, healthier environment for the American people" became nothing more than a front for conservative disavowals of global warming or any ecological urgency really. Recently, a landmark EPA finding indicates things might be looking up for the tarnished agency. On April 17, 2009 after a two year review, the Environmental Protection Agency declared that carbon dioxide and five other greenhouse gases, "endanger public health and welfare." While the announcement seems to merely confirm the obvious, its significance for environmental policy is substantial. Firstly, the finding formally classifies greenhouse gases (GHGs) as pollutants. This change enables the EPA, whose regulatory hands had previously been tied over GHGs, to enforce emissions standards on the substances. Secondly, the declaration marks a victory in fighting global warming. Not only can we finally see some hard regulation of GHG-emitters as the polluters they are, but the finding directly recognizes human-caused climate change.

"In both magnitude and probability, climate change is an enormous problem. The greenhouse gases that are responsibile for it endanger public health and welfare within the meaning of the Clean Air Act," reads one section of the EPA document. The finding recognizes long-term reasons to combat climate change, such as increased drought, heavier flooding, more frequent wildfires, and sea level rise. The announcement even suggests security issues tied to global warming, such as increased violence in destabilized regions caused by scarcity of resources such as water.

The Obama EPA is therefore off to a great start and seems poised to tackle our environmental concerns with newly equipped muscles. If our precious climate bill ever sees the light of day and becomes a law the EPA will be charged with enforcing the legislation. Most importantly, the agency will develop specific regulatory standards for carbon emissions, the issue at the forefront of environmental policy these days.

This recent decision has caused a bit of a stir within Congress. Energy bill coauthor Henry Waxman has been using the EPA as a threat to elicit GOP support in passing regulatory specifics. Breakthrough Institute's Tyler Burton calls Waxman's tactic "the 'EPA will regulate unless you act' bluff," as it urges GOPs to compromise on climate legislation before the EPA unilaterally passes stricter standards. However, Burton points out that Republicans may call this bluff. Extensive EPA regulation eliminates bipartisan debate, therefore opening the door for GOP criticisms of any negative aspects of regulatory policies. This may hold true, as EPA administrator Lisa Jackson testified before the House Energy and Commerce Committee this past Wednesday that federal limits on GHGs would lead to "modest" increases in electricity. As Burton claims, this might lead to a "protracted 'you go first' stalemate between EPA and Congress as no one will want to be responsible for increasing the costs of energy." Once again an apparent victory reveals its drawbacks. Hopefully, the EPA will step up and take responsibility. Higher costing energy is a necessary first step toward a clean energy economy.

Environmental Policy & Philosophy: Interview With Dr. Bryan Bannon

Environmental policy (at least, in theory) seeks council from a wide selection of academic disciplines. Largely these contributions are limited to the natural and social sciences--chemistry, ecology, economics, etc. Yet are those fields typically charged with policy construction all that we need to consider? Dr. Bryan Bannon, environmental philosophy professor at Miami University, would ardently say no.

This past Monday I had the opportunity to speak with Dr. Bannon, hoping to gain a new perspective on environmental policy. Not only did he fulfill this much-needed breath of fresh air, but his philosophical approach to concrete issues revealed the profound depth of environmental policy.

===========================================

Could you please describe your academic background?

I went to the University of Rhode Island for my bachelor’s degree in philosophy taking a rather circuitous route that eventually led to graduate school at the University of Memphis where I earned my Ph.D, also in philosophy.

How did you get into environmental philosophy, specifically?

It started by thinking about animals and animal rights. The more I read about how we treat animals, the more I realized that what leads us to treat animals in that way was more of a widespread problem prevalent in general human attitudes, rather than isolable in how we treat these particular beings. In reading about ways in which other people tried to extend ethical considerations towards animals, I thought, ‘How can we use these for other living beings without having to talk about the support systems that keep these living beings in existence.’ If the problem with animals is how we treat them as instruments for our use, such as clothing or food, then maybe this is problematic attitude to have toward beings in general and not simply towards animals alone.

How has your background in philosophy shaped your views concerning the environment?

It’s actually changed them quite a bit. You come in with a lot of preconceptions with what you need to do to “help nature.” You use words like sustainability and restoration, and you talk about green technology without ever really thinking about what it really means when we use those words. But when we talk about sustainability in terms of guaranteeing a resource base for the future, we’re not talking about a change in attitude and so we aren’t really being “green” in any meaningful way. Our dispositions don’t change. It’s as if you’re talking to a heroin addict and you say, ‘Look, in the quantity you take it, this drug is inhibiting your ability to survive, so we’re going to give you a limited amount of heroin each day.’ But that doesn’t address the problem; you want the addict to stop consuming. Ultimately one of the things philosophy has to offer us is a reflection upon the underlying attitudes behind terms like sustainability that might change the way we relate to things and curb both our metaphorical and our literal consumption. If we spent more time considering what make life meaningful and worthwhile, we might develop a very different attitude toward the natural world. And I think that’s more practical than many of the other things we take to be practical activities.

What do think philosophy’s role is in the mitigation of environmental crises?

There was an article that I read a long time ago that made a big impression on me called, ‘Environmental Philosophy is Environmental Activism’ by J. Baird Callicott. His argument is that what most people take to be practical activism requires changes in the cultural beliefs that most of us westerners hold, and therefore changes in the ways we deploy value, in order to be lasting and effective. One of the lessons I took from this was the importance of analyzing the implicit power relationships in our language and concepts concerning nature. If we continue to utilize concepts that surreptitiously maintain anti-ecological ideas as the basis for our activism, such as in the sustainability movement as alluded to earlier, our ecological policies will not be as beneficial as they could be. Scientists are very good at describing why things are the way they are and what’s the case about our world, and economists are good at talking about human survival on economic terms, but what philosophy is talking about it very different. It wants to question what kinds of values that are relevant to the decisions we are making in general. Take mountain top removal, for example. You can come up with economic plans that show its viability and through the use of technological means, you can talk about how to mitigate the environmental impact of strip mining; but in making those arguments we miss something insofar as they neglect our human relationship to nature. So what happens is we end up excluding the voices of the humanities in general from these kinds of discussions, and thus exclude our most valuable values and we create policy that isn’t always in nature’s (or even human) interest.

Are there other humanities that you feel get ignored in the policy debate?

Well, if you think about history, the historian’s eye can pick out different trends to our behavior that we miss when we talk about gross economic analyses. By ignoring history, we even miss the fact that natural places have an ecological history. Donald Worster’s book, Nature's Economy: A History of Ecological Ideas, is a great example. In it he shows the different ways in which different human attitudes have impacted natural environments, the grand interplay between humans and nature. Also, visual arts and literature. Holding up a mirror to what our relationship to nature is like and imagining what might be possible alternatives to our current relations with nature. Philosophy works in a similar way by offering alternative possibilities to the typical rational self interest that is the concern of economists or the biologists’ concern with survival and adaptation. Even from a humanistic perspective it doesn’t make sense to exclude other types of values from discussion, because they are human values too. You can talk about Homo economicus but that’s limiting of what humanism means. It’s just one aspect of it. If we’re really devoted to things like green industry and sustainability, we’d have to reorganize our markets around something different than the economic ideal of perpetual growth. By definition, it’s just not sustainable.

What do you see as the greatest challenge facing the new administration concerning environmental policy?

That’s a hard one… It’s tough because there are so many things. I think it’s demographics, specifically population distribution. Certainly the number of people in the world is high, and where they are located places high demands on the environment and gives us specific demands that can only be met through specific forms of technology that are unsustainable. The classic example is Phoenix, AZ. There’s no way in which a city that’s grown to that size and in that manner should ever exist there. And it can’t possibly do so sustainably—that is, certainly not without importing water. If there were ways we could adapt more harmoniously to our places as opposed to adapting our places to our way of living—that, I think is the greatest policy challenge that Obama has. It’s not to all-of-the-sudden switch to sustainable growth. It doesn’t matter that we have wind or solar power if we don’t change our basic attitudes. If we adapt and reduce our local impact than those things will be a part of that change. But until we have different relationships with where we live, then….but then again how do you form policy out of this…I suppose policy should be geared towards enacting those types of changes—localized harmony with our places—as opposed to taking the easy way out and debating issues like renewable energy vs. fossil fuels the right answer to which is already, in a sense, determined in advance..

Then what issues should carry the most weight when prioritizing environmental policy?

Honestly I think Andrew Light’s position is a good way to do it. Creating ways in which people become engaged with the upkeep of their place as opposed to leaving it up to government authorities to take care of it. If you’re the one primarily in charge of upkeep of your place, you’d be more prone to stop someone from messing it up. If you’re the one cleaning up messes, you’re not going to make a mess yourself. Obama had that idea about the nationwide service corps, and with something like that you could have engaged environmentalism. So maybe finding a way to make it so it’s not just about 18 and 19 year old kids doing service right before they go off to college, but a way to engage the entire nation in their local communities to create sustainability through localized, engaged caring for place.

More specifically, what type of policy (i.e. carbon tax, cap-and-trade, renewable energy innovation) is the best way to combat climate change?

Vegetarianism. Well, more generally, overhauling the way agriculture works. At least in terms of my understanding of where carbon gets created, we could do a lot of good by changing our dietary habits and the way we distribute food. It’s ridiculous that we can grow lettuce in California to export to Mexico and then import the same value of lettuce from Mexico. [responding to my confused look, he explains] Because food is considered a global commodity, we can buy certain foods more cheaply from abroad while still exporting the same commodities for a profit due to subsidies. It doesn’t make any sense. Subsidies and viewing food as a commodity to be traded in a global market screws everything up. Subsidies make sense if we were subsidizing family farms supplying local consumers, but when we’re subsidizing things like high fructose corn syrup, the corporations that make those products don’t need our help. Agribusiness doesn’t need our help.

What about other forms of subsidies?

It depends on what you’re subsidizing. You want to subsidize things that are enacting positive environmental changes but not things that have widespread negative impacts. The global market for food is a bizarre idea because of all the infrastructure needed to create it. Bioregionalist authors like Robert Thayer and Kirkpatrick Sale writes about adopting new ways of eating such as becoming a local-vore, buying and eating local. So I think subsidizing those farmers that are selling locally and not using industrial, corporate agricultural practices that are so damaging for so many reasons will go a long way.

Discourse is essential in environmental policy. Richard Alexander writes about the complex filtering system in which scientists generate reports, which are peer reviewed and published. These published reports are talked about by the media and by policymakers and eventually it trickles down to us. It’s all about the speech. In this regard, do you think it’s a good idea to frame policy objectives in terms of climate change (i.e. climate bill, carbon tax, cap-and-trade) as opposed to less politically loaded terms (i.e. clean energy investment, green job creation)?

I think that matters a great deal actually. I agree strongly with the point you made that language conditions, if not determines, the kind of changes people are willing to make. When I teach environmental ethics, my goal is to take the discussion out of a moralistic context that you’re “doing something wrong” by driving an SUV or owning a big house. Most people become resistant to what you are saying when you phrase things like that. Instead we have to shift the conversation to be one about ethical choice, about the kind of person you are becoming or what kind of community you are creating by performing certain actions. What’s appealing about this to many people is that it appeals to American individualism. We want to view ourselves as in control of our situation, yet it also forces us to confront the limits of our agency in terms of what we’re able to accomplish in our own lives. As long as we term green policy in economic terms I think we lose touch with what’s really at stake. We let ourselves off the hook ethically. By framing policy in terms of larger issues like global warming and climate change, you can begin to ask people, ‘How do we want today’s society to be viewed by historians in the future?’ And that’s an ethical question that goes beyond what kind of jobs we had or whether we invested in the right technology. Phrasing the issues this way asks the harder questions of what kind of people were these people. These are the questions that occur more readily to a philosopher or a student of literature.

That’s interesting, [laughing]. Your answer flipped my question.

How do you mean?

Well, the distinction I originally made was between contentious global warming terms versus more politically-neutral economic terms. A recent Gallup poll shows that more Americans than ever before are willing to sacrifice environmental protection for economic growth. Therefore, for the purpose of enacting positive environmental policy within the context of the nation’s primary concern of the economy, it might seem beneficial to frame these issues in terms of clean energy investments or green job creation. Is there a justifiable compromise that can be made, at very least in terms of framing?

Well, yes, I can see how it’s more efficacious in terms of getting people to ‘do the right thing.’ It seems as if we need, in some ways, to balance or do both at once between making the kinds of attitude changes that I was talking about before (in the long-term) and getting people to see the practical implications of their actions (more of the short-term) and not be on the ‘wrong’ side of things. I agree with you that if the attitude has flip-flopped then if we’re going to get things done, I think we might have to go-with-the breeze a bit, but I don’t think that’s an excuse to jettison the larger cultural changes we need. If that’s the way discourse ought to be framed in order to make certain short-term changes it ought not to put on the backburner these larger changes.

One question I’ve always struggled with deals with the issue of natural autobiography. It has become common knowledge in the environmental world that one’s childhood encounters with nature shape the degree of environmental engagement that person pursues as an adult. That’s what happened with me and pretty much every environmentalist I’ve spoken with. You’ve mentioned that much of the underlying issues behind these ecological crises are human attitudes, and I definitely agree. Yet, if our environmental attitudes develop from our childhood nature interactions, does this mean one has to have a significant natural auto-biography or at least some connection to a certain landscape to ever engage in environmental action?

I agree wholeheartedly. That’s why I push the idea of place so hard. We can design our places such that natural functions are not destroyed and to cultivate interactions with nature. If we design places in this way, people who live in urban areas and currently have limited access to what we consider to be “nature” can have a greater idea of what’s at stake. Having nature in cities, not just in park space but actually designing the cities differently such that they maintain some of the characteristics of the nature that surrounds them, can provide the kinds of experiences you describe. This idea goes back to the idea of localized caring for upkeep, and not just upkeep but place creation. This gives people the ability to define the way they want to live, to cultivate certain kinds of relationships to the natural environment. If that’s what we find valuable, then that’s what we should be offered. We shouldn’t have to drive to Yellowstone to get it.

Woah…so is that your vision of the ‘perfect world?’

That’s my quasi-utopian vision, yeah. I feel it’s something we can do short-term right now, incorporating plans like the ones Lester Brown [author of Plan B: 3.0] describes. This might be a way to combine practical policy questions with reevaluation of the ways in which we actually relate to nature and the dispositions we have towards nature.

Energy Bill pt 3: Framing in Action

Having contextualized the particular importance of framing within environmental discourse, it's time to look at the current energy bill as a case study for this linguistic phenomenon.

On March 31, 2009 representatives Henry Waxman (D, CA) and Edward Markey (D, MA) introduced the Clean Energy and Security Act. The bill has four primary elements: (1) a "clean energy" title to promote the development of the U.S. renewable base and low-carbon technology; (2) an "energy efficiency" title which seeks across-the-board increases in efficiency standards; (3) a "global warming title" that sets limits on greenhouse gas emission, and (4) a"transitioning" title to protect domestic consumers and industry as well as promoting green jobs while the U.S. moves towards a clean energy economy.

Right off the bat, the bill's title is framed in politically-sensitive terms, reflecting bipartisan concerns. The focus is on security, a notion both Democrats and certainly Republicans should be able to get behind. Not only economic security through job creation and lowered consumer energy costs, but also national security through energy independence and domestic protection during the potentially unstable transition period. Furthermore, the recurring theme throughout seems to be alleviating economic woes by job creation and cheaper energy costs. This speaks well for the bill's viability, as Americans' concerns remain fixed upon the economy.

The bill's discouse seems to only carry one major loaded term "global warming," and it's a big one. Curiously, however, there is considerable debate among the academic community regarding the term's political ramifications. Linguicist Richard J. Alexander, author of Framing Discourse on the Environment, notes that in the 1990's Luntz, Maslansky Strategic Research, a rhetoric polling company that advises the Republican Party, determined that, "'Climate change' is less frightening than 'global warming'" (p. 209). Subsequently, several corporate lobbying organizations, many from the oil industry, launched a massive campaign advocating the use of "climate change." The effort was even successful in convincing the UN to switch from "global warming" in their official diction.

However, the U.S. EPA's official website on the matter is titled, "Climate Change." As a sidebar reads, "according to the National Academy of Sciences, the phrase 'climate change' is growing in preferred use to 'global warming' because it helps convey that there are [other] changes in addition to rising temperatures." Good to know, I guess, yet should we sacrifice our discourse to the researched insight employed by oil lobbyists just for the sake of maintaining scientifically accurate? The EPA, NASA, and other science-based agencies seem to think so.

"The Campaign to Take Global Warming Seriously," an online coalition to "stop climate chaos" uses "global warming" in high abundance all over its website. Given the conflicting views on the two terms, the group whose mission statement boldly states: "To move the crisis of Global Warming to the very top of everyone's personal and political agendas; above increasing prosperity, health, [and] education..." seems as good a source as any from which to take terminological cues. Perhaps Waxman and Markey were well-advised, then, when drafting the "Global Warming" title of their bill, a righteous reclamation of the term which accurately portrays the issue's severity.

While Congressional hearings on the energy bill don't begin until tomorrow (Tuesday, April 21), Teryn Norris notes that recent Senate debate on Obama's budget might indicate trouble ahead. Discussions on climate elements of the budget have yielded several victories for Republican opponents, largely due to their framing of the issues at hand:

Senator Thune (R-SD) introduced an amendment to the budget (which as originally composed had included revenues from carbon cap and trade) declaring that any climate legislation should 'not increase electricity or gasoline prices,' which quickly passed 89 to 8. Senator Ensign (R-NV) then proposed an amendment stating that climate policy should not result in higher taxes on the middle class, passing unanimously (98-0).

By tactful framing, Republicans therefore were able to switch the focus from the long-term aims of Obama's cap-and-trade proposal (energy independence, national security, and global warming) towards short-term fears of paying more for electricity and gas. They even cashed in on Obama's campaign go-to gem, "middle class."

The results of the budget debate foreshadow a grim potential outcome for the Waxman-Markey bill, particularly given Rep. Waxman's recent statements on PBS. When asked how cap-and-trade would lead to technology innovation, Waxman said:

When we raise the price of energy, which will happen if we reduce the amount of carbon emissions, and industries have to figure out how to live in a carbon-constrained environment, they are going to have to figure it out because it is in their profitable interest to figure it out.

Thus, in the wake of a Senate amendment barring climate legislation from raising the price of energy, we have the co-author of the energy bill himself promising just the opposite. There is perhaps in his words a latent effort to appeal to Republicans' unflinching faith in the free market, yet ultimately it seems to shoot the case for the climate bill right in the foot.

Framing is currently at the core of our environmental policy debate and right now it looks like the right-wingers are winning. Democrats need to act quickly to refocus the debate back on its primary long-term concerns--that of investment, security, and independence--before it is too late.

Energy Bill Priorities pt 2: Clean Energy Investment

While many see climate change as the primary urgency guiding environmental policy, others cite the current recession as means to set aside global warming concerns. As mentioned previously, for the first time since being asked, a majority of Americans feel it is okay to sacrifice environmental protection for economic strengthening.

However, a post-election Zogby poll indicated that 78% of Americans feel clean energy investment is important to boosting our economy. Once again, the economy and environment aren't necessarily two sides of the same coin. While American's primary concerns are financial, the public overwhelmingly supports exploring eco-friendly means towards helping the economy.

This brings us to the issue of framing. Framing refers to the manner in which concepts are discussed within public discourse and the ensuing political ramifications thereof. When discussing environmental issues, framing is particularly crucial. As Richard Alexander, author of Framing Discourse on the Environment, writes:

...the perceptions or non-perceptions of ecological crises..., such as global warming...are not sensorially experienced. It is the many-voiced discourse of scientists that is the source of our knowledge of such issues. These voices are filtered and very often distorted by the media presentations of such happenings (p. 3).

So the information trickling down to the public about climate change is the product of several layers of "many-voiced" filters from research scientists to media reporters and politicians. The way we understand the environmental issues at hand is almost entirely grounded in language.

Going back to our poll stats, a viable option for climate change policy becomes apparent. Perhaps the best way to pass positive legislation is to frame policy in terms of what the people (78% of them) want to hear: (clean) energy, investment, and cash money.

Nancy Pelosi gets it. In a recent interview she claimed, "I believe we have to [pass a cap-and-trade bill] because we see that as a source of revenue. Cap-and-trade is there for a reason. you cap and you trade so you can pay for some of these investments in energy independence and renewables."

While cap-and-trade is certainly a measure geared towards mitigating climate change, it should be framed in terms of its potential to stimulate the economy. Furthermore, as Breakthrough Institute's Adam Zenel points out, such framing eliminates from cap-and-trade the contentious focus on a "hard" carbon cap. A quantifiable ceiling for carbon emissions is sought after by many progressives, yet focusing upon investment, energy, and revenue avoids a significant amount of political resistance.

As Teryn Norris, also of Breakthrough Institute, states, "By focusing climate policy on direct public investment in the clean energy economy, Democratic leaders position themselves on strong political ground and force Republicans to oppose job creation, economic revitalization, and energy independence."

Energy Bill Priorities pt 1: Climate Change

Even among environmentalists, conservation has a wide-array of goals and there has always been considerable debate on what steps to prioritize in the defense of the natural world. Now that we've got an energy bill in Congress, it's finally time to figure out some coherent objectives.

Climate change is all the rage today, yet it still evokes considerable controversy. In fact, in a recent Gallup poll, for the first time since being asked the question in 1984, more Americans say that economic growth takes precedence over environmental protection. As Teryn Norris, Project Director at the Breakthrough Institute, says: "In the midst of economic crisis, Americans are far more worried about keeping their jobs and paying their energy bills than they are about global warming."

However, many don't feel the need to draw a distinction...

Lester Brown, perhaps today's premier environmental spokesman and author of Plan B 3.0: Mobilizing to Save Civilization, has advocated a carbon tax:

The most efficient means of restructuring the energy economy to stabilize atmospheric CO2 levels is a carbon tax. Paid by the primary producers—the oil or coal companies—it would permeate the entire fossil fuel energy economy. The tax on coal would be almost double that on natural gas simply because coal has a much higher carbon content. As noted in Chapter 11, we propose a worldwide carbon tax of $240 per ton to be phased in at the rate of $20 per year between 2008 and 2020.

This is perhaps the most hardcore policy towards attacking climate change. It holds emitters accountable in dollar amounts proportional to their ecological perpetration. Don't spew the grime, if you can't pay the fine.

The most popular policy geared towards climate change is cap-and-trade. Earth Defense Fund's Fred Krupp discusses the vast benefits of such a program, particuarly as opposed to a carbon tax:

We can’t find an example of any air-pollution problem ever solved without a quantitative limit on the pollution that can be dumped into the air, and that’s what a cap is. It’s an enforceable guarantee to the public. Tax proposals don’t measure up [to binding emissions limits], so they don’t spur the innovations and the emissions reductions we need. Moreover, if a [carbon] tax proposal were to be taken seriously, the number of exemptions would be huge; consider our 17,000 page IRS code.

Admirably, the President has come out strong in prioritizing his own cap-and-trade program, which would decrease U.S. carbon emissions by 20% below the 2005 level by 2020 and 83% by 2050. Obama seeks to auction 100% of emission allowances generating about $150 billion in 10 years to be invested specifically in green jobs and technology. While the investment in energy is an integral part of his plan, the forefront of the cap-and-trade idea is climate change.

Several environmental experts as well as the Prez himself have prioritized attacking global warming, while certainly collecting revenue and stimulating the economy. The key is that the framing of such policies, "carbon tax" and "cap-and-trade" place climate change as paramount in our economic policy objectives, a noble goal and I think I speak for tree-huggers everywhere when I say...finally.