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.