Last time we covered the basics on environmental negotiation according to experienced negotiator Dale Gorczynski. Now we'll take a at specific tactics for success.
1. The Blacksmith Approach (pp. 177-180). Gorczynski claims that environmental negotiation often isn't much about subtle adjustments to policy as it is about pounding away at the opposition like a blacksmith pounding iron. As mentioned earlier, environmental negotiations are informal in that each side is often unwilling to negotiate at all with the other. Each stubborn party must therefore rely on the media, launching large-scale public relations campaigns to wear down and "soften" the opposition. The goal here is to outlast your opponent. Beat on them day-after-day until they are forced to negotiate.
Last week I introduced the example of an activist campaign against a proposed coal fire power plant. Under the blacksmith approach, the environmentalists could pound against city council members sympathetic to the plant. Call on individuals who have experienced the impacts of coal pollution first hand, and bringing them to council meetings. Bring an army of concerned mothers and call the policymaker out by name as being directly responsible for the impending public health risks. The battered opposition will eventually have no choice but to slacken their position, by either backing down completely or at least negotiating a compromise.
2. The Surgical Strike (pp. 181-183). The opposite of the blacksmith approach, the surgical strike employs subtlety and timing. It is the most effective negotiating strategy at getting just what you want, yet only works when your research indicates that the opposition is in fact prone to acquiesce. The strike is launched on a specific target which might be secretly sympathetic to your position.
For example, a policymaker likely to vote against your position simply because of party affiliations, might actually be an undercover environmentalist, or particularly against public controversies. Target this fact by approaching this specific member in private, indicating that you highly appreciate their sympathetic opinion and don't wish to launch a negative public assault which could be damaging to their character. Such a calculated approach is likely to result in much if not all of your demands being met.
3. The "Know-It-All" Approach (pp. 185-187). The know-it-all approach enlists the support of a highly qualified expert, such as a distinguished engineer or scientist to testify on behalf of your position. Beginning by elaborating on their credentials, know-it-all experts must establish themselves as the most knowledgeable person at the negotiation. They bolster your position and refute all dissent with detailed research and expert relevant experience.
This is another tactic used often in environmental negotiation, yet its success hinges completely on your opposition's lack of its own know-it-all expert. The hypothesis-based nature of research science is that theory can always combat theory, from any and all sides. For example, the scientific community has long since held a 95% consensus that global warming is a legitimate, human-created problem. Conservatives have, however, been able to employ numerous scientific sources of equally credible peer reviewed literature that claims just the opposite. Take for example the Cato Institute's recent propaganda Ad that I happened to catch in the May 4th issue of the National Review:
"Few challenges facing America and the world are more urgent than combating climate change.The science is beyond dispute and the facts are clear."
— PRESIDENT-ELECT BARACK OBAMA, NOVEMBER 19 , 2008
With all due respect Mr. President, that is not true.
We, the undersigned scientists, maintain that the case for alarm regarding climate change is grossly overstated. Surface temperature changes over the past century have been episodic and modest and there has been no net global warming for over a decade now.1,2 After controlling for population growth and property values, there has been no increase in damages from severe weather-related events.3 The computer models forecasting rapid temperature change abjectly fail to explain recent climate behavior.4 Mr. President, your characterization of the scientific facts regarding climate change and the degree of certainty informing the scientific debate is simply incorrect.
The Ad ends with list of nearly 100 scientists committed to denying the hype of Global Warming. Clearly the know-it-all approach can be easily employed by both parties within environmental negotiation.
4.The Warm, Friendly Approach (pp. 189-192). As Dale Gorczynski claims, "The warm, friendly approach could be an act of friendship or it could be an act of seduction" (p. 190). Most often it is the tactic of lobbyists as they try to butter-up the opposition, highlighting similarities and downplaying differences between the aims of both sides. If each party has essentially the same goals, then there's not much harm in adopting the other's position.
If we take a look at Congressional climate legislation, we have already highlighted times when this tactic has been employed by both sides. Democrats concerned with the ecological crisis of Global Warming have framed their proposals in terms of their potential for economic stimulus--the longstanding conservative argument against environmental protection. Republicans, however, have in several cases flipped the dialogue back on Democrats most obvious in their successful amending of Obama's budget to ensure climate legislation doesn't raise energy prises. As you may recall, the relevant Republican amendments passed with overwhelming bipartisan support [89-8 & 90-0]. It seems likely that within our current federal environmental policy negotiations, the warm-and-friendly approach will continue to play a dominant role.
5. The Arrogant, Obnoxious, S.O.B. Approach (pp. 193-196). The S.O.B. approach is the opposite of the warm-and-friendly. Goals of this approach are to attack your opponents ego and self-esteem, thus destroying their will to persist with their position. Most often, this is the tactic of those opposing positive environmental policy, the bad-guys. By attacking the credentials of scientific experts or portraying environmental activists as dirty, tree-hugging hippies, the opposition can make positive policy look like the foolish pursuit of unqualified professionals and a small group of crazed individuals.
One way for us good guys to utilize this approach is to enlist our own S.O.B.s. If we continuously roll over or take personal offense in the face of the S.O.B. approach, then we are doomed to intimidated failure. The problem is conservatives are experts at this approach. A perfect example of the efficacy of the S.O.B. approach came during the 2000 presidential election debates where George W. Bush was able to combat Al Gore's researched economic figures with mean, one-line zinger--a moment which many analysts feel may have solidified Bush's eventual victory:
AL GORE: I agree that the surplus is the American people's money, it's your money. That's why I don't think we should give nearly half of it to the wealthiest 1 percent, because the other 99 percent have had an awful lot to do with building the surplus in our prosperity.JIM LEHRER: Governor one minute.
GEORGE W. BUSH: Man's practicing fuzzy math again.
...GEORGE W. BUSH: I'm beginning to think not only did he invent the Internet, but he invented the calculator. It's fuzzy math. I can't let the man continue with fuzzy math.
Therefore, despite the tendency to avoid the S.O.B. approach altogether, its effectiveness at silencing rational, substantiated positions might make it necessary to use, at least sparingly.
6. The "Come Let Us Reason Together" Preacher (pp. 197-201). This tactic employs an overall moral basis behind negotiating. This tactic is the work of a figurehead with the substantial public support and influence. It is this individual's duty to establish his stance as impartial, only desiring what is best for everyone. From an impartial, moral pedestal this figurehead can mediate environmental negotiations by facilitating face-to-face negotiations between parties.
Right away I see this tactic as President Obama's role in current negotiations. He is brilliant at downplaying staunchly partisan positions as petty and counterproductive to the overall good of the country. Particularly, he has attempted to mediate environmental negotiations by portraying policy as multi-faceted measures towards achieving national, economic, and environmental security. Hopefully he will have success at portraying himself as our unbiased, morally sound leader in order to mediate the contentious debate about overarching federal environmental policy, such as current climate legislation.
7. The "Bore Them to Death" Approach (pp. 203-205). The bore-them approach might be another tactic with some potential weight in Congressional environmental negotiation. Those using this tactic speak at great length and with intricate detail about policy proposals with the ultimate goal of eliminating opposition by boring them to death. Repeated expert testimony which stresses technical science that your average Congressman doesn't fully grasp, can cause opposition to raise their white flags before enduring any further boredom.
This is where the EPA might step in. A previous post highlighted the ability of the new administration's EPA to enact some positive policy in the wake of eight years of politicized do-nothingness. With 17,000 people employed across the nation, including experts in engineering, research science, and policy analysis, the Environmental Protection Agency is fully equipped with the nerds to bore those who would oppose positive environmental policy.
8. The Kamikaze Pilot (pp. 207-209). As the name implies, the kamikaze tactic is a last ditch effort. If the negotiation process reveals your position to be a lost cause, the only action left is to inflict maximum PR damage on your opponent. It is an amplified blacksmith approach. Forget all subtleties or attempts to appeal to the opposition. Blast away at their stance with any available media outlet possible. You may crash your own plane, but you leave the opposition's successful proposal weakened in public eyes, opening the door for future reversals. This tactic is, however, somewhat depressing and let's hope we don't need to use it just yet...
9. The "Not Negotiating at All" Style (pp. 211-213). This tactic is perhaps the most infuriating approach in the eyes of the opposition. If your party refuses to negotiate, you are in essence redefining the process as not even a negotiation at all. It refuses to dignify an opposing position as worthwhile for debate. One must, however, be quite aware the opposing platform, often even implementing aspects of their position into your own stance. The result might be a compromised outcome, but you come out looking better than the desperate opposition, who was undignified from equal contribution to the debate.
