Comments

People have trouble accepting conclusions that mean they would have to consider serious changes in how they live and do business.

I was thinking about this sort of question the other day with regard to petroleum. Increased oil prices have recently drawn some popular attention in the United States, but I don't think that anyone has really come to terms with the fact that eventually there won't be enough oil to meet demand at any price like what we see today. It won't be a matter of pleading with OPEC to pump more oil; the time will come when they could deliver at their maximum rate and there would not be enough oil. (Nor will domestic drilling make up the difference.)

People tend to think about oil as though the real trouble occurs when we run out. But the real trouble happens when pumping slows down, an event that's likely to happen much sooner.

We aren't ready to face that, and I suspect we won't be ready when it happens, either.

But it will mean lower greenhouse emissions!

Posted by Tim at May 2, 2005 12:18 AM

Well... I had pretty much the same opinion before I read Mickael Chriton's State of Fear.

It is one thing to "market" global warming, but it seems that it's another one to scientifically demonstrate who is responsible for what.

The book shows exactly this.

P

PS: Yes the story is fiction but the facts he refers to in the foot notes are real.

Posted by P at May 2, 2005 12:18 AM

As far as I remember Bruce Sterling tried to do something like this with his viridian green "manifesto"..raising awareness about the climate change and trying to promote "green tech"..

Posted by Toby at May 2, 2005 12:30 AM

Present the evidence and impact simply and dramatically to ordinary folks (and not limit it to scientists and science lovers) in regular magazines, newspapers and tv.

Posted by Sharad Singh at May 2, 2005 3:10 AM

I agree with Tim. Many people talking about alternative fuels, but they are just talking, no action. Petroleum as a fuel source is on the downside of the S curve. Somehow we have to get the right minds focused on "jumping the curve" to the next fuel source because based upon supply/demand the price of oil will go through the roof as the sources decline. But let's make sure we keep making those SUVs bigger with continually more powerful engines to suck up the oil even faster. Talk about a race to oblivion.

Steve

Posted by Steve at May 2, 2005 4:11 AM

2 thoughts
Energy is not priced to include polution. Consequently the price of transporting goods (and people) does not reflect the long term cost. I do wonder if globalisation would actually be economically viable if the environmental cost of transport was actually reflected in the price?
Individuals don't see a problem with individual action - it's only collectively do we have a problem.

The scientific community and media a both extremly poor at reporting science. Things are presented as facts that are merely theories - basically a cry wolf syndrome. This makes it very hard for the public to understand what is going on and easy to ignore stuff that they don't like. The media tends to hype up scare stories with little fact to back it up. You see this a lot in medical scares. DOUBLE THE RISK OF CANCER IF YOU EAT THIS is the headline - the body of the story does not explain that the risk has "shot up" from .0001% to .0002%

Ok 3 points!
On the whole people are actually very poor at judging risk, probabililty and facts for themselves. Something for the education system perhaps.

Ok - a challenge for you. (4th point!) What is each person on this board going to pledge to do over the next year to reduce energy consumption??

Posted by PaulH at May 2, 2005 4:53 AM

A couple points . . .

First, in response to P's post, the assertions and ideas put forth in Michael Crichton's book State of Fear have been debunked at www.environmentaldefense.org and numerous other places. Remember, this is the guy who alleged in Rising Sun that the Japanese were going to take over the US economy and that the research in the footnotes showed this threat to be real.

However, detractors "fictionalizing" a slanted view of the global warming debate are not the problem. There exists a need for a simple and clear explanation of the problem. This brings me to my second point.

Jared Diamond's new book, Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed, simply and clearly illustates the effects of global warming. Diamond notes that 30-40 years ago, there were glaciers in Glacier National Park. Now, the snow caps are barely visible . . . could be an effective before and afer set of images.

Posted by BruCanuck at May 2, 2005 6:18 AM

MARKET opportunity in climate change also - warming REDUCES energy COSTS in some locales.

Steve, Tom, Erik, et. al - please take fewer travel trips so we save PLANE fuel. Business needs more virtual meetings, conferences, etc. - less travel.

And minimize bodyfat so there is savings there also. The HYBRID vehicle revolution will help. DEMOCRATS mismanagement of environment creates a USA credibility gap - GW has become POLITICAL - maybe that is why the lack of effective "marketing"? Try getting CHINA TO CONSERVE - GOOD LUCK.

Posted by Sean at May 2, 2005 6:32 AM

Steve Yastrow asks:
"Why is an issue that is so grave and so real so poorly understood?"

In US you have a problem with your leadership. As long as your leaders do not want to ratify the Kyoto Agreement, why should anyone (in US) care as long as the leaders don't? I think TP somewhere sometime wrote that you have to "walk the talk" - and that is exactly what your US leaders do. And - as TP also writes somewhere, the flock of sheep follow their leader.

What to do about it? Well, you can start by electing a new President of the US who will be seriously concerned about the environmental challenge of keeping the living creatures alive on Mother Earth.

Posted by Roy at May 2, 2005 6:48 AM

It may be almost too simple but "warming", for most of the country (and the world) doesn't sound like a bad thing.

That is - warming as a phrase is generally a positive - you "warm up" when you need to feel better, you are "getting warmer" when you are close to being right etc.

So "global warming" while a bad thing sounds like a good thing - hence a lot of ambivilence.

Probably there would be ways to "brand" the phenomenon in ways that sound scarier - but it is also the case that the effects of global warming are not all negative for all parts of the globe - at least on a local level (if you aren't on a coastline, don't rely on cold/ice/glaciers - but are say in the midwest of the US - global warming seems to mean warmer winters.

The other challenge is that while there are extreme "scare" predictions about future catastrophes, it seems more likely that the changes while severe and devestating (and possibly reinforcing) are not going to be a single, devasting Tsunami like catastrophe - but will rather be lots of individual, smaller problems - shifts in growing seasons, losses of glaciers, changes in the behavior of the Artic Ice. For any individual these are often far away and hard to see.

Shannon

Posted by Shannon Clark at May 2, 2005 8:24 AM

Youv'e all overlooked a very simple concept - ficticious theories are very difficult to market.

Where were cars when the ice age ended?

Where were all of the modern 'evils' when enormous climate changes occured in the past?

We are simply in the midst of changes that are not the result of our behavior, but that of a long cycle that started before man was even on the planet.

And driving your little green golf cart won't alter its outcome.

Posted by Fred at May 2, 2005 8:56 AM

It's tough to "market" an negative idea. You can't sell global warming -- there's nothing to buy. The environmental community has too much hand wringing and too little action. They need more development, marketing, and sale of alternatives to the anti-environment status quo.

As a prime example, look at automobiles. It's a non-trivial undertaking to start a new automobile company, but in the end it might be easier for a group of determined individuals to develop, produce, and bring to market a desirable ZEV than for the same group to lobby the major incumbents to do the same thing. The incumbents do not perceive the market opportunity in the same way as those determined individuals. If a small new car company were to sell $5m ZEVs in a year, that would fantastic. If GM sold just $5m worth of a single product it would be a financial disaster. (This is the "Innovator's Dilemma".)

Many people would like to "do the right thing" for the environment, but it is made difficult by the lack of mass-market products and services. It doesn't help that many in the community perceive of large corporations as evil; economies of scope and scale will be necessary to bring green innovations to the mass market.

Posted by Brian St. Pierre at May 2, 2005 9:22 AM

Poorly marketed- because it doesn't SELL anything and none of the organizations (NGOs etc) involved have the budget to breakthrough to consumers.

It's also not on the political agenda, so they aren't talking about it.

However, last week Ben and Jerry's owned by Unilever launched a Climate Change College. One small step forward...

Posted by ed cotton at May 2, 2005 9:57 AM

"GLOBAL WARMING" SEEMS TO HAVE ZIP for credibility Steve - that seems to be a discussion thread here - maybe that is why marketing it to benefit people / minimize damage is such a radical challenge?

Posted by Brad at May 2, 2005 10:23 AM

This also appeared in my aggregator:

http://www.worldchanging.com/archives/002633.html

I was going to discuss access to capital in my comment, but didn't want to run too long... turns out I didn't need to: Worldchanging really hits the nail on the head.

Posted by Brian St. Pierre at May 2, 2005 10:27 AM

Setting aside the controversy over the validity of the threat....

I think that one reason is that the environmentalist groups tend to be extreme, fanatical, and radical, and thereby lose credibility with J. Random Citizen. If people run into too many environmentalists whose response amounts to neo-Luddite extremism, the tendency will be to paint all environmentalists with the same brush.

For example, I may agree that many 19th century labor practices were exploitative and immoral, but I don't respond to that by becoming a Marxist. I think people may need to be presented with a conclusion that is a little less extreme.

Someone may say that the situation is extreme, calling for extreme measures. Supposing that that is the case, you're still probably going to get more results trying for a less-marginalized approach. Better to water down the solution and get some involvement than to be so extreme that you get no involvement at all.

Posted by Phil Crissman at May 2, 2005 10:27 AM

Excellent comments, folks! Here's my 2¢: Until climate change is an "in your face" reality, many people will pass it off as hogwash or someone else's problem. Similar to instituting occupational health and safety rules in a workplace: they work best with people who take the issue to heart and personally see the value in it. Look at the cars on the highway for a grass-roots poll.

PaulH: I like Point #2 about pricing to pollution. About Point #4, with gas at 99.9¢/l in Canada, we're getting rid of our Safari van that gets 22 mpg and looking at a Toyota Echo (54 mpg). I'm also draft-proofing the house and adding reflective/radiant insulation to try and save a few bucks. My efforts so far have knocked 10% off my heating bill. Last year, between our cars and home heating oil, we spent darn near 30% of my take-home pay – good incentive to economise.

Posted by Tim Delaney at May 2, 2005 10:31 AM

To Steve's original question, though, this is a good example of how NOT to build a strong positive brand image. "Global Warming" is always associated with a catastrophe, the dire consequences of our actions today to our planet some decades from now. That is a very hard way to build a brand that the majority of people care passionately about.

There are probably hundreds of peer reviewed scientific papers out there that have proven that we are affecting the Earth's climate. In my experience, though, I have never found a single brand that was built on clear objective scientific evidence. A brand needs to have some connection with its audience and papers in scientific journals won't do it.

Neither will the mass media that always brings on spokespeople from the extreme ends of the spectrum who tell us either nothing is happening, or we are all going to die with no real debate. What the brand "Global Warming" needs is a clear concise and passionate benefit that everyone can relate to.

This week’s issue of Time (the one with Ann Coulter in the cover) has a wonderful story about the plight of the Maldives as it relates to global warming. The government is building new islands for its people because much of its country is drowning, or going to be inundated by the sea in the next 100 years. They understand the consequences, but most of us don't.

To build the brand "Global Warming" there needs to be a way to get everyone to personally understand the plight in the way the people of the Maldives do.

Posted by Andrew Hayden at May 2, 2005 11:10 AM

Global Warming - consider the source, kids . . . the agenda of the New Yorker and New York Times (same publisher) are so obvious and so blatant that they really shouldn't be taken seriously. And from what I understand, more people aren't, because readership for these periodicals is down.

And in the 70s, wasn't the earth getting too cool? And in the 90s, weren't the glaciers supposed to be melting so fast that all of the Chesapeake Bay Bridge would be under water by now? Is Tuvalu going under only because the US built a military base there?

And Roy, electing a new President won't change a thing because of the career congress members who will follow their own agendas, regardless of if the Prez is Slick Willie or Dubya. And like Sean wrote, never mind the US signing Kyoto, try China. (Besides, our regime change started in 1994, heh heh . . . )

Posted by Ron at May 2, 2005 11:17 AM

Why is it such a weak brand? Easy! Global Warming has been officially rebranded by the Administration to "Climate Change" ---which has a much less urgent sound to it. More about these rebranding efforts here:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/persuaders/

Posted by Tom Master at May 2, 2005 11:23 AM

Couple of things:

Global warming doesn’t get the same attention as the impending oil crisis and the oil crisis (especially as stated in "End of Oil") IS REAL and not that far away. Oil reserves are a finite commodity.

Global warming seems (in a few minds) to be real, but many think enough data has not been gathered - supporting their belief that this phenomenon may be just part of a cyclical pattern as opposed to an urgent climate change.

If oil reserves are running out and this crisis is right around the corner, why is it we don’t have a valid energy policy? If a valid energy policy doesn’t matter, how can we expect global warming to get any attention?

Posted by Lisa Hinson at May 2, 2005 12:08 PM

I agree with Lisa H.

Why do teens continue to smoke when they know the health dangers?

Why do athletes continue to take steroids when they know the risks?

Why I continue to over eat when I know I am overweight?

It's human nature to respond to immediate problems and procrastinate on those that are't at our doorstep.

Posted by Bruce DeBoer at May 2, 2005 12:40 PM

More bad Brand Marketing.

My wife and I over the last year or so have been toying with the idea of installing solar panels on our house. We live in Central California where for six months of the year we almost have to use our A/C. Our thought was that to cut down on our PG&E bill, and do something positive for the environment. So we looked into it...and after reading through all of the garbage(they dont make it easy for people that no nothing about soloar) we found that it would cost us way too much. If we owned our house for 15 years we might break even.

Solar Energy needs a major marketing fix!!

Posted by Mike Mendoza at May 2, 2005 1:16 PM

Here are a few:

Humans are very confident in their ability to deal with change and catastrophe. Isn't that what the government is there for (he asks cynically)? The global warming "brand" is an attempt to get Joe Public to change a core belief, therefore, they are not listening.

We "hear" the words, but we don't see anything. The links between my act today and the future are way too long and complicated for me to really believe that it is true. This, combined with official and unofficial skepticism and alternative theories means that the "brand" rings hollow... to many people, there's no "there" there.

Third, global warming competes in a crowded market for attention to "crises." The Copenhagen Consensus (http://www.copenhagenconsensus.com/) is an example of hard-hitting analysis that gets at the core of this: we have finite public resources available to mobilize to address crises. Is global warming one we want to spend those public resources on? Global warming competes with much more pressing crises, and it is losing.

Finally... what brand there is for global warming typically includes anti-business and anti-globalization sentiment... it is a "left" and "activist" brand. These ancilliary themes don't resonate with Middle America.

Posted by Rockster at May 2, 2005 1:35 PM

It goes beyond poorly marketed. The problem is that activists have taken perfected reasonable science and made it say things that are beyond what a reputible scientist would say. Yes, climate change can be tracked. But the reasons are far from conclusive. And when environmental activists make outlandish, overly simplistic, doomsday claims about the future, the possibility for a reasoned dialog is lost. Politicized science is poorly marketed science. It assumes that environment change is the result of human interaction with it. Hence, the answer is more human interaction to change it to something else.

Posted by Ed Brenegar at May 2, 2005 3:02 PM

Tom:
I always begin tackling these problems by asking who benefits by perpetuating these misconceptions. In Canada, the major dailies are on a mission against Koyoto. The energy industry fears that the costs associated to complying to the guidelines are going to be higher than they are willing to pay. Their powerful voices are heard in the editorial rooms of the media giants of this country and they have teamed up to attempt to discredit the science of global warming. A person who is busy making a living has neither the time nor the expertise to know who is lying.
The United States has a huge deficit problem. The US dollar is depreciating, but it will take more than that to stop deflation from taking hold. Industry will have to increase productivity and lower the costs of production if they are to survive and prosper. Stopping global warming will cost them money, and for that reason alone, they are prepared to fight any measures that propose they should spend to ease the impact of their production activities on the earth.
I am not hopeful that anything much will be done until people see the destruction in their own back yard.
It is a disgrace too, because forward-thinking companies could easily create a win-win situation by complying and making profits. The energy sector is gushing cash right now.
The impetus for short term share price increases at the expense of long term economic and environmental sustainability is ruining the North American economy.
I feel I have no control over the condition of the world my beautiful 4 year old is going to inherit. There is a distinct lack of leadership in North America. No "Big Men" strong enough to do the right thing. Only weakness at the top.
I give up.

Posted by Dave E at May 2, 2005 5:10 PM

Requiring "proof" seems an almost surrealistic reaction to the devastation of our world.

To my mind, people who react this way to science that suggests these consequences are just fleeing to moral cover for their own failure to accept the potentially serious consequences of their actions. Given the gravity of what we suspect may lie ahead, action is warranted, even if the proven probability is still low.

Posted by Rob Hyndman at May 2, 2005 5:28 PM

I've enjoyed all these comments. It has been a while since I've found such an engaging topic at TP.

"Global Warming" in and of itself if you were to hear it without any other information from either side of the debate is not alarming, maybe it is interesting. Is it good or bad? We lose some sea-side real estate - bad. We gain more productive agricultural real estate - good.

How many ice ages have come and gone? Are we just on the slope of another cycle? Yes, but is there something different about this one? Yes, there are a lot more people on the planet and therefore a lot more human impact. How much of the current warming trend is a result of human activity? Does it matter? Only if a change in human activity can reverse the trend (is reversing the trend a good thing?) It is possible that very little can be done by human activity to reverse the current trend. Humankind was brought about by evolutionary activity on the planet and may well be wiped out just like the dinosaurs were. "In the long term we are all dead" is true for the individual - maybe it is true for us as a species too. So maybe global warming is something we need to plan to cope with rather than reverse.

I find "the end of oil" a more interesting discussion. We will run out of oil. The demand from China and the Asian tigers will continue to grow. There are solutions but they don't seem to attract the capital and talent many would hope. I liked Bruce DeBoer's post - human nature does not deal well with the long term. In the case of oil the long term issue is soon going to be a short term issue. When the crisis is upon us there will be fortunes lost and fortunes made - these types of economic disruptions are good for us. Painful for many (the short-sighted wealthy and others with their heads in the sand) but full of opportunity for others (those who thrive on change, seek facts, and think).

As for solutions to oil, global warming, and other environmental related issues one needs to look to Garrett Hardin's "Tragedy of the Commons". How do we convert the "first come, first served" treatment of the commons (the environment) to a more capitalistic treatment. If the commons (environment) is owned by the people as a whole, let those who use it pay a competitive price for it. Is "pay to pollute" a solution to the tragedy of the commons? This is being done in some markets - does anyone know how it is working?

Posted by Preston at May 2, 2005 5:46 PM

Global warming good for the midwest? OMG
The Global warming is just part of a cycle theory is more subtle, but even scarier. It seems to argue that if it's natural, then it's inevitable, and so why worry -- be happy.

But enough of that, arguing the issue is not the point of the post. Marketing is the point of the post and this is the deal as I see it. The environmental lobbies seem to rely upon marketing strategies pulled straight from MBA textbooks -- in other words they're at least 40-years outdated.

It's probably a case of funding (can't hire good talent). Check out Kennendy's "Crimes Against Nature" to see how the other side can deftly manipulate news and information to keep John Q. thinking there are always more important issues.

Keep this in mind "all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed." Remember that one?

I'm sorry to say I think our children are going to have to start dying before we take a closer look at the situation -- our children, not someone elses. Until then, for most of us, it will remain one expert vs. another. When that happens people will listen to the expert that tells them that everyone is safe, what you're doing now is okay, and if you just make some minor and painless contribution you'll have done the responsible, level-headed, conservative, realistic, right, thing. That's rarely true, but it's easy and does use some very comforting words.

I second the motion to read Jared Diamond's book "Collapse".

Posted by Bob at May 2, 2005 6:00 PM

Unfortunately, I believe it will be forced change. Gas will run out or prices will become too high. How many people living around the equator really care about glaciers? Being from Alaska and growing up with glaciers, losing them disturbs me, but how can you market a glacier's worth to someone who has never experienced the awe a glacier can inspire? I believe it is possible, but I am not sure how. Marketing "work" and change for a delayed result is probably the toughest assignment in today's instant gratification society.

Posted by JE at May 2, 2005 11:21 PM

In addition to the apathy factor, there seems to be a disinformation campaign, or at least one of deliberate confusion There was a "Now" (PBS) segment on this a week or so ago. The comparative old glacier photos with the same scene now were quite telling. And it's easy to say let the coasts sink (unless you live in Florida?)but...

Posted by Susan at May 2, 2005 11:35 PM

Some time ago, I facilitated a gathering of 'experts' on global warming, sponsored by the Government of Canada. Now get this: the experts disagreed on whether or not we are experiencing true 'global warming'. They were split 50/50 on the trend, or supposed trend. Their main difficulty was in agreeing on HOW LONG a trend needs to be in order to be determined a 'trend'. Now in business, we have some clear guidelines to help us. Not so on issues concerning the environment, which is not surprising, considering that we can't even agree on the theory of evolution, the age of the earth, and the age of the universe.

In 'global warming' what exactly constitutes a 'trend', given our usual preoccupation with short term results?

Posted by Brian Ward at May 3, 2005 12:05 AM

Tim Delaney writes: "Until climate change is an "in your face" reality, many people will pass it off as hogwash or someone else's problem."

Andrew Hayden writes: "What the brand "Global Warming" needs is a clear concise and passionate benefit that everyone can relate to."

Bob writes: "I'm sorry to say I think our children are going to have to start dying before we take a closer look at the situation -- our children, not someone elses."

These are three comments who actually catch the problem. Because it is a problem. Defining "a problem" as the gap between where you are and where you want to go. If this gap is not wide enough, you will not react. And that is the matter regarding Global Warming. It probably will never be in your face! That is - before it's too late. And the pity is, if we don't react now, it is our children's children who will get it in their face. And this, Andrew H, should be "a clear concise and passionate benefit that everyone can relate to."
For readers of TIME, take a look at this article "Where the Waters are Rising" (only for subscribers) http://www.time.com/time/archive/preview/0,10987,1050329,00.html

Posted by Roy at May 3, 2005 6:48 AM

Global Brands require movement of the masses. The movement, as well stated above, does not impact the average person in a way of gaining a benefit. Most of the conversation leans toward the negative and catastrophes. Yes, we all have an element of self-preservation but unless they can begin to sell the brand in a positive light that impacts us today then you are in for a long road. Hence, why our retirement savings in the country are so low; the vast majority of us can only see the here and now

Posted by RTodd at May 3, 2005 7:10 AM

RTodd, do you imply that the well being of your children's children don't affect you? Won't that be a benefit good enough to do something about The Global Warming today?

Posted by Roy at May 3, 2005 10:12 AM

Personally, yes, globally no. If you could choose an animal to inherit the earth and sit a top the food chain, could you have made a worse choice than man? Now where did that Dodo bird go, they were just here.

Posted by RTodd at May 3, 2005 10:49 AM

... as long as you have the all-powerfull energy lobby with politicians in their 'pockets' the issue will never be taken seriously in USA

Posted by alistair at May 3, 2005 11:04 AM

Roy - Believe me I am a huge proponent of efforts to curb global warming and see it as a significant threat not only to children and grandchildren, but also to our own livelihoods. My point was that from a branding standpoint the global warming community in general has done a poor job of effectively communicating the consequences to a broad audience.

Posted by Andrew Hayden at May 3, 2005 11:21 AM

Why doesn't everyone just run their air conditioners all day so that the earth will cool down?

Posted by Ron at May 3, 2005 1:09 PM

Fun Chart: http://www.scotese.com/climate.htm

Perhaps we don't realize how insignificant we really are in the grand scheme of things.

Posted by RTodd at May 3, 2005 1:44 PM

RTodd properly notes man's insignificance in earth's climatic events. Man's ego however is huge. We can go on debating whether man is responsible for global warming for as long we are above water but it doesn't really matter. We are experiencing global warming. If one looks at the graph RTodd references, it is apparent that the idea we can reverse what is a climatic cycle that preceeded man's existence is merely another manifestation of man's ego. If we care about our planet, our children, and our children's children we will cut out the bullshit debate over "who caused global warming" and "how do we prevent global warming" and put our resources into how we cope with something we cannot control.

Posted by Preston at May 3, 2005 2:39 PM

For those in denial, please spend ten minutes on this site. The sources for Cricton's novel directly and personally explain what he did wrong with their original research and how he manipulated the larger scientific uncertainty to fit his theme.

http://www.realclimate.org/

Posted by John Laumer at May 3, 2005 3:35 PM

Steve,

Who's supposed to market the issue of global warming er, ahem! I mean, "Climate Change"?
We need to know that first so we can point our collective finger to the party who is marketing it so poorly...

Gabriel S.

Posted by Gabriel Salcido at May 3, 2005 4:04 PM

It is May 3rd, 43 degrees in Westerville, Ohio. THIS is why it is hard to market-I'm freezing and it's summertime.

Posted by S. Anthony Iannarino at May 3, 2005 9:18 PM

Wouldn't it be sad if anthropogenic global warming were happening right now, as we type ... I mean, we could fight about it forever, regardless of the underlying facts. People are very good at that, especially once they start to think of it as "politics" and the other side as "the other side."

Long argument, no warming - no problem.
Long argument, real warming - oops!

Posted by odograph at May 3, 2005 9:48 PM

Ron says it's just the press ("Consider the source") and then says we should run our air conditioners all day long to cool down. S. Anthony says it's 43 degrees on May 3, I assume to say that his personal experience on one day proves that global warming isn't happening.

Guys ... think how silly (and pathetic) these comments will seem to your great-grandchildren when they are suffering the effects of our mis-management of the climate! Remember, we don't leave the world to our descendants, we are borrowing it from them!

Posted by Steve Yastrow at May 3, 2005 11:01 PM

It seems to me that marketing global warming boils down to a question of media framing. Since the majority of Americans don't experience global warming firsthand, it's all about how the news media constructs our understanding - in particular, the time horizon used to describe the impact of global warming. Research shows that issues described using future-oriented consequence results in low attention and low involvement. When coverage makes reference to near-term consequences, people pay attention. Here's the kicker: The vast majority of the public still understands global warming as something that won't impact American lives for many years. In this context, people tend to only pay peripheral attention. Instead of weighing the merits of arguments and evidence, they rely on partisan cues and other decision making shortcuts that polarizes debate and public sentiment. Finding political capital and mobilizing public support against this backdrop is almost impossible. Global warming will break through as a brand and marketing campaign only after a heavy dose of media relations.

Posted by Josh Hawkins at May 3, 2005 11:16 PM

Personally, I like the brand "Global Weirding" as it implies that a) We're not entirely sure what the heck is going to happen, and b) whatever it is, it's may be weird and problematic.

Not to metion the fact that global warming might just freeze a lot of the globe as well as it warms other parts!

Furthermore - the public realizes that some of the "warming" may indeed be tied to natural cycles like ice ages, but it leaves room to interject that there are many screwey things we've done for which we have no idea of the consequences... just that it's gonna get weird.

Posted by Nick Aster at May 4, 2005 5:18 AM

Andrew H, it's good to see that we are in the same boat. And I agree with you "that from a branding standpoint the global warming community in general has done a poor job of effectively communicating the consequences to a broad audience."

Now - what do we do about it? The company which I'm working for do a little bit about it by marketing and selling environmental friendly BamBoo packaging and dishware. Feel free to visit http://www.norsing.com/ and have a look for yourself.

Posted by Roy at May 4, 2005 6:14 AM

Phil, the Telegraph might be right that those scientists were mistreated. Maybe.

But here's the problem as I see it:

Even if GW is a real problem (and I think it is), people will still be able to cherry-pick a scientist here or there that disagrees. It is simple human nature. Given enough scientists (thousands are out there) someone will have a contrary theory.

If we wait for them all to agree, 100%, we will never do anything. This is becase (look around) human beings never agree 100%. This is especially true on anything that has become "political."

Shall we wait for the Democrats and Republicans to agree 100% before we choose a President? What if we had to wait until there were no political scientists who published a contrary article ... how long would we wait?

BTW Preston, most scientists do agree that CO2 contributes to total warming. Even if you think that most warming is natural, reducing C02 is still a good way man can slow the increase.

And if you don't slow CO2, you just make things go faster.

Posted by odograph at May 4, 2005 2:55 PM

Steve, I think the opposite, not how we are impacting the environment, but how the environment impacts us. To think we can slow down pollution by sanctions and taxes may sound like a good idea, however if I'm not mistaken the biggest polluter in Washington State is Mt. Saint Helens

Posted by gruber at May 5, 2005 1:08 AM

I feel that the way to cope with energy shortages is through changing habits of consumers, specially when they are at home.

If people could take monthly readings of their energy consumption - water, gas and electricity, and calculate how much they are consuming, it would be a great start. Now try to reduce that by simple things, like turning off lights when they are not needed, turning off the power on computer monitors and TV sets. The possibilities are endless.

You could even play this like a kind of game.. where you try to hit the high score (the maximum reduction in your monthly consumption)

The rest of your family will automatically control you if you go a bit too far.. (like turning off the central heating on a cold winter's night :) )

In this way, families and extended communities can develop sustainable methods to reduce consumption. Neighbourhood groups can perhaps share tips and recognise families that have done the most, and get them to share their ideas on "best practices at home"

Give me your opinions on this...

- Arun

P.S. I'm a business process consultant in the Netherlands. I run my own firm Arun Consulting, and I have an "energy conscious" girlfriend.

Posted by Arun Sadhashivan at May 5, 2005 4:36 AM

It seems that environmentalists are fighting for and against the same thing at the same time. That is not something you can brand. It isn't that there is or isn't a problem but there is no unified solution to the problem. There are lots of proposals that seem more interested at hacking away at each other then at the real problem.

For example, Reducing Green House Gases (GHG) Lots of people talk about cars, but an awful lot of GHGs come from fossil fueled power plants. We are still building coal fired power plants which churn out more GHGs then an entire fleets of cars and trucks.

Not to mention the radiation from the coal, more radioactive material is launched into the atmosphere from coal plants every year then Chernobyl ever did. But nothing gets the environmentalists out faster then proposing a new nuclear power plant. So electricity companies end up building more coal plants.

So environmentalists end up looking like they want more coal fired power plants, which is one of the major things they are against in the first place.

And to the average Joe, Kyoto looks like a millstone around the neck of the US economy, but not really anyone else and that doesn't look fair.

There is no clearly defined goal, "stopping climate change" isn't good enough. There also needs to be a clear, unified strategy to get there.

Posted by StephanF at May 5, 2005 3:26 PM

StephenF - I measure out as a moderate on political compass tests (those quizzes that are meant to position you along the right vs. left as well as libertarian vs. authoritarians axes).

Speaking as a moderate I can say that there are some things "environmentalists" say that I can agree with. And of course there are a few wacky environmentalists who say odd things I cannot agree with.

When I turn and look the other way, I can see some conservatives who say sensible things (often in agreement with some environmentalists), but I also see some taking an easy way out. They'll pick up on the wacky environmentalists, paint the whole crew with the same brush, and retire from the field.

Oh, if only that would make all environmental issues go away! Wouldn't it be nice if the fact that there are crazy environmentalists somehow meant we never had to worry about the environment again?

Posted by odograph at May 5, 2005 5:38 PM

To the best of my knowledge, the atmospheric (tropospheric) carbon dioxide content is 390 ppm (parts per million). To use another analogy, if tropospheric components were converted to $100 (10,000 pennies), carbon dioxide would account for 4 pennies. 4 pennies out of 10,000. The paradigm that increasing carbon dioxide contributes to global warming has been a "political animal" since Margaret Thatcher brought it to the world's attention for her political gain in the early 1980s (see www.john-daly.com/history.htm ).

The vast majority of the Greenhouse Effect is attributed to Water Vapor/Droplet (clouds, humidity).

That is not to say that humans may not play a role in climate change, with tropical deforestation, particulate emissions to the atmosphere, and the aggregate effect of growing Urban Heat Islands. With a "background" of variability, it is difficult to assess what our effects may be.

The Earth's climate is controlled primarily by Solar activity and variations in the Earth's orbit, distance from the Sun, and axial inclination. Virtually every Earth characteristic is subject to change over geologic time.

Posted by joe-6-pack at May 5, 2005 10:59 PM

You know, Joe-6-pack, when I got my chemistry degree ... I can't remember my chemistry or physics professors ever using "penny analogies" to prove the behavior of physical systems. ;-)

Posted by odograph at May 6, 2005 11:01 AM

It's important that people not feel powerless about global warming. Here in California, where 50% of the greenhouse gases come from transportation, the state is developing its own priorities, and by many descriptions is exempt from the bewilderment and scorn many people in the rest of the world feel about the US. Grass-roots groups are getting people excited about the idea that we can do something about all this. I'm the founder of the California Cars Initiative (calcars.org)--we're converting hybrid cars, starting with the Prius, to get over 100 miles/gallon. Gas-optional hybrids charged from off-peak electricity from a modernized, getting-cleaner grid and from distributed photovoltaic and wind power, with the range extension engine powered by cellulose ethanol, are a way to significantly reduce carbon emissions.

Posted by Felix Kramer at May 8, 2005 1:33 AM

You guys don't understand the game. Look, we invaded Iraq, right? O.K. Now, we have the oil. The rest of the world will run out before we do. That means we can sell it to them at inflated prices, or, just use it ourselves and starve them. In either case, we are ahead. Get it? It's us against them, and we are bound to win! If we play our cards right, we can even starve China. By this plan, we need to invade every country with oil to bring "Democracy" to them. Once we have control we don't have to worry so much about China overwhelming our economy.

This thing has nothing to do with the media not knowing how to report science. The media can do anything it wants to do and global warming is not high on its agenda. Why? Because the president doesn't want it high on the agenda.

This is government of the rich, for the rich, and by the rich that will not perish from the earth. This is the Democracy that we are spreading throughout the world.

Posted by Bob Niederman at May 8, 2005 2:25 AM

Here is another take on this. 97% of the people in the U.S. function at a developmental level, a level of cognitive and social understanding that focuses on "us first." Global understanding doesn't compute for these people. Also, the future does not have much force. Therefore, putting roads into pristine forests seems like a good idea for an economy we want to grow.
I don't think we will overcome this way of thinking by better presentations. We need to up the level at which we think. Of course, a more powerful PR program would help a lot!

Posted by Bob Niederman at May 8, 2005 3:38 PM

Excellent explanation, Bob.

Posted by felix gerena at May 8, 2005 4:16 PM

Bob Niederman writes: "This thing has nothing to do with the media not knowing how to report science. The media can do anything it wants to do and global warming is not high on its agenda. Why? Because the president doesn't want it high on the agenda.

This is government of the rich, for the rich, and by the rich that will not perish from the earth. This is the Democracy that we are spreading throughout the world."

This is exactly what I was saying in my first comment to this issue; It is your president who walks the talks. And he does not want global warming on his agenda.

BTW is he still thinking there are WMDs in Iraq?

Posted by Roy at May 9, 2005 6:27 AM

It'll all be fine...

Posted by davidcoe... at May 10, 2005 9:50 AM

Hi Gil,
Some rather good comments you have.

If we do lessen the amount of energy the society adds to our atmospheric engine - also called climate and weather - something will of course happen.

And... Companies in Europe having done something to lessen the emission of gases etc. from their plants have, some of them, had a remarkable positive effect on the ROI.

But, as you write in your blog (http://radio.weblogs.com/0109157/2004/05/31.html), neither Bush nor Kerry had (or have) any significant goals in their environmental agenda. Which means that as Bush walks his talks, (most of) you Americans do exactly the same, which is a great pity for our Mother Earth.

Posted by Roy at May 11, 2005 6:32 AM

Actually the first blog I did on my own blog; mentioned how US green groups managed to get JPMorgan Chase are Taking The Earth Into Account.
http://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=12757688&postID=111562958741020084

I do agree that Bush is not America, but still Bush means a lot to America, or else he would not have been elected. And, in my opinion, most Americans walk the way Bush talks.

Posted by Roy at May 13, 2005 6:51 AM

Why should an impending disaster have a BRAND? Does " Millions of people are starving" have a brand? Or "5000 people control 80% of the world's economy"? Brands are for organisations (or an organisation of one). And organisations, unless it is specifically written in in the articles of association, have NOTHING to do with global problems. Meaning no manager is assigned to do anything about it.
Put it another way. Researchers are assigned to study and present risks and probabilites. No one is assigned to listen. We mix up people and corporations. Corporations have the legal status of the individual without the heart. Individuals have the heart without the clout of the corporation.
Now, what we need is a big corporation where the articles of association require it to respond to major risks to sustainability. Now...what could they sell? But more interesting; how would their BRAND look?

Posted by Stephen Hinton at May 13, 2005 11:28 AM

I think it is a poorly respected 'brand' because we keep sticking our heads in the sand. As change gathers pace we will awaken inevitably.

I am optimistic we will solve the problems ahead and adapt to a changing world...ignoring the problem will only exacerbate the Long Emergency to come.

Ultimately system-wide change is unlikely to come from the politico-economic sphere as it is too closely and positively aligned to the economic status quo.

I suspect that this system-wide change will be, and indeed already is, a velvet evolution. New institutions are appearing to replace older less useful ones ie www.freecycle.org, Fair Trade and so on.

We are witnessing the birth of a new economy. There is a new greener and fairer frontier out there which along with the ever-burgeoning digital frontier fills me with massive hope. I suspect huge and rapid change is not far off.

Only time will tell...

Namaste

City Hippy

Posted by City Hippy at May 15, 2005 4:22 PM