Rhetorically framing the climate narrative
Update 10-01-2024:
Grist published an article this week about Patrick Brown who seems to have become a controversial figure in climate science. His points (I will not rehash) clearly point to a predisposition / bias in scientific publishing – especially in climate change domain. If I blow through all the Grist language and positioning, I find his message something like this: “Yep, climate change is real and has tremendous consequences. The complexity and nuance of these interdependent systems across the ecological sphere does NOT lend itself to simple good / bad, black / white, or save / kill the earth. Science needs to describe observational data and provide practical implementable solutions, not just howl at the moon.”
The nuance and need for practical solutions … who can argue against that? Predetermined bias to publish (editorial bias) – what a surprise. To thine own self be true, but key … regardless of your view on climate change, a) it’s real, b) it’s not a simple toddler binary discussion and c) we need practical implementable ideas to help – where we can all participate.
While this Grist article and Brown may receive blowback on this article … and ideas; getting a healthier, deeper conversation with practical outputs is highly desirable!
Original Text Below
Rhetoric, the ancient art of verbal manipulation, excels when a narrative can be framed to hook the receiver on a core value.
Aristotle defined rhetoric as “the faculty of observing in any given case the available means of persuasion”, and since mastery of the art was necessary for victory in a case at law, for passage of proposals in the assembly, or for fame as a speaker in civic ceremonies, he called it “a combination of the science of logic and of the ethical branch of politics”.
The climate debate for decades seems to have been framed into either a ‘fear of crisis’ and ‘acceptance of nature’ depending on your bias. Remember Al Gore’s airplane rivet? Steven Pinker in Enlightenment Now also pushed the point that framing climate change into a calamity around the corner fails to motivate behavior changes sufficiently. … just look around, and ask, ‘has the general global population really changed behavior patterns wrt plastic, fossil fuels, deforestation, etc .. ?’
Rhetorically, ‘no’!
Grist published a piece this week on the Harris’ campaign and how they are changing their framing of the climate debate – motivating change of bias and actions. They are hooking climate justice in a patriotic freedom cultural (tribal) value. Your patriotic duty is required to maintain our nation’s freedom, and your personal freedom.
“Freedom” is often a Republican talking point, but Vice President Kamala Harris is trying to reclaim the concept for Democrats as part of her campaign for the presidency. In a speech at the Democratic National Convention last month, she declared that “fundamental freedoms” were at stake in the November election, including “the freedom to breathe clean air and drink clean water and live free from the pollution that fuels the climate crisis.”
Kamala Harris is making climate action patriotic. It just might work. | Grist
While the positive framing will most likely create better outcomes, why must tribal, protectionist manipulation be used to do the right things right for the greatest number of people on our planet?
Something like this
____
Featured image from MSFT Copilot