Articles by David Roberts

Eco-April Fool’s from around the web

It's April Fools Day, as Daily Grist readers are no doubt discovering right about now. Other examples of the grand tradition of April Fooling can be found on RealClimate and Energy Priorities. Readers: you have any other good examples? Leave them in comments.

(Oh, this is funny too, though not April Foolsy -- I meant to blog about it a long time ago and forgot -- thanks to Jeff for reminding me.)

climate science is not a short-cut to cultural change

Roger Pielke Jr. has an important post up that I would encourage each and every enviro to read. He references this letter (PDF, registration required) in the current issue of Nature. It's from reps of several green organizations. An excerpt:

Ecosystem services

Don't miss Joel Makower's long and informative post on recent developments around ecosystem services:

...the $33 trillion worth of "free" deliverables provided to us by a healthy planet, including fertile soil, fresh water, breathable air, pollination, habitat, soil formation, pest control, a livable climate, and a bunch of other things we generally take for granted.

He touches on the Millenium Ecosystem Assessment and a number of emerging attempts to assign economic value to ecosystem services, thereby making "externalities" into market "internalities." A great read.

And more framing

It occurs to me that the two points in the post below -- that framing is deeper and more important than just tweaking terminology, and that the green pursuit of Lakoff is a waste of time -- might be seen to be in conflict, so a quick clarification.

Of course greens need to be cognizant of framing. Everyone does; even in a one-on-one conversation, it is helpful to be aware of the basic frames your interlocutor is bringing to bear, so that you can actually communicate instead of passing like ships in the night. That's the thing: Lakoff has not uncovered some super-top-secret political juju heretofore only possessed by the right wing. What he's done is helped clarify common sense. All you need to be "great at framing" is some empathy and a willingness to listen. (Try it at home!) It's great that he's brought some conceptual clarity to the area, but let's not lose our knickers over the whole thing.

Yes, greens need to frame their issues better. But -- much like, say, keeping your knees bent when you play tennis -- this is not an end in itself. You wouldn't go to a knee-bending camp, and you wouldn't pay someone $350,000 to show you how to keep your knees bent. Greens should be framing their issues well as a matter of course, as they go about doing other things -- like pursuing actual goals. What's been preventing them from doing so is a fairly complicated knot of issues: media access, well-funded disinformation campaigns by the other side, structural and cultural impediments in the way the movement operates, and -- let's not pretend -- some old, outdated, fusty, or otherwise unappealing positions on issues (you can't shine shit). What hasn't prevented them from framing well is some sort of arcane mystery about how framing works, or what frames are effective. An astute, empathetic observer of culture, backed by extensive poll data and personal experience interacting with those outside her immediate social/ideological circle, already knows how to frame the issues. The thing now is just doing it.