Articles by David Roberts

If you mainstream it, they will come

I took two tidbits away from this interesting Clint Wilder piece on framing clean energy (via Sustainablog). Here's the first:

In opinion research conducted last year in Rhode Island, the Clean Energy States Alliance and marketing consultancy SmartPower found that the label of "clean" energy had a much more positive public reception than "green" (too political), "renewable" (too niche), or "alternative" (too much of an implication that its users must adopt a new lifestyle).

These kinds of things are small but important to know for everybody who writes or talks about environmental issues. Little bits of repetitive framing add up. For my part, I'm going to make a habit of using "clean energy" instead of the alternatives.

Here's the second:

But even when viewing clean energy as positive for the environment, the public was skeptical of its ability to replace fossil fuels.

...SmartPower ran a public information campaign, including TV ads narrated by actor Peter Gallagher spotlighting renewable-powered houses, hospitals, and factories with the tagline, "Clean energy: It's real. It's here. And it's working." The result? A thousand new customers switched to the local utility's green power option in 100 days, and the number of people who agreed that clean energy is as reliable as fossil fuels jumped from 40% to 51% in the same period.

That's a pretty extraordinary shift in opinion in response to one ad campaign.

I draw the same lesson from this that I drew from the news that 75% of people consider themselves "green shoppers" -- there's broad interest in green issues out there. Mainstream America is sniffing around at organic food and clean energy. Folks don't know if the stuff is ready for prime-time, and they're not yet willing to go out of their way (or pay lots more) to support it, but once they're convinced it's legitimate they are willing to take the leap. (See: Prius, Toyota)

There's a huge market waiting.

CommonBits

Do check out CommonBits, a cool site set up by Grist friend Jeff Reifman to distribute alternative media files (videos, PDFs, etc.). You can download most stuff directly, or via bittorrent, and you can set up RSS feeds for a variety of different tags, to keep up on what's being posted. Great, great idea. I hope it takes off.

The right question

I appreciate the sentiment that Jon expresses here. I'm sure he'd agree that there's no single "right question," so I guess we need to ask: Right for what purpose?

PETA and getting your message Out There

I was going to leave this as a comment on Katharine's post, but I run this joint, so why not take advantage?

I used to completely agree with Katharine (and commenter Mike) that tactics like PETA's are counter-productive. In fact, I once wrote a post on it. Why do they always make the most extreme statement (wearing fur is like being a Nazi) and champion the most obscure causes (fish have feelings)? Don't they have enough legitimate, mainstream issues -- like, say, the horrific conditions at huge mega-dairies -- to be a sober voice at the table with the grown-ups? Why the clowning?

I've started to come around to their POV, though.

We live in a postmodern media environment. There's a lot of information flying around and it's harder and harder to make sense of it, particularly since the mainstream media has virtually abandoned its role as arbiter. It used to be that the road to having your views accepted was to plug away in the trenches, slowly building up support and credibility. Eventually the gatekeepers of the media would take note and give you a hearing.

But we no longer have neutral arbiters, and everything happens at light speed. Every side has their partisans, and the partisans' job is simply to be heard, to get their view Out There. Consider the Swift Boat slime campaign against Kerry during the election. The charges were rebutted repeatedly, but it didn't matter. What mattered was that the charges were inflammatory, salacious, and repeated at high volume over and over again. They were out there, in the media ether, and it cost Kerry big.

This is what PETA understands. It doesn't matter that in a calm, reasoned discussion, there would be better issues to start with than a fish's feelings. What matters is making a claim that is sufficiently theatrical to get the media's attention -- getting the notion that animals have feelings out there. Even if it strikes most people as ridiculous at first, it has entered the media ether. It is something-people-are-talking-about. Eventually it starts to seem less ridiculous.

The right understands this dynamic very, very well, and use it to their advantage. Something starts as ridiculous and provocative; through sheer repetition, it becomes less so. Eventually something like cutting taxes during war time becomes no biggie.

PETA is one of the few progressive organizations that get it. They play the media better than most other progressive groups. Maybe we should be learning from them.

Free the fish!