“It’s the natural cycle of things, I think.”
This type of comment can make your inner environmentalist want to crawl into a yurt in the forest forever, or rage with the intensity of the wild fires proliferating the American West. The casual insight above came from a relative of mine who is unfazed by the terrifying intensity of environmental disasters occurring one after another around the globe.
Can I blame her? Our approach to communicating about the changing climate fails to convince people to care. Think about it: the deeply rooted opposition to scientific consensus on global warming is evidently unmoved by the recent wave of environmental catastrophes hitting so close to home. Scott Pruitt, President Trump’s controversial head of the Environmental Protection Agency, made it clear after Hurricane Irma that it would be “very, very insensitive” to discuss a changing climate. In 2015, the Florida Department of Environmental Protection restricted officials from using the terms “climate change” and “global warming” in official correspondence.
Language matters. But we aren’t using it to set a common-sense, urgent tone that everyone can hear. Step back from the national political stage and take a seat at your Thanksgiving dinner table. With the holidays around the corner, appealing to conservative family members when discussing environmental problems might offer some lessons for the country. To begin, strike the word “environmental” from the lexicon. Next, remove “climate change,” “global warming,” and the like. These words have become triggers that will make conservative relatives and colleagues wall up and shut down as Fox News tidbits ring in their ears. We are reaching peak environmental polarization, and it is time for a paradigm shift in how we communicate.
Some alternative terms to “climate change” that might please the conservative ear include “energy freedom,” “energy choice,” “competition,” “national security,” and “innovation.” If your spirits rise when considering using these terms with skeptical family members, then we are on the right track. These words appeal to deeply held conservative ideals involving free markets, limited government, and a strong national defense. They evoke the American economic entrepreneurial spirit that opens the door to more productive conversations.
The word “conservation” is another excellent place to start. President Theodore Roosevelt is revered as the “conservation president.” He was a Republican. Yet he preserved some 230 million acres of land and created the United States Forestry Service during his presidency. “We have fallen heirs to the most glorious heritage a people ever received, and each one must do his part if we wish to show that the nation is worthy of its good fortune,” Roosevelt wrote.
Roosevelt is but one example of Republican politicians making historic, pro-environmental decisions based on “conservative” values. President Richard Nixon created the Environmental Protection Agency in 1970 in response to a series of catastrophic environmental disasters including the burning of the Cuyahoga River in 1969. During his State of the Union address that January, Nixon asserted, “The price tag on pollution control is high. Through our years of past carelessness we incurred a debt to nature, and now that debt is being called.”
And remember the ozone crisis? President Ronald Reagan, clearly not regarded as an environmentalist, signed the Montreal protocol that banned fluorocarbons in 1988. Today, Colorado Sen. Cory Gardner is enthusiastic to trot out the word “conservation” on his website when discussing being a good “steward” of the natural world. His record on environmental voting does not match his rhetoric. While language is important, it is not everything. Gardner is willing to use neutral conservation rhetoric, yet he avoids deploying climate-related terminology. This provides a step in the right direction on how to apply the right kind of pressure for Gardner to actually deliver on his image as a Western conservationist politician.
This holiday season, when your uncle tries to get a rise out of you by criticizing “out of touch” eco warriors and their tribe — start where he is. Take a breath and repeat after me: national security, energy freedom, competition — you know the rest. Maybe soon he will be offering dessert while discussing the merits of innovation and job creation as you share green sector growth statistics with him.
Ashby Leavell is a Ph.D. candidate at CU Boulder in environmental studies and design.