<A Pretty Stunning Graph of World Cement Production (and China is Certainly Using It) The Oil Drum DrumBeat: June 20, 2008>

55 comments on The Speech I'd Like to Hear from a Presidential Candidate on Energy and Climate Change

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

| Show without comments | PDF version

eogen on June 19, 2008 - 2:42pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

Despite it's frustrating status as a just-over-the-horizon issue, I continue to believe that there is a real political opportunity here. I attended a conference about a year ago where George Lakoff (of "Don't Think of an Elephant" fame) spoke about the failure of environment to gain the traction of other hot button issues. He argues that people don't vote on issues, but on values, and when properly presented, environment and climate change connect to some deeply held values more identified with conservatives than liberals. Hence environment offers an opportunity to speak past party identification to the so-called "purple" voters. TI was thinking of this when I wrote that speech -- it's an effort to put climate change in a non-ideological context.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Prof. Goose on June 19, 2008 - 3:41pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

I somewhat agree with this idea, but I am going to be contrarian, just because I am in the mood. :) (Plus, I am really intrigued by the relationship between energy, oil, and climate change science and activism, knowing that policy is often driven down the path of least resistance...)

One of the problems with Lakoff's values voting is that it is the way people vote when they are not under threat from a salient "something" whether job, income, or safety. In those times of "threat," folks are more likely to either vote that single "something" or revert to heuristics and shortcuts, which means party identification and/or candidate centered voting. In other words, if folks are relatively unfettered by cares or threats, they have the time to vote values, if not, they go with the traditional political behavioral cues.

Why would this time be any different?

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Carolus Obscurus on June 19, 2008 - 5:16pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

[George Lakoff] argues that people don't vote on issues, but on values, and when properly presented, environment and climate change connect to some deeply held values more identified with conservatives than liberals.

I wouldn't bank on it. As a 'tragic realist' I am on the conservative side myself but when push comes to shove survival and creature comfort put those 'deeply held values' in the shade. And that's a cross-party phenomenon. Just consider the amount of C02 generated by Al Gore's luxury lifestyle!

Besides, since environmental awareness is largely a function of intelligence, and since intelligence closely correlates with income, and since income closely correlates with energy consumption and thus greenhouse gas generation, we can conclude that environmental awareness closely correlates with environmentally undesirable behaviour. When it comes to deeds (as distinct from 'attitudes' and 'values') we are all cosmeticists. We'll vote on 'values' rather than 'issues' only in the sense that we prefer politicians who talk the environmental talk - provided they don't walk the environmental walk. 'Values', deeply held or otherwise, are a dime a dozen. It's nice to 'share' them too, since it costs nothing, as opposed (say) to sharing one's house and home.

No wonder we're known as the chattering classes. Apologies for my pessimism, but I reckon that the very people who read such books as your brilliant 'The Winds of Change' generate per capita an order of magnitude more greenhouse gases than the know-nothing trailer-trash end of the social spectrum. And will continue to do so until TEOTWAWKI and after. 'Values', at any rate, are something of a side-show.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
eogen on June 19, 2008 - 6:13pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

With regard to Prof. Goose's dissent and Carolus Obscurus' comment:
Didn't Thomas Frank in "What's the Matter With Kansas" show that at least in Kansas voters went with their hearts rather than direct economic interest because a connection to Republican values trumped other factors?
Putting aside this argument, however, I'm arguing that as signals of climate change become more pressing and costly, the issue will become more urgent precisely because people will see it in their self interest, indeed their economic interest to identify with candidates who understand the threat and offer credible leadership to mobilize action on it. All the better if a candidate can convincingly articulate that many of the things we need to do to deal with scarce, expensive oil, will also help reduce the pressure on climate.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Prof. Goose on June 19, 2008 - 6:21pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

(I wouldn't call mine a true dissent...more a poke. :) )

I think that's right, Eugene, at least from my reading of Lakoff and Frank. Of course, we could bring up "What's the Matter with What's the Matter with Kansas," but I don't really agree with it either. :)

To invoke Lakoff further, 'tis a matter of framing, which is piece of this I've been thinking about a lot of late. How is the whole debate going to be framed? Are the two issue sets going to play together or apart--and what do the policies undertaken mean to Joe Politic?

That's why I think Eugene's done a wonderful service here. This speech is the climate side of the coin, and it is wonderfully crafted. What does a similarly framed speech look like from the energy side? Is there such a frame?

Policies will be made. The questions are who makes them and what they will look like...

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
lengould on June 20, 2008 - 10:17am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

"went with their hearts rather than direct economic interest because a connection to Republican values" -- I'm a bit new to concepts used here. Could you explain "Republican values" to me, reference eg. past eight years administration's actions, Fox Network, etc.?

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
step back on June 21, 2008 - 7:51am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

People will see it in their self interest,
indeed their economic interest
to identify with candidates
who understand the [non-anthromorphic] threat [of GW, PO, etc.]
and offer credible leadership to mobilize action on it

[as opposed to mobilizing against the "them" that hates "us" and our way of life].

Peak Oil is an "it" rather than a person.
Global Warming is an "it" rather than a person.

Osama Bin Laden is a person rather than an "it".
The "terrorists" are persons rather than an "it's".
Public enemy number one is a person, not an "it".

Love it or hate it,
the point I'm trying to raise is ....
that our brains are evolved toward focusing on people
and not toward "things".

When was the last time you met a person who was emotionally involved with a rock?

(Yes, I know. Some people actually loved their pet rocks back in the 80's.)

The above explains why politicians are persistently successful in mobilizing their supporters against people (against the others, the hateful them who are not us) and not against "things". Things will never be emotional voting issues. It's those darn "liberals", those know-nothing "neo-cons", the godless atheists, ... add your own despised group into this mix.

You get the picture.

Peak oil, she is one mean man tease and a take down. Let us dump her before she drops us, over the cliff.

___________________________
Test the thesis out on your own head:

1. Don't you hate it when those low porosity rocks fail to deliver to us the oil that we need?

2. Don't you hate it when those low down Ayrabs (or other ethnic group) fail to deliver to us the oil that we need?

Which is more effective? Which gets your attention? Which gets your goad? Why?

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
ccpo on June 20, 2008 - 10:11am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

Just consider the amount of C02 generated by Al Gore's luxury lifestyle!

Not representing the whole story is essentially lying; dress it up any way you wish. If you're going to talk about the carbon, should you not talk about the offsets? Honesty is important. Bullshit doesn't help.

Tell us all: where would the Global Warming issue be without Al Gore?

This is not to say I disagree with your observations above, just the delivery. And, yes, do thing Gore should use less regardless of offsets. As long as bullshit is used to make the arguments, the arguments will remain arguments and tend not to move toward solutions.

Cheers

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

55 comments on The Speech I'd Like to Hear from a Presidential Candidate on Energy and Climate Change

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

| Show without comments | PDF version