Dr. Genevieve Guenther Profile picture
Sep 26, 2018 20 tweets 5 min read Twitter logo Read on Twitter
Yesterday, at an interesting #ClimateWeekNYC panel on fighting denial (organized by @ColumbiaClimate, @Sallan_Found, @earthinstitute, & @ClimSciDefense) @jeffnesbit made some excellent points I want to circulate.

[Thread]
First point: Nesbit reported that his research shows that trying to inoculate teenagers against tobacco advertising by telling them that smoking will make them die before their time doesn't work. But....

2/n
Telling teenagers that they're being targeted and manipulated by tobacco companies who are shamelessly trying to addict them actually *does* make them much less likely to take up smoking.

3/n
To me the analogy to climate change seems obvious: telling people that one day people will suffer & die because we're using fossil fuels now is...not really going to generate the collective outrage we need to countervail the money and power of the fossil fuel industry.

4/n
But telling people that the fossil fuel industry has known all along that untold numbers of people are going to die from climate change, yet they lied and manipulated us (and continue to do so) in order to block our choice to transition to safe energy, well...

5/n
I don't know about you, but thinking about that fact makes me want to BURN IT ALL DOWN.

6/n
So perhaps that fact is something that climate hawks should highlight, repeatedly, in public discourse about climate change.

7/n
Nesbit's second point grew out of research he did in Florida--which doesn't exactly provide a representative sample because, as we know, Florida is now regularly not just occasionally subject to the effects of climate change (eg in high-tide flooding)--BUT...

8/n
Nesbit found that climate messages WORKED when they highlighted the *local effects of climate change* (present and future? he wasn't entirely clear) AND presented a Reaganesque narrative of the new American era born of our leadership in the transition to safe energy.

9/n
I think that's really interesting.

I think the most important number for climate communicators is the number of people who think that climate change will affect them personally (I learned this from @KHayhoe).

Right now, in America, that number is under 50%. Too low.

10/n
But you know what? I would bet real money that if detailed, concrete information about *local* impacts over decadal timescales were presented, that number would go up. Certainly past 50%.

11/n
Concrete, detailed stories about how our towns and our businesses and our children will suffer and be destroyed will make that number go up because our towns, businesses, and children are all extensions of our narcissism. They extend our egos in space and time.

12/n
So if we really illustrate how the disaster of climate change will be local & personal to the highest degree if we don't stop using fossil fuels, then we tell the story that makes the American ego soar: NOT a list of technological solutions, but...

13/n
...a story about how America has *always* created the new world from the day that Christopher Columbus landed in the Bahamas

(yes, I understand that the American project was also genocidal, I'm talking political messaging here don't @ me)

and America...

14/n
America has always *saved* the world when it was at the 11th hour, and we are *Americans* this is what we do, etc etc

15/n
But in every political story of greatness there needs to be a villain. To wit:

1) My ego is under threat.
2) America can restore the safety of my ego.
3) Villains are trying to prevent this restoration.
4) We can make a politics that destroys the villain.

16/n
So, finally, circling back to Nesbit's first point (hearing about corporate villainy makes people resist): perhaps the narrative needs to be tripartite:

17/n
1) Local impacts of climate change (ego threat).
2) Story of American ingenuity & leadership (neutralizing the threat).
3) Demonstration that the fossil fuel industry is using every dirty trick in the book to prevent change.

18/n
It seems to me that such a narrative might indeed raise the saliency of climate change, give people a concrete image of how we can address it, and inspire a real sense of outrage, providing the affective fuel, as it were, to fire people up to force their govts to act.

/fin
Oh and PS? The best way for people to come to understand the local impacts of climate change is for local papers actually to mention climate change when they report on climate impacts. So, ahem, #EndClimateSilence.

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with Dr. Genevieve Guenther

Dr. Genevieve Guenther Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @DoctorVive

Oct 8, 2018
Can we talk about the global "we"?

"We" is a big word in climate discourse. Just today I've seen a number of responses to #SR15 that use it, as in "we're fucking this up."

I'm here to say that this "we" is a fictional construct: ideological, obfuscatory, and dangerous.

1/n
Who is this "we"? Does it include the nearly one billion people who live on less than 2 dollars a day?

worldbank.org/en/topic/pover…

2/n
Does it include the +/- 5.5 billion people who live on between 2-10 dollars a day?

oxfam.org/en/even-it/5-s…

3/n
Read 17 tweets
Aug 1, 2018
I really wanted to like @NathanielRich's @NYTmag piece about 70's & 80's climate politics. It does put AGW front-and-center for once. But I'm crushed to say that Rich suppresses important facts, covering up how organized climate denial created our current predicament.

[Thread]
For just one example: let's look at how Rich narrates the role of the scientist William Nierenberg in writing and disseminating “Changing Climate,” the @theNASciences report released in 1983.

2/n
This is how Rich credentials Nierenberg (N)👇🏽. He doesn't report that N was a physicist, not a climate scientist. Nor does he say that N worked on the Manhattan Project. He hides the parts that undermine N's expertise on climate & that suggest N used science politically.

3/n
Read 17 tweets
Jul 8, 2018
1. I happened to listen to @NPR for a few hours this morning, and I heard three stories that are very much connected to #climatechange without anyone on the radio mentioning climate change even once.

It was surreal and disturbing.

[thread]
2. The first story was about the current drought in Oregon. It focused on a rancher who is currently paying to have 18,000 gallons of water a day trucked in to water his livestock. (Yes, you read that right.)
3. The story discussed how much this water and its transport was costing the rancher; how long this drought has affected ranching in the West; and what the ranchers might do if the weather doesn't eventually return to normal (as if it would one day return to normal).
Read 13 tweets
May 11, 2018
When I first saw this image a few weeks ago, I noted in passing that Morano's book was filled with lies.

Some guy in Norway (since blocked) challenged me to identify 4 or 5 lies in the text. And because I'm a woman of my word ---> thread👇🏽
From page 45. Note the lack of citation.

Where are the peer-reviewed papers by “renowned climatologists” arguing that a tripling of CO2 concentrations would have only minor impacts on temperatures? They don’t exist. Because this claim is a lie.

2/n
From page 47. This claim is also a lie. Current warming is over 100% attributable to human activity.

The citation leads not to a scientific study, but to congressional testimony by Dr Will Happer, a Emeritus Prof of Physics, who specializes in optics, and who...

3/n
Read 10 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Don't want to be a Premium member but still want to support us?

Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal

Or Donate anonymously using crypto!

Ethereum

0xfe58350B80634f60Fa6Dc149a72b4DFbc17D341E copy

Bitcoin

3ATGMxNzCUFzxpMCHL5sWSt4DVtS8UqXpi copy

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!

:(