The following appeared on another list serv.
We have to frame our issues in ways that are inclusive rather than exactly
fitting a specific problem.
Global warming is a good example. I
wrote an essay last year directed at Sierra Club leaders titled The Coming Train
Wreck about energy that discussed the coming energy debacle and how I thought we
were asleep at the wheel. I never mentioned global warming or climate
change but instead pointed out the following in response to someone's
comments:
=======================
I crafted my message specifically to
suggest a way around mentioning "climate change," "global warming," or any of
these buzz words. I would hope we could consider
stressing:
-energy
independence
-energy
conservation
-job
creation
-patriotism (thru energy
conservation)
-national
security
-wildlands
protection
-entrepreneurialism
-clean air
Now it just so
happens that the above items more than likely result in reducing climate
change. Imagine that!
=======================
They said that it
was impossible to make an energy campaign that did NOT mention global warming
because, get this, "there are Club activists who won't work on such a campaign
if it isn't called "global warming.' " Even though the term "global
warming" turns some people off and pushes the hot buttons of others like
Oklahoma Senator James Inhofe who claims there's no such thing as global
warming, Club activists didn't seem to understand that we MUST frame our issues
in order to get the most traction.
I wrote a letter to the editor about
energy, published a week ago Friday. An acquaintance who I know is a
Republican and voted for Bush, and he knows I'm an environmentalist, said it was
a great letter and he AGREED with it. The letter is below and I think it's
an example of how we need to be framing our issues in order to get more people
on board.
Drusha
=====================================
LTE
Published 5/6/05 in Bozeman Daily Chronicle:
http://www.bozemanchronicle.com/articles/2005/05/06/opinions/mayhueenergy.txt
Friday,
May 06, 2005
We need an energy bill that is not business as
usual
We need an energy bill that is truly visionary and farsighted.
The current energy bill, approved by the House of Representatives, maintains
business as usual -- 12 billion taxpayer dollars in tax breaks, handouts, and
subsidies to energy companies.
We're poised at the top of the downside of
the bell curve of oil supply. Developing countries such as China and India, with
2.4 billion people between them, aspire to the same oil-dependent lifestyle as
Europe and North America. The United States alone with 5 percent of the world's
population uses 25 percent of the world's resources. There simply isn't enough
oil and gas for everyone to live as Americans and Europeans do. We need to lead
the rest of the world in setting an example by conserving more and guzzling less
gas.
We cannot continue to drill ourselves to energy independence and
national security by maintaining the status quo in a world of increased demand
and shrinking supply of oil and gas. Tax breaks and subsidies for energy
companies and electric utilities that rely on the same old technologies will
fail us.
Rather than subsidize the status quo, let's insist that our tax
dollars help fund research and development in renewable energy rather than tax
breaks that reward energy companies for resisting change, that Americans are
employed in good-paying jobs in the energy field, that fuel economy standards
are increased for each new car built to get more miles per gallon, that our air
gets cleaner, that our last best places remain unspoiled, and that American
entrepreneurialism is fostered. Energy independence ensures our national
security. Now that's patriotic!
Make sure our senators know what you
think about the energy bill coming to the Senate this
year.