I will focus on a “speaking secret” in my Sunday updates on “Language Intelligence“ – which has been the #1 Kindle book on “public speaking” since it came out in mid-August. Award-winning writer Sean Otto said in his review, “If you want to win the argument, in politics, in business, in life, Language Intelligence is an essential, entertaining and inspiring weapon in your arsenal of letters.” This post reviews why you shouldn’t repeat a myth you are trying to debunk.

President Obama’s failure to speak out repeatedly on the urgency of climate action is his biggest communications mistake. If our leaders don’t talk about an issue, it generally won’t become sufficiently salient for either the media or the public.

But Obama’s statement at the Democratic convention — responding to Romney’s mockery of his 2008 pledge of climate action — also contained a classic messaging mistake:

And yes, my plan will continue to reduce the carbon pollution that is heating our planet – because climate change is not a hoax.  More droughts and floods and wildfires are not a joke.  They’re a threat to our children’s future.  And in this election, you can do something about it.

The social science literature is quite clear that repeating a myth is not the best way to debunk it. Indeed, there is evidence that it can actually end up promoting that myth.

It’s why linguist George Lakoff titled his best-selling book, Don’t think of an elephant. If I say that to you, you will think of an elephant. Negatives carry very little rhetorical weight. In this case, the word “hoax” is very strong and memorable and is not one that should be repeated by those who understand the realities of climate science.

Read more

New Approach to Mapping Plant Hardiness Zones Accounts for Effects of Climate Change

City College of New York news release

A map of warming across the nation showing how much USDA plant hardiness zones will warm, in degrees Farhenheit. (Credit: Nir Krakauer)

Reference: Nir Y. Krakauer. Estimating Climate Trends: Application to United States Plant Hardiness Zones. Advances in Meteorology, Vol. 2012 (2012), Article ID 404876, doi:10.1155/2012/404876

As an organization concerned deeply about climate change, we often heavily criticize the “all of the above” approach to energy development. If we’re truly going to address the problem and lower greenhouse gas emissions, a primary focus on renewable energy, energy efficiency, and conservation need to be our number one priority. Digging a deeper carbon hole isn’t an option.

However, we’re also dealing with a very contentious political landscape in which renewable energy has become a political target — something that has been marginalized and detested by Republican politicians and interest groups, even while widely supported by the American people. So today, when a conservative comes out in strong defense of renewable energy, it’s worth highlighting their comments. In the case of the letter below, sent to Republicans in Michigan, we certainly don’t agree with the “drill here, drill now” premise; however, this letter also shows that there are still Republicans who believe strongly in aggressively promoting renewables. We believe they deserve to be recognized because, sadly, their voices are often drowned out by groups that have hijacked the energy conversation.

TO: Michigan Republicans/Conservative Activists and other Interested Parties
FROM: Saul Anuzis, Republican National Committeeman-­-Michigan
RE: A Conservative’s Case For “All of the Above”
DATE: August 17, 2012

Republicans and Conservatives ARE “green” and we ARE committed to preserving the health, economic, and spiritual benefits of our natural world for our children, grandchildren and future generations to come.

In the spirit of Teddy Roosevelt, most conservatives and Republicans are “conservationists” vs. “environmentalists.” We believe in preserving our natural resources for the responsible use of all citizens. As Barry Goldwater said, “While I am a great believer in the free enterprise system and all that it entails, I am an even stronger believer in the right our people to live in a clean and pollution-­- free environment” (The Conscience of a Majority (1970).

Read more

by Josh Mogerman, via NRDC’s Switchboard

There is no shortage of messaging from Big Oil trumpeting efforts to green “the Patch,” which is the euphemistic term applied to Alberta’s tar sands mine and melt sites.

They underplay the carbon impacts of what has been termed “the dirtiest oil on the planet” and trot out fancy technologies and plans that have yet to be put into action at industrial scale. And while there is a rosy picture painted for us Stateside, the business pages in Canada tend to lay bare the galling details of tar sands infrastructure pretty openly. There’s a great example of this from the Globe & Mail’s excellent reporter Nathan VanderKlippe.

Alberta has just put new pollution caps in place and despite all the nice talk of cleaning up the tar sands,  industry is bucking up against them. Here’s the assessment that comes out of Shell’s filings for their proposed new Jackpine mine in which they basically say, “our mine isn’t so bad, but if things continue in tar sands land at the current rate, it may get ugly!” A few choice tidbits from the G&M:

“Now, however, the Shell report projects that if the industry continues on its current course, it will run past annual limits on sulphur dioxide and nitrogen dioxide in the area studied. Those substances contribute to acid rain, and the projection suggests Alberta will be forced to confront whether it is willing to act in the name of the environment, or move the yardsticks to preserve its bedrock industry.…

The Shell document suggests the impact of the emissions will be tangible, identifying 23 lakes that will exceed their “critical load” for acidity.

High acidity can deaden a lake over time. With proper monitoring, impacts can be seen inside of a decade, and “as acidification progresses, eventually all fishes and molluscs are eliminated and biodiversity can be reduced considerably,” said David Schindler, a University of Alberta professor who is a leading expert on water in the province.

Though the impact of the Jackpine expansion itself is relatively small against the broad landscape, Shell says between its mine and other projects, some 9e per cent of wetlands and forests in the region will be lost or altered. Animals will also be affected. The Shell document catalogues an expected habitat decline of 34 per cent for barred owls, 13 per cent for beavers, 11 per cent for black bears, 19 per cent for Canada lynx, 49 per cent for Canada warblers, 18 per cent for wolverines and, most strikingly, the potential clearing of woodland caribou, a threatened species, from the area.

“Woodland caribou populations appear to be declining to extirpation,” the document says.

If those impacts aren’t  enough for Albertans to think twice about the current direction, the rule of law might be. I think Simon Dyer at Pembina sums it up nicely in the article when he notes:

Regulators “will need to start turning down projects to stay under the limits, or they’re seriously going to have to ratchet back on the performance of all the existing operators to try to get those pollutants down to levels to enable the industry to grow.”

Even as tar sands boosters in the US downplay the impacts of tar sands, the truth is getting harder and harder to ignore. Lakes rendered incapable of supporting life and extirpated critters undercut the industry’s rhetoric.

Josh Mogerman is Deputy Director of NRDC’s national media program. This piece was originally published at NRDC’s Switchboard and was reprinted with permission.