By Chris Mooney

I don’t normally do this. But right now, I am going to come out and gushingly endorse a book: Climate blogger Joe Romm’s Language Intelligence: Lessons on Persuasion from Jesus, Shakespeare, Lincoln, and Lady Gaga.

Everybody who cares about why science doesn’t get through to the public should read it.

Basically, it is a powerful treatise on the neglected art of rhetoric, the technique mastered by Shakespeare, Lincoln, and the writers of the King James Bible. As an English major, I particularly delighted in Romm’s discussion of figures of speech and how they make orators persuasive by allowing them to activate people’s emotions. Indeed, as Romm writes, modern neuroscience now confirms what the poets always knew about getting to people’s heads through their hearts (that’s a metaphor, by the way–one of the chief techniques that Romm discusses).

If you ever want to understand why scientists fare so poorly getting their message across–and why liberals lose policy debates and, often, presidential campaigns–this is also the book for you. In essence: too much higher education, too much wonk sophistication, destroys the common language simplicity of good rhetoric and makes you less persuasive.

Romm–quite-self consciously–uses powerful rhetoric himself to get the point across. And he shows how, slowly, climate researchers are coming to recognize the power of figures of speech–comparing global warming’s influence on the weather to a batter on steroids who hits more home runs, for instance, or to the loading of dice.

You can order the book here. Romm [was] my guest on Point of Inquiry, and we talk a great deal more about all of the book.

– Chris Mooney via ScienceProgress. Mooney is the author of four books, including the bestseller The Republican War on Science.

by Matt Kasper

Energy efficient light bulbs continue to be a target of conservatives in Congress. This summer, multiple amendments were approved by House lawmakers trying to prohibit the government from enforcing federal light bulb standards. Republicans falsely claim those standards “ban” incandescent bulbs.

Now, conservative media outlets are seizing on another opportunity to rail on energy efficient bulbs, saying that compact fluorescents are capable of “frying your skin with UVA radiation.” National Public Radio also featured a story last week perpetuating the myth.

Where is this claim coming from? A recent study conducted by researchers at Stony Brook University concluded that the response from healthy skin cells to UV emitted from compact fluorescent lamps (CFLs) is consistent with damage from ultraviolet radiation.

However, the report’s findings are not new – and there is no cause for alarm.

Experts already know CFLs emit UV radiation and agree that using CFLs are perfectly safe. The co-author of the study, Dr. Tatiana Mironova, even told Media Matters that “there is no link in scientific literature between CFL exposure and cancer.”

The energy efficient bulbs have been in use since the 1980s in schools, offices, hospitals, and residential houses. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration already has regulations in place for CFLs and explicitly states it is not concerned with the radiation levels from the bulbs.

In 2008, the Health Protection Agency of the United Kingdom found CFLs emit UV radiation, and to prevent any damage to skin cells one should use a lampshade, or the bare bulb should be positioned at least 1ft. away from the skin.

The Chief Executive of the Health Protection Agency, Justin McCracken said, “This is precautionary advice and people should not be thinking of removing these energy saving light bulbs from their homes.”

A European study published in 2008 titled “Light Sensitivity,” concluded similar results:

Within the context of the promotion of wide-spread use of energy saving lamps, such as compact fluorescent lamps (CFLs), and the possible phase-out of incandescent lamps, it has been claimed that the symptoms of several diseases may be aggravated in the presence of energy saving lamps.  SCENIHR (Scientific Committee on Emerging and Newly Identified Health Risks) did not find suitable direct scientific data on the relationship between energy saving lamps and the symptoms in patients with various conditions.

Energy efficient appliances, including CFLs, are an important tool for addressing climate change. The standards for CFLs were adopted by Congress in the Energy Policy Act of 2005, and are about 75 percent more efficient than traditional incandescent bulbs — while lasting 10 times longer.

The Energy Star program, designed by the EPA and DOE, helps consumers save on energy by choosing efficient products. According to the Appliance Standards Awareness Project, the products and standards will save consumers and businesses more than $1.1 trillion through 2035.

Matt Kasper is a special assistant for energy policy at the Center for American Progress.

By Heidi Cullen via Climate Central

First there was intelligence, then came emotional intelligence. Now Joe Romm, a senior fellow at the Center for American Progress Action Fund and well-known ClimateProgress.org blogger, introduces us to the concept of language intelligence in his thoughtful new book Language Intelligence: Lessons on Persuasion from Jesus, Shakespeare, Lincoln and Lady Gaga. Romm defines language intelligence as “the ability to convince people of something by moving them both intellectually and emotionally, at both a conscious and unconscious level.” For those of us working to explain the science and impacts of climate change to the general public, the book is a reference manual for how to be a more effective communicator.

But it’s far more than just a handy how-to guide. At its heart, Language Intelligence is a fascinating history of rhetoric, what Dante called “the sweetest of all the other sciences.” As Romm details, rhetoric was evident in Homer’s 8th century classics The Iliad and The Odyssey and dates back even further — to the Five Books of Moses.

Genesis by itself is a complete rhetoric handbook, containing all the figures of speech, as we will see. The very first story of Adam and Eve reveals the dangerous power of speech. The serpent, “more subtle than any other wild creature,” beguiles Eve with deceptive language and false promises into eating from the tree of knowledge, leading to banishment from Paradise. Such are the bitter fruits of lack of language intelligence.

The figures of speech, as Romm illustrates, include: metaphors (Abraham Lincoln’s “A house divided against itself cannot stand,” is a masterful example), hyperbole (which Aristotle said is used by angry men), and chiasmus (Mae West’s famous line, “It’s not the men in my life, it’s the life in my men”).

With chapter headings like “The First Rule: Short Words Win” and “If You Don’t Repeat, You Can’t Compete,” Romm walks readers through the basics of good communication by busting myths and offering useful advice. For example:

The big myth about rhetoric is that rhetoric equals big words. If I were to wish but one point to stick with you here, it would be that short words are the best words. Short words win. Short words sell. In an era of snappy sound-bites and sexy slogans, the pitch must be pithy or the channel will be changed. “There is no more important element in the technique of rhetoric than the continual employment of the best possible word,” wrote a young Winston Churchill.

Given his day job, Romm continually connects back to the difficult task of communicating about climate change. “Those who deny the reality of climate science have made use of the best rhetorical techniques,” Romm said. “Those seeking to inform the public about the very real dangers of a warming climate will need to learn the lessons of the best communicators if they are to overcome the most well-funded disinformation campaign in history.” There’s plenty here to help scientists looking to become better communicators.

This insightful and important little book — it’s a concise 213 pages — comes at a time when, despite having more ways to communicate than ever, trust in what is being communicated stands at an all-time low. If rhetoric is king, then trust is God. And yes, that’s a metaphor.

Kindle page on Amazon

– Heidi Cullen is Vice President for External Communications and Chief Climatologist for Climate Central. This was reprinted with permission.

by Michael Conathan

Arctic sea ice coverage has been declining for decades, and 2011 set a record for the lowest amount of coverage ever recorded—a record we’re currently threatening to break. Less ice and more open water means the region will soon be available for additional human activity.

Shipping companies and cruise lines are already utilizing new routes, taking advantage of the long-sought northwest passage from Europe and North America to Asia. And as soon as next week, Shell Oil could receive the green light to begin drilling up to five new exploratory oil-and-gas wells off the north slope of Alaska. As Big Oil prepares to exploit the emerging resources and access, the fishing industry has chosen to take a very different approach—one the oil companies should heed.

In August 2009 the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration formally approved a proposal by the North Pacific Fishery Management Council to ban all fishing activity in the U.S. Arctic except subsistence fishing by Alaska Natives. Members of the council—the majority of which is comprised of fishing industry representatives—voted unanimously to recommend the prohibition. In a remarkably forward-looking move, the body also opted to close the nearly 150,000-square-mile Arctic Management Area (see Figure 1) until adequate scientific fish stock assessments and other data could be collected that would ensure this virgin resource could be managed sustainably.

This move gained the support of environmental organizations such as Oceana, The Ocean Conservancy, and the Pew Environment Group, as well as Alaska’s biggest coalition of fishing industry interests—the Marine Conservation Alliance, which represents more than two-thirds of the state’s groundfishermen and crabbers.

The fishing industry’s approach to management stands in direct contrast to that taken by the oil-and-gas industry and its federal regulators. Shell has led Big Oil’s charge into the Arctic Ocean and is on the cusp of receiving final permits that could allow them to begin drilling operations there as soon as next week. Logic would dictate this means we know more about the science of oil in the Arctic than we do about the science of fish. Not so.

Read more

Please retweet and Like this. If you can help market the book, email me a “Hot Tip.”

If you’d like to be more persuasive, buy my new book Language Intelligence: Lessons on Persuasion from Jesus, Shakespeare, Lincoln and Lady Gaga in paperback (click here) or Kindle (click here).

For the past quarter century — since my first published article on Shakespeare in 1988 — I have studied the secrets of the greatest communicators in history. In this book, I show how you can apply these tools to your writing, speaking, blogging — even your Tweeting. I also discuss the latest social science research on how to be more persuasive and memorable.

One of the greatest speech-makers in the progressive movement gave me this jacket quote after reading a draft of the book two years ago:

Van Jones: “This book changed my life, and it can change yours, too.  Joe Romm understands the secrets of persuasion and messaging and he has distilled them into this must-read book.”

As I say in the book’s opening line, “This book will change the way you speak and listen.” I believe that this book will change the lives of some significant fraction of those who buy it and read it — those who take its principles to heart and seek to master them.

I decided to give away the most important secret of blogging (and tweeting) in the book, which you can find in the excerpt at the Amazon Kindle page (click here and then hit “Click to Look Inside”).

This is easily my best book ever and by far my best written book as I apply the secrets of effective communications to the very writing of the book, something that took me years and years to achieve and the input of many, many editors.

Bill McKibben: “Joe Romm  is one of the best communicators we have. This book is the essential hand-book for anyone who wants to be more effective or more persuasive.

Everyone who has read this book so far loves it, and I will be reprinting a bunch of rave reviews and sweet tweets here this week.

Heidi Cullen just posted a great review at Climate Central:

Romm’s Book ‘Language Intelligence’ Insightful, Important

I would give you a money-back guarantee if there were an easy way to do it, but since I can’t, you’ll just have to take the word of Van Jones and Bill McKibben and Heidi Cullen for now. Or go read the Introduction and much of the first chapter here.

Finally, for those who want to go beyond just becoming more persuasive and help me maximize sales this week to get the best Amazon rank: You can retweet or repost this post — the headline was designed to reach many different audiences via Twitter.  You can also buy both the $14.99 paperback (click here) and $9.99 Kindle (click here). The Kindle has active links for all of the chapters and the footnotes, which include links to many of the great speeches of all time and much of the recent social science research on persuasive speech and writing. You’ll want that extra copy of the book to give away to a friend or family member who communicates for living.

by Jackie Weidman

Each year in the United States power plants expel 310 million pounds of toxic air pollution.  Just 20 states are responsible 92 percent this pollution, the Natural Resource Defense Council (NRDC) finds in their new report: “Toxic Power: How Power Plants Contaminate Our Air and States.” Kentucky, Ohio and Pennsylvania topped the charts, contributing over 35 percent of total U.S. emissions. (Click on the image to enlarge.)

At the same time, power plant pollution dropped 19 percent from 2009 to 2010.  This decrease occurred because of two key factors: (1) many utilities switched from burning coal to natural gas and (2) several plants installed pollution controls in anticipation of new health protections from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

EPA estimates that each year these pollution reductions save up to $90 billion in health costs. They also prevent up to 540,000 missed work or sick days, and avoid tens of thousands of premature deaths, asthma cases, and hospital visits each year.

Toxic air pollution should continue to decline dramatically over the next several years due to EPA regulations.  By 2015, EPA’s recently finalized Mercury and Air Toxics standards will reduce mercury pollution by 79 percent; and sulfur dioxide and acid gases by 63 and 95 percent, respectively.

However, Congress could delay progress as lawmakers do the bidding of Big Polluters and work to repeal these public health safeguards.

Both Senators from 8 of the “toxic 20” states – Alabama, Georgia, Indiana, Kentucky, Mississippi, South Carolina, Texas, and Virgina – recently supported a resolution from Senator Inhofe (R-OK) to repeal Mercury and Air Toxics Standards.

On the other hand, Senators from Michigan, Maryland, and Delaware stood up to protect public health and voted against repealing the rules.  The remaining Senators from the top 20 toxic states are split.

“Children can’t choose whether to breathe, but Congress can choose whether the air they’re breathing is clean or dirty,” said Franz Matzner, NRDC associate director of Government Affairs.

Thanks to EPA regulations, millions of children and families are able to breathe easier.  The Clean Air Act will continue to cut deadly pollution, saving tens of thousands of lives each year. But the coal industry isn’t giving up, and Senators will soon have to choose again whether they will stand for Big Polluters or stand with the health of the American people.

Jackie Weidman is a special assistant for energy policy at the Center for American Progress.

Last week marked the 38-year anniversary of Nixon’s departure from the White House. And while historians will mostly remember the former president within the context of the Watergate scandal, Nixon also left a much more important legacy: protecting the environment.

Yes, Nixon founded the Environmental Protection Agency, created the first Earth Week, and signed the original Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act, and Endangered Species Act during his presidency. (For more, check out this remembrance from Climate Central’s Michael Lemonick).

A lot of people forget that conservation and environmental concerns were once a core part of the Republican party.

Perhaps even more surprising to some people given today’s ferocious attacks on basic environmental protections, U.S. GDP has grown 200 percent since the founding of the EPA while the most common pollutants (ozone, particulate matter, carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxides, sulfur dioxide and lead) have fallen 63 percent.

However, even though history has shown that strong environmental regulations go hand in hand with economic growth, some politicians are mindlessly attacking even the most basic protections. The mini-documentary below, produced by filmmaker Erick Stoll, lays out an excellent case for why these attacks are so short-sighted:

by Kate Gordon, via Huffington Post

A new statewide poll in California has mixed results for those of us dedicated to fighting climate change. While the good news is actually great news, the bad news is a call to action.

Let me start on the upbeat side, which recognizes the magnitude of the issue.

The Public Policy Institute of California’s 12th annual poll on “Californians and the Environment” found that a strong majority of Californians, 78 percent, thinks that the world’s temperature has probably increased over the last 100 years, versus 17 percent who said it probably hasn’t. Most respondents, 60 percent, said the effects of global warming have already begun, and even more, 71 percent, support the state law requiring emissions reductions. Their feelings are borne out by hard science, as we know from NASA scientist James Hansen’s recent op-ed, in which he definitively links the extreme weather of the past few years with climate change.

More of the encouraging results:
• Majorities favor policies requiring increased energy efficiency for residential buildings, commercial buildings and appliances (77 percent);
• requiring industrial plants, oil refineries, and commercial facilities to reduce emissions (82);
• encouraging local governments to change land use and transportation planning so people could drive less (77);
• requiring all automakers to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases even further in new cars (78);
• and requiring fuel providers to reduce the carbon intensity of transportation fuels at least 10 percent by the end of the decade (79).

But now for the head-scratcher.

California actually already has a law in place to lower emissions: AB32, which aims to reduce carbon levels to their 1990 levels by 2020. But a major mechanism to achieve those goals, a cap and trade program, remains somewhat of a mystery to a majority of state residents. The poll found that 57 percent had never heard of it — despite the hundreds of news stories on the topic in 2012 alone.

As Californians learn more about AB32, it’s critically important that they get the right information.

Well-financed opposition groups are revving up a noisy campaign to block cap and trade from taking effect. Using untruths, half-truths and scare tactics, they’re charging that it amounts to a tax, that it would drive businesses out of California, that it would drive up energy costs for consumers.

Let me be clear: Not true. Not true. Not true.

Read more

A round-up of the top climate and energy stories.

Parasites look set to become more virulent because of climate change, according to a study showing that frogs suffer more infections from a fungus when exposed to unexpected swings in temperatures. [Reuters]

Parasites, which include tapeworms, the tiny organisms that cause malaria and funguses, may be more nimble at adapting to climatic shifts than the animals they live on since they are smaller and grow more quickly, scientists said.

“Increases in climate variability are likely to make it easier for parasites to infect their hosts,” Thomas Raffel of Oakland University in the United States told Reuters, based on findings about frogs and a sometimes deadly skin fungus.

President Obama and presumptive Republican nominee Mitt Romney clashed last week over a federal tax credit for businesses that produce wind and other alternative energy. [Washington Post]

A summer drought that has destroyed crops, killed livestock and sent feed prices soaring is now extracting a political price from members of Congress, who failed to agree on a comprehensive agriculture bill or even limited emergency relief before leaving Washington for five weeks. [New York Times]

Two young Eugene residents are appealing a local judge’s April dismissal of their lawsuit alleging that the state of Oregon is violating the public trust by failing to take adequate steps to prevent climate change. [The Register Guard]

Armed with the latest monsoon rainfall data, weather experts finally conceded this month that India is facing a drought, confirming what millions of livestock farmers around the country had known for weeks. [Reuters]

Lemons and sweet bamboo may not be associated with frontline efforts to adapt to climate change in most parts of the world, but in Kioutaloun village in northern Laos, rice farmers hit by landslides, land erosion and severe flooding are looking to different crops. [IRIN]

With a giant swathe of the nation’s prime agricultural land affected by drought, the federal government and private forecasters have been projecting a significant drop in corn and soybean production—and a jump in food prices. [The Daily Beast]

Under the most wide-reaching drought since 1956, and torched by the hottest July on record dating from 1895, the United States has been under the kind of weather stress that climatologists say will be more common if the long-standing trend toward higher U.S. temperatures continues. [Washington Post]

Methane is making headlines because of new numbers showing more leakage than previously thought from natural gas wells and pipelines. Some critics say natural gas is a worse climate-change polluter than coal. That’s hotly disputed by energy companies. [New Jersey Star Ledger]