Breakthrough Generation

Most painters or photographers will tell you that the frame (or lack thereof) matters almost as much as the image. The underlying message being portrayed can be lost or garbled by choosing the wrong frame so the process of selection can take as long or longer than producing the work.

In communications and marketing, choosing a frame for a particular message is even more difficult. The artist or painter may take audience into account, but ultimately the decision is made according to his own preferences. On the other hand, the communicator must ignore his own understanding of the message and wholly dedicate his efforts toward fostering comprehension in the audience.

Therein lies the dilemma for climate change experts and policy makers.

Studies and discussion of effective framing (in the communications sense) show that there is an overwhelming disconnect in the scientific findings on climate change and the way those findings are perceived by the American public. As Drew Westen and Celinda Lake, partners on ecoAmerica’s recent report entitled Climate + Energy Truths: Making the Necessary Connections (summary), explains in an article for the Huffington Post, “We haven’t been talking with the American people in their own language.”

In the report, ecoAmerica advocates for strong aspirational messages that tap into appealing American values, such as leadership, national security, health, etc. While creating messages that resonate with strong national values will make climate change issues more relevant to the average American, ecoAmerica seems to encourage alterations that may be misleading.

One example of this is their suggestion to avoid differentiating between different kinds of pollution. As a report by American Environics noted after conducting a focus group in Tucson, Arizona, participants seemed to be confused about the difference between pollution and global warming. According to the findings of the report, this confusion actually precluded concern about climate change issues because participants felt that the government was already effectively dealing with pollution as evidence by cleaner air and water.

Furthermore, the ecoAmerica report suggests avoiding terms like “cap and trade,” “carbon dioxide”, and “climate change,” claiming they were polarizing and off-putting. Instead, ecoAmerica advises the use of phrases such as “pollution reduction fund,” and “our deteriorating atmosphere.” Interestingly, these alternatives demonstrate semantic manipulations much more than framing alternatives.

SEED magazine published the reactions of six experts to this initial summary of the ecoAmerica report and all six had slightly different ideas about the appropriate way to frame the discourse on climate change. But in the discussion, framing and semantics often become jumbled and it is easy to forget that they are not necessarily one in the same.

All six of the experts acknowledged in some way that the public does not understand scientific jargon often used to express climate change messages. But the crux of this argument, is marginally framing but largely semantics. Choosing simpler words for scientific terms is, in part, a matter of making semantic choices, while orienting the message to align with a concept or value-set is more a question of framing.

Thus, using simpler, values-oriented language as the ecoAmerica report prescribes is at once enlightening and misleading. It is certainly not illogical to appeal to American values, such as a strong economy and secure jobs, it is not effective or ethical, however, to alter the facts. As Dr. Frank Luntz repeatedly points out in Words that Work, “it’s not what you say, it’s what people hear.” If we stray to far from what we are actually trying to say in an attempt to appeal to American values, we only fan the fire of confusion.

Only a few of the experts actually discussed framing through the lens of George Lakoff’s cognitive science definition, as a structure by which humans understand the world. And, while ecoAmerica’s report was more intent on semantics that conjure American values, only one expert discussed specific frames through which climate change messages can be expressed.

Matthew C. Nisbet, an assistant professor in the School of Communication at American University, equates frames to storylines or narratives that express the implications of a social issue like climate change. He reminds experts that not everyone cares about climate change the way a scientist or a policymaker does and suggests restructuring the conversation about the matter.

“In order to restart the conversation about meaningful policy action, new perceptual contexts are needed, mental boxes that resonate with something a specific intended audience already values or understands[…] In shifting the frame on climate change, the goals should not be to persuade, but rather to start conversations with the public that recognize, respect, and incorporate differences in knowledge, values, perspectives, and goals.”

Nisbet also acknowledges Breakthrough’s suggestions for re-framing the climate change debate as an energy dilemma, not a pollution problem.

While semantics certainly plays an important role in selecting the correct frame for the discourse on climate change, it is crucial that words are not manipulated so much in the process that the message is lost. Like an artist framing a masterpiece, it is important to recognize that a plain, straightforward frame can allow true meaning to be expressed.