Sidling away from climate debate

While results from Cancun seem to warrant cautious optimism, it seems fewer and fewer actors want to tackle climate head-on in the U.S.:

After two years of fairly disappointing outcomes at the U.N. climate summits in Copenhagen and Cancun, and after watching hopes for cap-and-trade or other measures to regulate carbon fizzle in the U.S. Congress, a growing slice of those favoring investment in clean-energy are working hard to ditch the association with "climate," which now seems to many a losing political issue. As the Breakthrough Institute's Ted Nordhaus put it, "We need to free energy from the polarizing climate debate."

This seems like an obvious step, in retrospect, and potentially a very positive and effective one. After all, climate is only one form of environmental pressure humankind is exerting upon the planet, and there are many other (inter-related) challenges to tackle (water, waste, agricultural sustainability, etc.). And hey, if it worked in Kansas...

It's all about messaging

Speaking of farmers and climate change, Chris Clayton highlights has an interesting story from a climate-skeptical Kansas town that's nevertheless reduced its energy use by 5% from baseline (which is a lot).

You don't make a case to do something in Kansas by saying Al Gore backs it, but you can reshape the message and get the same result.

Climate and Energy Project looked at what it would take to get Kansans to overcome their skepticism about climate change.

So the (Climate and Energy) project ran an experiment to see if by focusing on thrift, patriotism, spiritual conviction and economic prosperity, it could rally residents of six Kansas towns to take meaningful steps to conserve energy and consider renewable fuels.

The most resonant themes were thrift (i.e. efficiency), reducing dependency on foreign oil, green jobs and "creation care":

The obligation of Christians to act as stewards of the world that God gave them, even creating a sermon bank with talking points they could download.

This is probably even much more effective than arguing that rising temperatures from climate change will hammer yields.

The military: Convinced climate skeptics

The fact that a bunch of retired generals and admirals would put together a report highlighting the need to deal with climate change for the sake of national security makes a statement. These retired military leaders aren't pushovers and can't be considered liberal environmentalists. "We're not an easy sell, if you will, on anything," he said. "So the fact that we came together to talk about climate change and the threat, it's real."

That’s Chris Clayton on the climate change and national security panel at the World Food Prize. So what does the top brass think we should do?

"So it's real, let's get over it, and let's look for the opportunities that can be created by dealing with this set of challenges," McGinn said. "It isn't bad. It's not like we have to give up something."

McGinn said the U.S. has to "break this paradigm that the only way to get economic growth and have high quality of life is through fossil fuels."

I’ll take them on my side.