In my post last night, I noted that\u00a0 many people are expecting the President to pivot from the BP oil disaster to the climate and clean energy bill.\u00a0 But how exactly should he do that rhetorically?\u00a0 I’m writing a piece on that subject and would love to hear your thoughts.<\/p>\n
Also, I have been mostly calling the unfolding disaster in the Gulf the “BP oil disaster,” which certainly beats the President’s “BP Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill.”\u00a0 Guest blogger Dominique Browning<\/a> has some\u00a0 thoughts about the name and messaging below.\u00a0 Again, I’d love to hear your ideas.<\/p>\n <\/span><\/p>\n As a professional editor, I\u2019ve always paid close attention to words. Now that I\u2019m writing regularly about climate change, I\u2019m even more attentive to the language people use in engaging with this subject. It\u2019s rife with jargon, rhetoric and innuendo–handy tools that environmentalists could use more adeptly. These days I\u2019m focused on naming names.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n A scan online of news and blog headlines shows that we–editors and writers and, for that matter, politicians and environmentalists–are all over the place in giving a name to this disaster in the Gulf of Mexico. The New York Times<\/em> is calling it the Gulf oil spill; others refer to the Gulf crisis or the BP spill. Environmentalists are in danger of missing the chance to give this gusher a name that will stick in the historical record. That would be a shame, because this event could alter our collective awareness of the grave danger we are facing.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n It is time to settle on a name. If you think this is irrelevant, consider, for instance, the Exxon Valdez. Notice how every single time that spill comes up (with great regularity these days, as it is dawning on us just how bad things are in the Gulf) the name of the culprit is attached. That\u2019s perfect. We should be reminded of the perpetrators of environmental catastrophe.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n The only people who have settled on the terms with which they are discussing (or not) this disaster are the folks at BP. Why do you think they keep pushing the name Deepwater Horizon into the conversation? Whoever heard of that company before? Note that Wikipedia has now listed this disaster as the Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill, with secondary reference to it as the BP oil spill. Wonder how that happened? (An example of innuendo, but I do wonder\u2026.)<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n BP doesn\u2019t want to own this problem. They just leased it. But we don\u2019t have to buy that. We need a name that eternally links BP with the Gulf–because BP is responsible. And we need a much stronger word than spill. Before much longer, we\u2019ll be wishing a spill is all we were facing. This is a gusher with no known end.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n Speaking of rhetoric, by the way, when trying to persuade people that global warming is a crisis, all reference to \u201cgrandchildren\u201d is unnecessary and inaccurate. This is a threat to you and your children; the problem isn\u2019t a generation away. It is happening now. As usual, the \u201cI don\u2019t believe in global warming\u201d crowd is better at defining the terms of the argument. (What argument? Well, they\u2019ve created one, simply by using that phrase.) Just look at the idea embedded in the word \u201cbelief\u201d. Belief, of course, has nothing to do with science. But it perfectly captures the margins of skeptical thinking that are always, and necessarily, at play among scientists–captures them, and co-opts them, with a spiritual twist.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n Environmentalists who want to join the public debate effectively have to name problems accurately, and find the most persuasive, honest and durable ways to talk about them. And stick with the terms until the terms stick. If we don\u2019t do that, we are going to get caught in tricky, unpredictable, and endless currents. Just like the oil from the 2010 BP-Gulf Gusher. And yes, hyphens matter too.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n Guest blogger Dominique Browning<\/a> writes a column called PERSONAL NATURE for the Environmental Defense Fund website. Her new book is SLOW LOVE: How I Lost My Job, Put on My Pajamas, & Found Happiness<\/a>. She blogs at SLOWLOVELIFE.com<\/a><\/em><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n As\u00a0 I noted last night, it is time for the president to reframe the energy debate, as many have begged him to do (see \u201cIs Obama blowing his best chance to shift the debate from the dirty, unsafe energy of the 19th century to the clean, safe energy of the 21st century?<\/a>\u201c and Video: Robert Redford tells President Obama it\u2019s time to lead \u201cAmerica on a path to cleaner, safer energy\u201d<\/a>).<\/p>\n The public\u00a0 is certainly craving leadership Obama\u2019s campaign pollster: \u201cIn the aftermath of the oil spill disaster, voters overwhelmingly support a comprehensive clean energy bill\u2026. Voters understand the dangers of our dependence on oil. Now, they\u2019re ready to hold Congress accountable.\u201d<\/a><\/p>\n\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n