Last month we
heard from the New York Times about the poll testing by the
firm ecoAmerica that found the term "global warming"
is no longer useful or scary enough for alarmists to use:
The problem with global
warming, some environmentalists believe, is “global
warming.”
The term turns people off, fostering images of
shaggy-haired liberals, economic sacrifice and complex
scientific disputes, according to extensive polling and focus
group sessions conducted by ecoAmerica, a nonprofit
environmental marketing and messaging firm in Washington.
Now
comes the Washington Times today with another report
from Democratic advisers who confirm ecoAmerica's findings, and
suggest that other terms being used to push a cap-and-trade
emissions reduction scheme are hurting their cause also:
House Democrats neared a deal Thursday on a bill to combat
global warming, but a top party strategist warned that to sell
any plan to voters they'll need to change the way they pitch it
-- including curbing the use of the term "green" jobs and even
talk of "global warming."
In a strategy memo, Democratic think tank Third Way and top
party strategist Stanley Greenberg warned Democrats that swing
voters don't care about fighting global warming, and said terms
like "cap-and-trade" are useless. Instead, the memo suggests
that Democrats tap into Americans' optimism that clean energy
can help improve the faltering economy.
"For most voters, global warming is not significant enough
on its own to drive support for major energy reform," the memo
says. "So while it can be part of the story that reform
advocates are telling, global warming should be used only in
addition to the broader economic frame, not in place of
it...."
But the strategists, in their memo, said the term
"cap-and-trade" is "worse than meaningless" and is unfavorable
to voters. Instead, Third Way and Mr. Greenberg's firm argue
for terms like "clean energy" and for branding the push against
global warming under a new slogan of "Get America running on
clean energy."
What a farce. These clowns won Oscars and Grammys based on
"global warming"; they pushed "cap-and-trade" because they said
it promoted a "market-based" reduction plan; and they embraced
"green" jobs because it implied the best of both worlds -- high
employment and a clean energy economy.
Now that they've captured all the government power, the terms
they used to win their trophies are -- as
I wrote last month -- a giant boat anchor. They can't lie
with the old terms any more so they have to make up new ones. And
like the phony language they use, their cap-and-trade plan is
also "worse than meaningless" -- it's
destructive.
topics:
Global Warming
