A new language - by David Stookey

From here on, our words about emissions reductions and local climate protections – what we say to whom – may need to to be modified. We probably won’t be talking to the same people as before.

Trump and Project2025 believers won’t let federal employees respond to us.
For a while anyway, Republican members of Congress are likely to be fearful of Trump’s wrath if they show much responsiveness to us.
And many Americans, our neighbors and friends who voted for Trump, are quietly enjoying their triumph. Many see it as a vindication of their conservative beliefs. Even if those on the right don’t actually believe climate change is a hoax or that “Drill, Baby, Drill” is the right policy – and many of them don’t – they can easily think that this Hoax/Drill thinking has been validated by America’s Democratic processes.

So if the politicians and bureaucrats in Washington and conservative Americans across the country are less likely to respond to us pushing the importance of emissions reductions and local climate protections, whom do we try to persuade? The targets are still numerous.

State governments. For instance, California is pushing ahead with its gas mileage restraints and other climate-related regulations.
National non-profits, lobbying organizations, and special interest groups, some with local chapters, will be going to the public, and especially to the courts, challenging the Administration’s actions.
State and local organizations are likely to be the vehicles for on-the-ground protections (e.g. batteries within the grid, electric public and school transit, climate justice initiatives with minorities).
Local governments likewise will be where many climate adaptations (flood walls, shade trees, heat shelters) are designed and built.
Businesses – Yes, many do think that short-term profits and cost savings are more desirable than long-term safety and prosperity. But the sustainability business sector in America has exploded and wants to keep growing.
And yes, even parts of the federal government. Its largess isn’t over yet. Only $4.4 billion has been spent, out of $142 billion authorized under the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA), and maybe a little more can be spent before Trump’s promised ‘DAY ONE’ clampdown on the program. But even after Inauguration Day, there are lots of forces that recognize the advantages of the IRA’s engineered reductions and protections to the US – advantages for our economy, for our energy security, and for our foreign policy interests. Dumping these programs may cost Americans dearly in foregone jobs and declining competitiveness.

The first thing we do is speak and write differently, stop sounding like protest marchers, scientists, and left-leaning commentators. Yes, stop sounding like ClimateDog. Here are some suggestions I’ve collected from across the web.

Climate activists should stop using certain phrases like climate change, environmentalism, eco-, sustainability, climate wins, greenhouse gases, fossil fuel emissions and others. Stop with the climate-speak. These words raise immediate unthinking resistance in many Americans we’d like to work with.

There’s a whole slew of phrases we can effectively use instead – like air pollution, air quality, energy innovation, climate stewardship, public health, free-market solutions, American leadership in clean energy, energy independence through renewables, innovation, rather than regulation, American-made clean energy, climate policy that boosts the economy, clean energy jobs, private sector leadership on pollution, economic opportunity, stewardship of natural resources, legacy of conservation, protecting the environment for future generations, maybe even protecting God’s creation.

We can persuasively talk about economics, describing the advantages of electric vehicles and heat pumps, the job creation effect of sustainable products and services, and the savings from better wildfire control, storm preparation, and drought prevention.

We should stay away from moral arguments. Many activists on abortion, immigration, LGBTQ+, and other causes will be laying righteous guilt trips on their listeners. We should avoid doing that.

We can slip the word ‘freedom’ in – freedom from pollution (both carbon and wildfire smoke), freedom from wildfire and storm damage, freedom from Chinese control of sustainability products, and others.

America’s energy security may not be as iffy as other countries, but energy is to many a prime foreign policy interest. Loss of out technical leadership may cost us dearly in foregone jobs and reduced competitiveness in technologies of the future. In particular, China is heavily invested, politically and economically, in the clean energy transition and they will want to maintain and grow export markets for their low-carbon tech.

We should stay away from disparaging Trump, insulting him. Maybe not use his name at all. He may not get mad, but his supporters may.

We may genuinely share the feeling that it’s a patriotic or religious duty to protect the environment.

Because one of the reasons conservatives shy away from climate change is it seems best tackled by BIG government, we should point to the many SMALL government initiatives.

We can push clean energy, but shouldn’t knock dirty energy. Conservatives want both. (Yes, America desperately needs to reduce dirty energy, but we should shout this at people who already understand it.)

We share a concern about the long-term effects on young people.

If we focus on shared, local issues which people can feel and see, we can relate to just about anyone. Nobody, conservative or liberal, wants their forests to burn, their rivers to flood or run dry, or their kids to have asthma.

Certain words like nature, stewardship, economic growth, conservation, independence, and environment, and even in some contexts fairness, can all be neutral words in American politics.

I know that’s a long list. But I’m now going to pin it up in front of me as I write about climate change. Maybe others will too.

Trump supporters have already started talking differently about the issues that matter to them. A POLITICO poll shows that Trump supporters have, naturally, stopped their scare talk about voter fraud. Less naturally, the percentage of Trump voters who describe the economy as on the “right track” jumped from just 8 percent to 28 percent after Trump’s victory. Whether or not there will be more changes in conservative-speak on climate topics, we should make our own changes quickly.

But where are we going to say these new phrases? To whom? In what form? The next few issues of ClimateDog will focus on specific opportunities to expand our climate activism across the new political landscape out there.

A new language – by David Stookey