Message from Tuvalu
Have you asked yourself this—why people don’t care?
Most often, I can only think that it is an issue of greed, selfishness, ignorance or—especially—outright denial (and greed).
We know that people in the South Pacific, such as the islands of Tuvalu, and other low-lying areas are living on land that is sinking (flooding really). Imagine sea water coming up to your knees, your hips…
Food can no longer grow, water is polluted, sewage systems are screwed, hygiene hazards are rampant, and ultimately people must be evacuated lest they die by drowning or other troubles. Elsewhere, droughts turn rich pasture turns into dead, barren land.
Already, 300,000 die yearly due to global warming (the vast majority of whom are women, by the way).
It is expected that millions of refugees will need places to go as global warming advances and water takes over the areas of Bangladesh, Calcutta, New York, Florida, and on and on.
So, this is enough to make people care, right? To get a Nalgene bottle and refill it daily instead of wasting myriad resources on purchasing pricy bottled water, to recycle instead of tossing cans in the garbage, to appreciate things more and be less wasteful, to become conscientious.
You’d think so.
So why isn’t it?
Some people think it’s all in the language. The New York Times article claims that environmentalists worry the term “global warming” repels conservatives and others because they associate it with hippies and cutting spending.
The firm conducting the study suggested discussing “our deteriorating atmosphere” to make it, um, more universally relevant. I know, pathetic.
Women, often in charge of fetching water, must walk increasingly farther to reach it due to droughts.
Drop discussions of carbon dioxide and bring up “moving away from the dirty fuels of the past.” Don’t confuse people with cap and trade; use terms like “cap and cash back” or “pollution reduction refund.”
Whatever. Language? If this is truly the case, it’s so funny I forgot to laugh—and chose to ram my head into the wall instead.
“We know why it’s lowest. When someone thinks of global warming, they think of a politicized, polarized argument. When you say ‘global warming,’ a certain group of Americans think that’s a code word for progressive liberals, gay marriage and other such issues.” – ecoAmerica
Oh no! Liberals!
Plus, screw global warming—it will only affect them.
Did I mention “ram my head into the wall”?
So we can’t say global warming, energy efficiency or the environment. Are you kidding me? Ridiculous.
Listen, if your problem is that anything that sounds liberal spooks you, you’ve got more problems than one—particularly when the issue at hand is as imminent as global warming. Swallow and digest it.
- Even the rich in first-world countries cannot escape climate change
Make it personal
Perhaps (and this is my opinion) the point is making the issue clearly and directly relevant to everyone.
Whether it’s threatening that your favorite Caribbean hotel where you spend your ritzy summers will shut down due to flooding or that your beloved ski resort will shut down due to a lack of snow, that is, no matter what kind of selfish jerk you are, the answer lies in making the issue relevant to you.
It makes sense. Not everyone is the underdog type who cares about others because of justice. Most people need to be directly affected by something to even blink. And it really seems that it is most people who need to be shaken up out of their catatonic state.
Droughts also mean less food - borrowed from boston.com
Changes to make to drive others to change
(FYI: My thoughts are in parentheses.)
Instead of global warming, try climate change (hey, it wasn’t my idea).
Substitute energy efficiency with the purportedly more positive saving money for a more prosperous future.
Drop the environment in favor of the air we breathe, the water our children drink—which right here is an example of making the situation directly relevant to people. Put them in the picture.
Remember to speak in TALKING POINTS aspirational language about shared American ideals, like freedom, prosperity, independence and self-sufficiency while avoiding jargon and details about policy, science, economics or technology – NYT
Switch environmentalists with conservationists (ooh, that feels sleazy).
Forget scientific arguments and stress common sense. (Listen, you need both.)
Use moral arguments—people need to feel guilty to get off their asses, it’s true.
A modest example:
As a conservationist, I urge you to consider saving money for a more prosperous future by turning off the tap when you brush your teeth to conserve water, leaving more for our children and their children to drink. It is our responsibility as Americans/Germans/Brazilians/etc. Think of your family and your friends. Climate change is something we can all collaborate to control through simple common sense.
Yeah, but let me tell you why I don’t like it. Because people should already be concerned and on the go. Because “climate change” sounds less severe than “global warming” (which, already, doesn’t sound critical enough). Because our priorities should lie on mitigating global warming instead of changing our rhetoric to make asshats care.
FYI, here’s a related article I just found while browsing for pictures: Eco-semantics
Here you go. Now go call yourself a conservationist.