In the debate regarding the nation’s energy future, language and perception matter.[1] I would suggest that there is need to reassess the way we communicate about energy, climate, and sustainability. In recent calls to reframe the national energy debate, it is seldom acknowledged that the frame depends on the audience. Because of the depth and breadth of energy issues, advocates should be aware that one-size-fits-all messages are likely to fail. Pitching green manufacturing job growth, climate change mitigation, portfolio resiliency, national security, ecosystem revitalization, and trade deficit reduction simultaneously is confusing at best, and alienating at worst. Energy issues make the most sense when couched in familiar terms. I would suggest that there are three main audiences of importance in the energy debate: elected officials, consumers, and business leaders.
For elected officials, what matters is votes. Whether or not they themselves believe that the United States should seek to transform its energy sector, they are unlikely to engage in any action that reduces their chances of election or reelection. After the failure of cap-and-trade legislation, and the highly publicized bankruptcy of Solyndra, presenting the issue to elected representatives and voters in the right way is critical. In a recent public opinion study, Freed and Bennet found that swing voters in Ohio and North Carolina were highly supportive of “clean energy,” and willing to pay more for it, citing future economic growth, competition with China, reducing energy prices, and pollution reduction. Voters were much more supportive of clean energy replacing coal than addressing climate change.[2] If recent presidential races are any indication, being able to address these voters in a way that resonates will be increasingly important as November nears.
For consumers, what matters is saving money—although niche markets exist for “sustainable” products. Traditionally, cheap consumer goods have come by ignoring waste streams where possible, taking advantage of global markets and variable regulatory environments, and from what some might argue is a myopic view of costs. However, where energy is concerned, there are some advantages to be had. Obviously, saving energy saves money. In Kansas, residents skeptical of climate change were encouraged invest in energy efficiency through emphasis on thrift.[3] Saving energy appeals to consumers as a responsible, economical action.
The decisions of business leaders have disproportionately large effects—as demonstrated by the recent high-profile solar PV adoptions by Walmart, Ikea and Apple.[4] This makes effective communication with this audience very important. Fortunately, the framework for getting business to understand energy issues is already in place. Kincannon has suggested that sustainability is really “astute and prudent management of complex, multifaceted risk.”[5] The need to mitigate the risk of resource cost, availability, and volatility is a strong potential driver in the future adoption of wind, solar, and other energy systems without tangible fuel costs, and this language presents the reality of global energy supply and climate change in language already mainstream in corporate culture. As Branko Terzic, President of CLEAResult Consulting noted during the UT Energy Forum, climate change is all about probability and risk. Our climate scientists have told us that they think that there very high likelihood that human beings are affecting the climate through the emissions of greenhouse gasses, which is more than we get from our insurance companies before buying health insurance, which we all do.[6] Wind and solar energy offer a reduction of emissions as well as a hedge against energy price volatility.
[1] Leiserowitz, A. 2006. Climate Change Risk Perception and Policy Preferences: The Role of Affect, Imagery and Values. Climactic Change, Vol. 77, 1-2, pp. 45-72.
[2] Freed, J. and M. Bennet. 2012. Moving Clean Energy to the Center: insights from Swing Voters in the Midwest and South. Third Way. http://gqrr.com/articles/2702/7002_Third_Way_Report_-_Moving_Clean_Energy_to_the_Center_-_Insights_from_Swing_Voters_in_the_Midwest_and_South.pdf
[3] Kaufman, L. 2010. “In Kansas, Climate Skeptics Embrace Cleaner Energy.” New York Times. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/19/science/earth/19fossil.html?_r=3&pagewanted=1
[4] See http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/22/ikea-solar-panels-lead-big-boxes_n_1221376.html and http://www.wired.com/wiredenterprise/2012/02/apple-solar/
[5] Kincannon, F. 2011 “Reframing the Sustainability Conversation to Risk and Resilience.” http://www.environmentalleader.com/2011/10/10/reframing-the-sustainability-conversation-to-risk-and-resilience/
[6] Terzic, B. 2012. Proceedings from the University of Texas Energy Forum, Panel 3 – “A National Energy Policy: The Search Continues.”
