War, battles, enemies, fighting, attacks, appeasement, aggression — these are words you expect to hear uttered by military personnel, but for some scientists it’s the language of choice for the evolution versus creation wars and the religion versus atheism conflict for which Richard Dawkins is the standard bearer — at least for many of those favoring evolution and atheism.
What are the real military guys talking about these days? Surprisingly, the topic is climate change. Just today a 63-page report, National Security and the Threat of Climate Change (PDF), was released by 11 retired admirals and generals detailing how climate change threatens our national security and what we should be doing about it. Read the summary here and the news reports here, here, and here.
This comes on the heels of the latest entries on the framing science debate in which a few within the Dawkins camp have, to use an old and lovely phrase, freaked out at the suggestion that their battle with religion may not be seen as the most important task at hand by many of their own colleagues.
At The Intersection, Chris Mooney’s blog, PZ Myers asked,
If you wanted to make an argument that did not stir up all those high profile “New Atheists”, why didn’t you focus on AGW? Can you even make a case for a solid ‘framing’ that would represent a good strategy for persuading the public on that one?
Chris need only point to what the those 11 generals and admirals have done. The title of their report, National Security and the Threat of Climate Change, is the best frame imaginable for those of us who want public policy to attend to climate change, and the authorship is perfect, a distinguished group of retired military professionals. It’s a frame that anyone interested in the climate debate can use to get the attention of a wide swath of the American public, and using it is not “spin” or “appeasement” or “dumbing-down science.” Instead it’s a way to get a serious issues heard.
notes
My earlier posts on framing science (newest to oldest):
great framing examples
putting a good picture in a bad frame
discussion of framing goes down a rat hole
PZ as rebel leader
framing, er, anything
Other bloggers recent posts on the framing science debate are here and here.
[update: see follow-up post here.]
Trinifar,
Right you are! A great re-emphasis of the issue and shifting of the messenger to make it meaningful and of importance, especially to a Republican base who is otherwise completely deactivated on the issue.
Heard it on NPR this morning, was going to post about it, but alas, really, really busy.
Thanks.
Matt
Is E. O. Wilson’s attempt to reach out to the Christian right on the issue of the environment related to the whole framing issue? In a way?
I mean, he is kind of trying to shift the messenger (well, maybe just trying to broaden who receives the message, but that would add new messengers), and I think even shifting the frame to one which includes those folks, no?
Trinifar — Something strange. I posted after Matthew Nisbet, but my post jumped to the top, with a time stamp earlier than his.
Trinifar,
Are you seriously considering that the Pentagon is the place to start on tackling climate change? I’m not saying that potential climate change can’t/won’t have national security concerns, but I would suggest that nuclear weapons proliferation and the quagmires of Iraq and Afghanistan are more than enough for the US military to handle or mishandle as the case may be.
Armies work best at handling specific military goals, such as defeating other armies. Putting the military in a civilian role of tackling civilian disasters like Katrina is a recipe for disaster. After inviting the generals to your climate change party, will you want them to stay? Is an authoritarian military solution what you advocate?
Reminds me of the South Park episode when Stan floods Beaverton and it gets blamed on global warming. Those boys make me laugh.
John,
Is E. O. Wilson’s attempt to reach out to the Christian right on the issue of the environment related to the whole framing issue?
Good point. His book The Creation: An Appeal to Save Life on Earth is an explicit appeal to Christians emphasizing the shared value of stewardship, and in an NPR interview he pointedly talks about growing up in Alabama in a strong Baptist community. Although he’s a biologist he is very different kind of messenger than, say, those in the blogosphere that would brand him an “appeaser.” He’s not knocking religion and seeks to enlist religious people in his cause by appealing to them in their framework.
[Regarding the comment (re)ordering, you are correct that Matt posted first then the time stamp on his comment got munged. Late yesterday I changed the base timezone for the blog and can guess that had something to do with it. I just now changed the time stamp on his comment to put it back in the right order.]
Brendan,
Are you seriously considering that the Pentagon is the place to start on tackling climate change?
This post isn’t about a “place to start” but rather what sort of framing enables the issue to be heard. Surely the national security frame delivered by senior military guys reaches a wider audience than the “we are killing the earth” frame offered by some environmentalists which gets dismissed by many as more alarmism by the tree hugging crowd.
When people experience first one then the other of these frames, some of them have got think “if the military and the tree huggers are saying the same thing, I can’t dismiss this issue.”
[...] 17th, 2007 by Trinifar The previous post noted how effective the national security framing of climate change is likely to be in garnering [...]
Trinifar,
So, even though you don’t want a military solution to global warming, you advocate using ex-military sources for your information/awareness campaign? Don’t you think that if the military are asked to provide a role in advocating climate change, they will also want to be involved in solving the problem?
As you know, I am both skeptical of the impact of global warming and philosophically opposed to the methods proposed by AGW advocates in tackling the problem. I would be even more opposed to using the military in any form other than dealing with national security issues.
By invoking the military’s future scenarios under climate change, you may be seen to be advocating foreign expeditions by your military forces to stabilise nations affected by climate change. But why stop at climate change? Why not other natural disasters, like the earthquake that affected Pakistan a couple of years ago, or the Tsunami that wreaked havoc across the Indian Ocean in countries such as Indonesia, both with domestic security problems in the areas affected. Should the US Army have been on the ground in those (Muslim) countries?
Did the military prove to be particularly effective in New Orleans during Katrina? Wasn’t there some controversy about the military restricting media access to New Orleans? The military use martial, authoritarian tactics to solve problems, it is the nature of the beast. I am very skeptical about what a military force can achieve, and I would oppose vigorously them having any involvement in framing any government policy regarding climate change.
Do you really want a martial solution to climate change?
Brendan, even though you are “skeptical of the impact of global warming and philosophically opposed to the methods proposed by AGW advocates in tackling the problem,” don’t you think this framing of the issue will cause more people to take the issue seriously?
You might also take the time to read the report from the ex-military folks. It has nothing to do with a “martial solution to climate change.”
Trinifar,
Of course, but I don’t think it is good public policy to use the military to increase the alarmism associated with any issue. It is a long report and I only had time to read the executive summary, which seemed to advocate the US federal government adopt policies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and to develop weapons technology and military capabilities to deal with increased instability. Sounds like a martial response to global warming to me, in that they are advocating a response to the threat from a national security/military perspective.
For global warming to be threat described in the report, you’d first have to ascribe to the belief that it is the United States role to intervene in other soveriegn nations to increase stability. I don’t think it is a legitimate role for the US military, or anyone’s military, which is why I was opposed to the invasion of Iraq.
Unless global warming is going to increase the likelihood of Canadians or Mexicans invading the USA, or China/Russia/North Korea/Iran nuking America, then I can’t see that the military has any legitimate role in responding to the effects of global warming.
Perhaps you do see this as a role for the army, or perhaps you simply want to appeal to those who see this as a role for the army and use their fears of global instability to garner support for your global warming agenda. This sounds like propaganda to me “nasty foreigners, and global warming is going to make them nastier”.
Brendan, I do want to garner attention for climate science and its conclusions as well as its current efforts. That the US military takes the issue seriously should convince a lot of skeptics to take another look. That’s a good thing.
The civilians in charge of our military scare me (Bush, Rumsfeld and now Gates), but the senior professional military, who wear uniforms and order people into combat, is known for being conservative and avoiding unnecessary conflict. When they say climate change is a national security issue it gets attention. It’s not as if it will make them friends in the current administration by taking that position.
As for the military’s role in addressing climate change, that’s another issue and one where you and I likely have a lot of common ground.
Trinifar,
The military took the threat posed by Saddam’s regime in Iraq seriously as well. In Britain they even talked about a 45 minute reaction time for Iraqi missiles over Europe. The fact that the military take something seriously has little sway with me and only appeals to the darker side of others when used for political purposes. You can’t jump up and down and say that the military sees a threat from global warming and then disagree that they shouldn’t be given resources to deal with that threat.
I have a lot of faith in professional soldiers doing professional jobs with military objectives. I don’t have a lot of faith in them interpreting civilian phenomenon, and nor do I think it is fair or appropriate to look to them for advice in such matters.
Your generals were retired, they were making personal statements based on publicly available information. Why should I trust their interpretation of the IPCC report any more than say Katie Couric’s with regards to the validity of the threat. If I am skeptical about the input data, why should I be less skeptical of the analysis of said data? Garbage in, garbage out, so to speak.
Of course, I might trust their opinion if the premise was, assume that impact of AGW as predicted by the IPCC was 100% correct, how would this impact America’s national security, but you aren’t doing this. You’re using their reputations as an endorsement of the data while at the same time discounting their proposed military response to it. I think that is partially dishonest and a form of propaganda.
Your generals were retired, they were making personal statements based on publicly available information.
Actually their report comes on the heels of a report from the active military along the same lines. And the ex-generals were hardly engaged in “making personal statements” — a characterization that makes it sound like their work was nothing more than an opinion piece in a newspaper.
As this opinion piece in the journal Nature notes, we now have the military, some “prominent US evangelical Christians,” and some “traditionally conservative firms, such as power companies and retail giants” all saying the same thing: it’s time to take the climate change issue seriously.
Now that’s a powerful frame for the issue, one that crushes the dismissive “alarmist” claim from the climate change deniers.
Trinifar,
Are, or are you not saying that you want to use military sources to back up the idea that global warming WILL lead to catastrophic changes to the earth’s eco-systems , but that you are not advocating a miltary response?
Am I in denial to recognise that we may be having an impact, the size of which I am unsure of because of conflicting analysis of the earth’s atmosphere and geological history, but that even if we are having an impact, that the sort of changes proposed would set back human development dramatically, especially in poor nations which have the most to gain?
If poor nations are going to be the ones most affected by climate change, is it right to try to prevent them from developing their economy such that they may be able to better handle climate change?
Can’t you see that addressing me in pseudo-religious and offensive terms such as “climate change denier” sides more with propaganda and is a threat to free speech? I see in the response to climate change a pernicious authoritarian doctrine that threatens our tradition of open society and liberalism. I’m not so worried about fringe groups like Greenpeace jumping up and down and advocating authoritarianism, but when major political parties start seeing votes in green issues, it only gives them a mandate to increase the power of the state even more. It would be naive to underestimate the desire of politicians to control the electorate, irrespective of the ability of their programs to achieve their stated aims.
Brendan, taking your questions in order:
#1. The military is saying, “Hey, politicians, climate change is a real security threat. It’s likely to cause conflicts over resources.” Neither I nor anyone I’m aware of is suggesting any sort of military intervention anywhere in the world. In the 1950’s the military said, “Hey, politicians, in the event of a large scale war, we need to move supplies around the US more effectively,” and the result was the Interstate highway system. The military didn’t build it; the government responded by using public funds. Ditto Darpanet in the 1960’s, a redundant communication network in response to the threat of nuclear attack. That grew into the Internet we are using now.
#2. Yes, you are in denial. Seems like you are also content to advocate for business-as-usual economic development in poor countries while it is just those countries whose environments will be most affected by climate change.
#3. A threat to free speech would be using force of some kind to stop you from expressing your opinions. To the contrary, this blog is providing you with a forum.
Ed Brayton is a libertarian who focuses on free speech issues on his very good blog Dispatches from the Culture Wars (on my blogroll) and is part of a group blog Positive Liberty which is all about libertarian values. You might enjoy checking those out.
Trinifar,
Denial. Phooey. I deny nothing. I look at the facts, at the context in which they are presented, at the political agenda of the individuals and groups professing them and I get a profound shudder down my spine. When even the gentleman that started organisations like Greenpeace turn their back because their cause has gone feral, when the media are unwilling to provide balanced analysis because their are no ratings in non-catastrophic projections of climate change or in not being able to put the blame at the feet of greedy corporations. We are not talking about denying historical fact here. Global warming may be happening, but the catastrophic scenarios presented by Al Gore et al have not eventuated. You can’t deny what hasn’t happened yet. By accusing skeptics of being in denial you simply dismiss their concerns as not being worthy of addressing. That neither assists or progresses your cause.
You don’t think that belittling skeptics’ concerns and framing them in terms that suggests mental illness is an attack on free speech, well OK. 30 years ago, did the environmental movement think it was being denied free speech and a fair forum when their ideas were being dismissed by the mainstream? Get used to it Trin, you are the mainstream now. Even right wing death beasts like GWB are talking climate change now.
Myself and people like me will needle you and oppose you because I think that you are wrong to deny developing nations whose people are suffering not from future climate change, but from a lack of fresh water, from famine, from civil war, all things that could be alleviated if they were able to be integrated into the international community of trading nations, able to access the cheapest and the best current technology according to need. These people are suffering now. Their children will be suffering tomorrow. And your policies will ensure that they will suffer in the future whether global warming is catastrophic or not.
You will impede humanity’s technological, economic and social development without actually knowing whether your policies will work or not. I like the motto “be prepared”, and continuing human development is going to be the best preparation we have for whatever challenges we face as individuals and societies.
I incorrectly called myself a humanist, only on the basis of how the humanist movement have chosen to define their politics. However, I do consider myself pro-human. I am, you are, every human is more important than a polar bear or a rainforest, and these things have value only insofar as we value them. I find the movement you endorse as being anti-human, placing the environment above that of your fellow men and women. I cannot agree with that value system and I find it offensive.
It makes me angry whenever I hear anything associated with green politics. I love nature, I find the wonderment of the natural world breathtaking and it gives me perspective over my place in the world. However, without me, without the human race, the earth would merely be a lump of rock inhabited by beings unable to realise just what a miracle life is. Only humans have the capacity to step back and appreciate the world, and the environmental movement seems happy to place their fellow humans below scum, like parasites that have infected the earth. The green movement is re-inventing the fall of man and the original sin, but in this case it is the mere existence of man that spoils nature, like Adam and Eve who have bespoiled God’s creation. And you wonder why we accuse environmentalists of religious fervour?
I’m not an apologist for bad practice, nor for organisations that wilfully damage the environment. I see govenrments as possibly the worst cause of environmental problems, be it from ignoring the economics of water supply and demand, to providing incentives to most favoured industries. Governments have a way of creating both intended an unitended incentives that make poluting profitbale.
Make shipping regulations too strict, and you find oil tankers being registered under flags of convenience in countries with less than exemplary safety records. Make environmental regulations too strict, and factories get built in countries that have no environmental regulations. It would be easy to blame this on the companies that do this, but that would be failing to recognise that the state’s actions have motivated the environmentally dubious economic decisions.
I know you mean well and I admire your conviction, but you are wrong Trinifar.
I like the motto “be prepared”, and continuing human development is going to be the best preparation we have for whatever challenges we face as individuals and societies.
Here we have a huge area of agreement. At issue, I suppose, is what is meant by “human development.”
I find the movement you endorse as being anti-human, placing the environment above that of your fellow men and women.
What I would like is for people to see — quite accurately — that we humans are part of the environment, embedded in it, and just like another species in our dependence on the environment being healthy and productive. We are not endowed with some special power allowing us not to be effected by the degradation of our surroundings. That’s not an anti-human view, quite the contrary.
Only humans have the capacity to step back and appreciate the world, and the environmental movement seems happy to place their fellow humans below scum, like parasites that have infected the earth.
If you include the qualifier some in the environmental movement, we again are in agreement. The environmental movement has its proportional share of crazies.
By accusing skeptics of being in denial you simply dismiss their concerns as not being worthy of addressing. That neither assists or progresses your cause.
That’s a great point — especially in light of the recent discussion here and on other blogs about framing sciece, the very subject of this post. Let’s see….
As you note climate change is no longer a fringe idea. In the most general sense, it has become mainstream but not in such a way that there is anything like a consensus on what to do about it. Even among climate scientists there’s disagreement about how fast, how much, where, etc. the climate is changing. What there is scientific consensus on is in the IPCC reports which some scientists say goes to far in places and many others think it doesn’t far enough. But no one is saying the IPCC is just way of the mark in every respect or largely wrong. The climate is changing and the large negative effects are noticable, evidence abounds. Denying that makes one a climate-change denier.
Some people are content to let free market forces address the issue. To me that has as much chance of success as free markets had with dealing with child labor in the 19th century or that they are having now with using children in the sex trade in Thailand and elsewhere — none. There are clear economic incentives for parents to use their children in these ways that exist only because the market free and unregulated. These are precisely the areas where good government can and should act.
Degrading the environment affects all children as well as everyone else. Currently the “developed” countries are stealing the environmental health of the poorer countries. It’s theft of the highest order, and a free market doesn’t function well in the presence of a high degree of thievery. That’s why I hope libertarians get with the progam — it fits your value system.
Trinifar,
Child labour and sex industry is a matter of law enforcement. Since children are not considered able to give their consent to trading their labour, be it in a factory or a brothel, any contract formed would be illegal. The 19th century statesmen and activists used legislation to enforce this, but do you think that is 21st century western states abolished this legislation that we would suddenly start seeing kids working in factores again?
Child labour is an economic necessity for poor people, for even the welfare of the child benefited from their own labour. As the economy develops and the people get wealthier, they needn’t rely on the availability of that labour, which is what happened in the west in the 19th century and will happen in developing nations in the future (assuming they are free to grow).
Free markets enabled Victorian era English and Americans to abolish child labour. Economic development would have eventually freed the African American slaves had not that great state builder Lincoln and the Civil War intervened, and possibly made the transition smoother for all concerned, slave and slave owner alike. Wealth enables people the freedom to see moral problem that less wealthy simply don’t have the resources to be aware of. This is why the environmental movement is almost exclusively a middle and upper class phenomenon. Americans can afford to have clean air and rivers, dirt poor Africans just want electricity and telephone services.
You call environmentally damaging development choices in poor nations as theft by western nations. I don;t understand this. Adam Smith said it best, “It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker, that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest”. These nations are making economic decisions for our benefit, they are doing them for their own. Autocratic regimes may seek western corporations investments, but they do it from purely selfish motivations, and not according to the principles of free enterprise or free trade. Dubious practices by some companies in foriegn lands is not a blight on capitalism, but a blight on the rule of law in those foreign nations. Accepting that people will act immorally unless constrained by rule of law is something many libertarians recognise, and is why I uphold a belief in a need for at least a minimal government to enfore law and order. If foriegn nations had similar institutions to America, there would be no advantage to any company in using poor environmental and safety practices because they would be unable to. Blame the companies and individuals that don’t uphold sound practices overseas, but don’t blame the capitalist system.
What I am saying is that in many developing nations there is no free market, and therefore it is not fair to blame the concept of the free market in western nations for ills in developing nations. Free markets in western nations led to better working conditions and environmental awareness, and they could do so in developing nations as well.
The climate is changing and the large negative effects are noticable, evidence abounds. Denying that makes one a climate-change denier.
This is not the context in which you typically use it. You have labelled me a climate change denier not on this basis, but on the basis that I don’t agree with
1. your method of addressing it
2. the magnitude of the potential changes
3. whether man is fully responsible for any changes
4. whether man can reverse the climate change
I don’t disagree that the climate is changing and that man is contributing to some extent, but I do disagree that this is the most presing issue of the day and that we need dratic government interference in our freedom to address it.