new frame for climate change

The previous post noted how effective the national security framing of climate change is likely to be in garnering attention. An NPR listener pointed out the UN Security Council is taking up the issue at its meeting today. NPR reports:

The U.N. Security Council is about to consider global climate change for the first time. Britain, which now holds the council’s rotating presidency, has taken a leadership role on the issue. [Listen to the report here.]

In two minute and five seconds the following points are highlighted:

• climate change is a threat to world security
• notable example: in Darfur farmers and cattle grazers are clashing in part due to an extended drought
• climate change needs the same kind of effort as used in the Cold War
• the discussion needs to include finance and defense ministers and heads of state (thus the security council is a relevant forum)
• it worked before: the US brought the AIDS issue to the security council a decade ago which kicked off a worldwide effort; hopefully the security council can do the same with climate change

Although I’m not skilled in the art, that looks like great framing. Since framing seems a lot like agenda setting, see the agenda (PDF) the UK established for the security council meeting.

See also the official UN document, Update Report No. 2 Energy, Security and Climate, which says:

… the UK hopes that the debate will reveal widespread agreement in the Security Council about the seriousness of the issue and some recognition that aspects of climate change, and especially the cumulative effects in vulnerable areas, may pose potential threats to international peace and security. [emphasis mine]

framing science challenge

So climate change — and by implication sustainability — has a powerful frame: national and world security. I wonder if the anti-religion folks in the framing science debate can come up with five points that are as effective for their cause as those above are for climate change. What five points can you make in two minutes to get people to attend to your issue? Not to get people to change their stance, not to “prove” your point, but to get those who now dismiss your concerns to begin to pay attention.

notes

My earlier posts on framing science (newest to oldest):

• National Security and Richard Dawkins
• 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

See those posts for links to what others are saying.

[update: see also Matt Nisbet's most recent post]