By Michael O’Sullivan
When I wrote last week on the clever statement (and misleading) of Vice President Harris linking the pursuit of various energy sources with independence from foreign oil dependence, I suspected there was more to the story. I just hadn’t stumbled upon the evidence—until I saw the title of a recent study referenced in a research article published by PNAS. For the uninitiated, PNAS is a well-known scientific journal trusted by many but not all.
The title of the research article is: Effects of system-approved framing on climate awareness and environmental action in the United States and elsewhere. Sounds pretty heady, I know. But I bought it and read it so you don’t have to.
The purpose of the study was to determine whether people are more likely to participate in climate action if they are first exposed to “patriotic” and “system sanctioned” messaging. My Spidey mind was exhausted, because there was a hypothesis attached to the goal and it didn’t fit.
They are not involved in studies of whether people can be affected several types of messaging (which would be like an objective science). equal since with a specific message—which means people want to know whether a particular message will have the desired effect. That sounds like an agenda.
So let’s consider the events that lead to the story. The author noted that planetary concerns simply failed to inspire enough people to make the necessary sacrifices to prevent catastrophe. It seems that many of us, like the poor R2 unit, have bad motivators. So we need something else. Something more visceral. Something that really moves us.
That is, it turns out, the status quo. Here in America we care deeply about preserving our way of life. And we should – it’s a good way. In fact, the author suggests a status quo that keeps many people from taking action. The version that is supposed to save the planet requires changes that affect the way we live, and we naturally resist those changes—especially if we’re not sure the cause is real. Become people hatch a plan to use our defenses against us. And they put that idea to the test with this study.
Here’s how he did it. They presented the participants with a series of statements and sentimental photos that connect the theme of the environment with happiness and life in America. It’s done with Let’s keep the United States the way it is. smart.
After viewing the “message,” participants answered questions about the severity of climate change and what to do about it – from raising taxes to government-mandated “sustainable” energy. The control group, who only read random passages from Great expectationsanswer the same question.
And now for the happy conclusion:
In a large, nationally representative US sample, we found that system-enabled change interventions succeeded in increasing both liberal-left and conservative-right beliefs about climate change; support for pro-environmental policies; and willingness to share climate information on social media.
Sound Orwellian? I think so too.
It should be no coincidence that this study was published on September 9 and the presidential debate was held a day later. Kudos to the Harris team for picking up and weaving in so quickly-unless perhaps they have an advance copy, since it was received by PNAS in June.
There is a lot I could say about self-study and how “messages” are created using the principles of propaganda. But few of us are truly innocent of such accusations, even for noble purposes. However, the mission for this kind of message does not win for logical reasons. In the words of the research article:
We tested an experimental manipulation derived from systems justification theory in which pro-environmental initiatives were framed as patriotic and necessary to preserve the American “way of life.”
From the text it is objectively clear that someone wants to deceive us. There are people who want us to hear what makes us happy and what we want.
If the intention is actually to protect our way of life, then the environment is a consideration. But in these days, the main factor is reliable and reliable energy – without everything stopping. If we really want keep the United States the way it should bethen everything starts with energy. And the only proven solution at this time it comes from cheap, abundant oil and natural gas. We have enough in America to keep our way of life going for a long time. At least until someone perfects the dilithium crystal.
This supposedly scientific study is not about preserving our way of life. But it certainly provides a basis for starting new messaging.
Coming soon to a campaign near you.
Michael O’Sullivan is Program Director and COO for Blue Energy Nationa non-profit organization committed to educating young people about the realities of energy. He is also a popular podcast host and advocate for smart energy choices.
This article was originally published by RealClearEnergy and is available via RealClearWire.
Related
