OMG it turns out that at his CNN town hall last night, @JoeBiden didn't tie what's happening in Texas to climate change or to his plans to decarbonize the grid.
@TheDemocrats are STILL making the same messaging mistake. They are scared to connect disasters to climate!
THREAD
I argued *three years ago*, after Hurricane Harvey, that the Dems had been essentially bullied by the right into not talking about climate while people were actually suffering and (sociology suggests) most receptive to climate messages.
This fear and weakness is part and parcel of the Dem's reluctance to discuss climate policy as a political fight with clear stakes and clear antagonists. But are the Repubs reluctant to do this?? Of course not! They say nothing without demonizing their opponents.
Of course I'm not privy to @JoeBiden's internal polling which might well show that people don't like it when you attack your opponents, but I wonder how that attack would poll if it were part and parcel of a narrative of overcoming a threat to give your children a better world?
Drawing on not just sociology & psychology, but also reader-response theory (work on how stories make us believe and do things) & deliberative rhetoric since Aristotle, I argue that effective political speech must include messages about your opponents.
I usually love @EENewsUpdates, but this story on the politics of the Texas blackouts is garbage.
We did not see "partisan arguments" about whether to blame renewables or fossil fuels.
We saw GOP LIES blaming wind power and reality-based FACT CHECKS correcting the record.
And this paragraph's false equivalence makes my head spin.
People's criticism of Texas Repubs is not the same as these Repub's criticism of CA Dems.
Repubs are being criticized for lies and hypocrisy. Dems were being criticized for *supporting renewable energy*.
And, finally, it wasn't "some" conservative groups who attempted to use the grid failure to scare people away from climate action. It was the *entire* right-wing spin machine, from the Texas Public Policy Foundation to Fox News, who LIED about the blackouts to en masse.
You'll often hear energy experts and the people who listen to them say that "we need CDR," as if this were a scientific fact about the carbon system or a level of emissions to which we are already locked in.
This is not true.
2/n
If we halted all GHG pollution within the next year or two, say, we would not need CDR to halt warming at 1.5C.
3/n
Now that @JoeBiden has made #ClimateAction his priority, the political press is going to spend the next few months asking his administration "tough questions" along two separate, quasi-denialist lines.
Let's take a look...
[thread]
First, they're going ask how his climate plan will make life tougher for "ordinary Americans." They're going to ask whether families are going to be forced to "sacrifice"—or they're going to ask what "enforcement mechanisms" the administration is going to put in place.
2/n
These sorts of questions obviously pick up on the right-wing talking point that Democrats want to outlaw hamburgers and forbid you from flying to see Grandma for the holidays.
3/n
If this is how @SpeakerPelosi and @TheDemocrats are going to message climate change—"framed" or *hidden behind marginal issues like "habitat" or "clean air, clean water" or even "health" or "morals"—we are going to get KILLED once the fight begins.
THREAD
I know these "frames" poll well in focus groups. But in the field they are ineffective, as experience has shown time and time again.
They are ineffective because they are *decontextualized*. They fail to account for political opposition and the effects of disinformation.
2/n
Even selling climate action as a jobs creator, while powerful in political campaigns (which are largely won and lost on promises of increasing prosperity), will fail once the policy fight begins.
Why?
Again, because it fails to account for opposition and disinformation.
3/n