NO TIMEOUTS LEFT:
Climate Change Strategies for the Two Minute Offense
By Nancy Skinner
November 19, 2013
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
INTRODUCTION …..
1
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY …..
3
NEW URGENCIES REQUIRE NEW STRATEGIES
“We need an emergency path for climate change!”
-Yeb Sano, UN Delegate for the Philippines at the UN Convention in Warsaw, November 11, 2013
GOAL OF THE TWO MINUTE OFFENSIVE STRATEGY
To shift public opinion in the U.S. solidly in favor of “an emergency path” or course of action from
its current state of confusion over “scientific consensus” and the resulting lack of policy support
and to overcome the “time delay” problem of cause and effect, by solidifying “the urgency” of action.
OBJECTIVES OF THE TWO MINUTE OFFENSIVE STRATEGY
1) Correct misperceptions of scientific consensus and decouple with partisanship
2) Create a choice which is “Immediate, Personal and Irreversible”
3) Develop an Emergency Legislation Plan for a Threshold Event/s
ACTION ITEMS TO ACHIEVE THESE OBJECTIVES
1) Multi-Media Campaign with a Call to Action: An Immediate, Personal and Irreversible choice.
2) A Legislation Plan/Execution which will pass when “The Threshold Disaster” hits America.
3) Funding Them Up Front.
SUMMARY….
4
REASONS FOR EACH OBJECTIVE….
5
ACTION #1 Multi-Media Campaign with a Call to Action: An Immediate,
Personal and Irreversible choice.
TACTICS
Re-Framing the Debate and Creating the Echo Chamber
6
Multi-Media Campaign with a Call to Action (5 segments targeted)
“Many Worldviews Approach” Media Strategy
Media Campaigns and other Strategies to address Targets
1) Plain Believers
9
2)
3)
4)
5)
- ‘Sandra Fluke’ Talk Radio for Deniers
- Reveal Oil Industry funding
Profiteers
- Flip some as whistleblowers
National and Local Media
National Media
- ‘Open Letters’ from Scientific Who’s Who on coverage
- Social Media campaign for not identifying it as ‘Climate Change’
Local Media
- Questionnaires to local TV News Directors
(Weathercasters – Bachelors or no degree)
(Meteorologists – BS or Masters in Atmospheric Sciences)
(Climatologists – PhD in Climate/long-term Sciences)
Intellectual and Religious Right
Intellectual Right
- Business and Military campaign ads
- Republican historical milestones of environmental
Leadership (Teddy Roosevelt, Nixon’s EPA, Bush’s Clean Water Act)
Religious Right
- Evangelical Leaders and Pope Francis statement ads
Confused Masses
- Immediate, Personal and Irreversible CHOICE
- “I’m sorry” campaign- featuring the do-nothing scenarios
- “Imagination campaign” – featuring mind-blowing advances
In technology
- “It’s Your Choice Campaign” –featuring the most trusted non-partisan
Household names in Media, Sports, Celebrities, and other Dignitaries
10
11
13
14
ACTION ITEM #2 –AN EMERGENCY LEGISLATIVE PLAN
18
ACTION ITEM #3 – FUND THEM UPFRONT
19
ON A PERSONAL NOTE
20
No Timeouts Left: Climate Change Strategies for the Two
Minute Offense
By Nancy Skinner
INTRODUCTION
As the daughter of a football coach and a lifetime career of trying to address the climate crisis from many
different platforms; activist, a radio and television pundit, and in two races for federal office, I know that climate
change is no game. It’s real, and it threatens humanity. Not way off… in seasons unknown to our children and
theirs, but in our own lifetimes.
I’ve often used analogies to communicate complex concepts as a professional communicator. I can’t help but
think that when it comes to where we are now in relation to mitigating the worst ravages of climate change, it is
like the two minute offense in football. That really means we have one last chance to avert the unthinkable.
The hour is late. James Hansen, in a new paper, says that “...goals of limiting human-made warming to 2C and CO2 to
450 ppm are prescriptions for disaster.” At just 0.8C warming so far, he says we have little or no “cushion” left to avoid
dangerous climate change. At 4C, talking of adaptation is absurd. James Hansen says warming has brought us to the
"precipice of a great tipping point”. If we go over the edge, it will be a transition to “a different planet”, an environment far
outside the range that has been experienced by humanity. There will be "no return within the lifetime of any generation
that can be imagined, and the trip will exterminate a large fraction of species on the planet".
The Climate Change Action Centre surveyed the literature for the 4C scenario. “Half of the world would be
uninhabitable. Likely population capacity: under one billion people. Whilst the loss will be exponential and bunch
towards the end of the century, on average that is a million human global warming deaths every week, every year for
the next 90 years. The security implications need no discussion”. A toddler alive today will have a 1 in 10 chance of
survival.
The strategy must be solid, all the players must be playing “for the team” and playing the best game of their life,
and the execution must be flawless. When it’s over, win or lose, there won’t be a next season, or another ten
years of idleness. There is only now. Now is the time to do what we must do. It’s no game of course, but there
are two opposing forces, one is much more powerful and wealthy of course.
The oil industry is the most powerful force on the planet. But in Malcom Gladwell’s newest book, David and
Goliath, he asserts that the world’s history of overcoming overwhelming odds “produces greatness and beauty”,
and that “Secondly, we constantly get these conflicts wrong. We misperceive them. Giants are not what we
think they are. What appears to give them their greatest strength also produces their greatest weakness” and
“the fact of being an underdog can change people in ways we fail to appreciate”, making the unthinkable
possible.
1
The greatest asset of the oil industry and the network of those opposed to change is money; their greatest
weapon for inaction is their wealth. Money fuels their disinformation campaigns and their electoral efforts. The
boycotts against Apartheid South Africa brought down institutional racism. Engaging the global public then, with
its consumer spending power, towards companies and nations that are committed to taking action, including oil
companies, and against those who actively fight for inaction, puts “money” and market forces in play that
endless international conferences have not. It makes companies choose to be part of the solution and thrive, or
part of the problem and decay. Money is therefore the greatest weakness to corporate power.
This paper and it’s plan for shifting U.S. public opinion solidly in favor of action, from its current state of
confusion and stalemate involves a number of tactics, including the power of consumer choice. On a global
scale, it may well be the only force large enough to match the forces of status quo. The increased climate
disasters however, will serve as a wake-up call for many people on the sidelines.
Clearing up the intentional misperceptions on the scientific consensus, reframing the debate from “is it
happening” to “which actions to take”, and finally, disconnecting the issue from partisanship and making the
decision to act “a choice that must be made; which is personal, immediate and irreversible” are the
cornerstones of the campaign to shift public opinion from confusion to action. Engaging average people, who
have tuned the debate out, and simply want to live in peace and prosperity and pass that on to their children,
will enable the people to lead where governments and institutions have failed. The story of history is the story
of normal people, driven by high ideals and strong emotion, overcoming all manner of outsized obstacles. I like
our odds.
The Power of Decision – It is time we ask people to make a decision.
Until one is committed
There is hesitancy, the chance to draw back
Always ineffectiveness.
Concerning all acts of initiative (and Creation)
There is one elementary truth
The ignorance which kills countless ideas and splendid plans:
That the moment that one definitely commits ones self
Then Providence moves too.
All sorts of things occur to help one
That would never otherwise have occurred.
A whole stream of events issues from the decision
Raising in one’s favor all manner
Of unforeseen incidents and meetings
And material substance
Which no one could have dreamt
Would have come your way.
Whatever you can do or dream you can, begin it.
Boldness has genius, power and magic in it.
GOETHE
2
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
NEW URGENCIES REQUIRE NEW STRATEGIES
“We need an emergency path for climate change!”
-Yeb Sano, UN Delegate for the Philippines at the UN Convention in Warsaw, November 11, 2013
81 Midwest Tornadoes Highly Unusual for November – ABC News November 18, 2013
GOAL OF THE TWO MINUTE OFFENSIVE STRATEGY
To shift public opinion in the U.S. solidly in favor of “an emergency path” or course of action from its current
state of confusion over “scientific consensus” and the resulting lack of policy support and to overcome the “time
delay” problem of cause and effect, by solidifying “the urgency” of action.
It is commonly thought that global warming is not on the public’s mind and that the topic of the day that
consumes the most media oxygen wins the day. A study by the Global Language Monitor, which determines top
names, top words, and top phrases searched across the Internet, reported the top phrases on the Internet for
2013. Notice ‘Global Warming’ ranks above ‘Federal Deficits’. Although the Tea Party (and their media allies)
hound ‘Deficit’s as the greatest threat to America the world seems to place a few big ones before it. The Internet
searches are most likely skewed to younger and more educated people, but it foreshadows the “global mind” of
the Internet, which will be used to greatest effect in this epic battle. Changing the subject (Obamacare, et al) is
also helpful, and the recent climate disasters warrant that.
The Top Phrases of 2013 – Global Language Monitor
Rank / Phrase / Comment
2. Toxic Politics — American-style scorch-and-burn political campaigns becoming the
norm for democracies worldwide.
3. Federal Shutdown — To the Founders it was a delicate balancing of powers. A
generation ago it was called Checks and Balances, Today we call it Federal
Shutdown.
4. Global Warming/Climate Change – Add ‘anthropogenic’ warming to this fact: the
existence of the Bering Land Bridge 20,000 years ago suggests that the Oceans were
some 100 meters lower than today.
5. Federal Deficit – The difference between what the government takes in and what it
spends. Ten of the twelve largest global economies are running large deficits. The
exceptions? China and Germany.
3
OBJECTIVES OF THE TWO MINUTE OFFENSIVE STRATEGY
1) Clear up misperceptions on the scientific consensus: Solidify in public polls that climate change is not a
partisan issue (Build Bridges), that lobbyists, think tanks, certain politicians and talk show hosts,
supported by oil industry dollars, have intentionally sought to make it ideological and distort the degree
of scientific consensus;
2) Present it as the urgent choice it is: To present a “clear choice” which must be made that is “personal,
immediate and irreversible” (Create Urgency) as the time for “wait and see” has passed and;
3)
Be ready to execute a legislative plan when a “threshold event” occurs: To develop a legislative plan
that will be able to pass when either “a threshold climate disaster” occurs and paralyzes the forces of
inaction, or the Democrats regain control of the House. (Be Ready to Execute).
ACTION ITEMS TO ACHIEVE THESE OBJECTIVES
1)
Multi-Media Campaign with a Call to Action: An Immediate, Personal and Irreversible choice.
2) A Legislation Plan/Execution which will pass when “The Threshold Disaster” hits America.
3) Funding Them Up Front.
SUMMARY: Recent climate emergencies have opened up a new window of opportunity to re-engage the public
on climate change and shift the consensus from confusion to a demand for action. This plan uses the research
on the historical communications battle that has stalled the public’s call for action, and identifies new messaging
vehicles and tactics to overcome it. Even as this campaign takes place, an emergency legislative plan must be
prepared for what will be a “threshold climate disaster”, either on a scale shocking enough or in the sheer
number of abnormal events to open a window for legislative action. The time delay problem between disaster
and response (through the legislative process) allows for partisanship to block action. By teeing up public
opinion for action and having ready a legislative plan that is acceptable enough for moderate majorities to pass,
despite minority factions, a threshold event/s presents perhaps the last opportunity to change the course of
unmitigated climate change, and with it, the course of history.
These efforts, the media campaign and the legislative plan, will require resources. Those resources exist. Men
and women of great wealth, who understand the climate crisis, and the foundations dedicated to the climate
crisis need to see a prospectus that outlines a strategy to do what we have been unable to do to date; effectively
overcome the noise pollution of those entrenched interests who oppose any action. I’ve identified some of
those visionaries in this paper. Those resources should be pooled together and the players capable of executing
each part of the plan brought on board as soon as possible.
4
I’ve called it the ‘Two Minute Offensive Plan’ because firstly, more Americans can identify with football frankly
than they can the climate crisis. The analogy is clear; it is the last chance to succeed. Two minute offenses are
planned, practiced and are executed and the outcome of the game is decided. Scientifically speaking, we are at
that final hour, where mitigation on a global scale can stop the unthinkable; the science is clear, the
technologies exist or are being developed rapidly. The political will to act has been successfully subdued by
entrenched interests until now. The nature of the time lag between higher concentrations of greenhouse gases
and the occurrence of extreme weather events predicted by the models has made the case for action more
difficult but those extremes are starting to figure into the national consciousness as they occur more frequently
now. This strategy builds on that “common sense” that something is wrong, and provides a roadmap to
accelerate that shift in public opinion and legislative outcomes.
REASONS FOR EACH OBJECTIVE:
1) Clear up misperceptions on the scientific consensus: Climate change is not a partisan issue (Build
Bridges), that lobbyists, think tanks, certain politicians and talk show hosts, supported by oil industry
dollars, have intentionally sought to make it ideological and distort the degree of scientific consensus;
Removing partisanship and misperception on “Scientific Uncertainty”: According to a comprehensive study
published in Nature Climate, the confusion over “scientific uncertainty” directly results in less support for
climate policy.
“In short, people who believe that scientists disagree on global warming tend to feel less certain that global warming is
occurring, and show less support for climate policy. This suggests the potential importance of correcting the widely held public
misperception about lack of scientific agreement on global warming.”
The climate community has been forced to play defense since the scientific consensus emerged and “The Global
Climate Coalition” was formed in 1989 by the oil industry to “confuse the public”. After a 2001 IPCC report
revealed the severity of climate change, the organization saw its membership drop off starting with Ford, BP and
Shell Oil until it finally closed shop in 2002, content that it had stopped the US adoption of the Kyoto Protocol.
Despite their efforts and vigorous efforts by talk show hosts (Rush Limbaugh) and pundits, the polling data on “is
it occurring” grew from 48% in 1997 to 67% today. According to Gallup, environmental issues were relatively
non-partisan until the 1980’s when Reagan made regulations an ‘economic burden’. With Rush Limbaugh and
the clones that dominated talk radio denouncing the “science consensus” routinely, and the recent emergence
of climate deniers, claiming the whole science to be a “hoax”, the partisan gap widened steeply, according to an
October Pew Poll (84% Democrats, 48% Republican). The same poll however, highlights the deep divisions that
have divided the Republicans, with only 13% of non-Tea Party Republicans, saying that it isn’t happening. The
opportunity then exists to significantly reverse the partisan nature of the issue and the confusion surrounding
the certainty, by isolating the Tea Party as “the only skeptics” and by using leading figures in the business,
religious (from Pope Francis’s pleas to Evangelical leaders) and other non-partisan trusted figures to produce
majority numbers for urgent policy.
2) Present it as the urgent choice it is: To present a “clear choice” which must be made that is “personal,
immediate and irreversible” (Create Urgency) as the time for “wait and see” has passed.;
5
Urgency and Irreversibility Messaging: The nature of the entrenched interests made defense essential
obviously, but it never moves the football into the red zone or past the 50 yard line on action to mitigate it. The
truth is we are in a 2 minute offense on climate change. Climate events are not linear; they produce positive
feedback loops which make them exponential. This sense of urgency to act must be impressed upon the general
public. National budget policies can be reversed, wars can be ended, the only political decision that is
irreversible is the decision not to act on now on climate change. Irreversibility impresses a new responsibility
upon people to consider their children and the moral implication that we should be the last generation to enjoy
a relatively stable climate and enjoy the beauty of its wonders, from the Amazon to coral reefs. ‘Irreversible’ is a
potent word that is not much used. It needs to be, as it is certainly the truth.
The massive efforts by the world scientific and environmental communities thus far have increased the
numbers of those who believe it’s real and that humans caused it, but have done very little to getting to the
public opinion to the tipping point where real action is demanded. Once “the scientific consensus” problem is
overcome, the “urgency consensus” must be achieved. Shifting the debate from the defensive “is it real” to
an offensive debate “we must act” requires that we present “a choice of action” to the public. The fact is that
Americans have not been asked to make a choice. Reframing the debate entirely requires that there “is a
choice” to be made.
When it comes to other issues, people can easily tell you if they are Republican, Democrat, Independent, Tea
Party, etc. On abortion, they are Pro-Choice or Pro-Life, on gun control they are Pro-Second Amendment or ProGun Control. On Gay marriage, they are for it or against it, etc… The polls muddle consensus (is it happening, did
man cause it, etc.), and there is not an “either/or” to measure. I propose a very simple framing device: Are you
pro-Earth/pro-Action (Preservation and Prosperity) or anti-Earth/Anti-Action(Decay and Decline). This will be
achieved by a Multi-Media Campaign with a Call to Action: An Immediate, Personal and Irreversible choice.
3) Be ready to execute a legislative plan when a “threshold event” occurs: To develop a legislative plan
that will be able to pass when either “a threshold climate disaster” occurs and paralyzes the forces of
inaction, or the Democrats regain control of the House. (Be Ready to Execute).
An Emergency Legislation Plan: An ongoing media campaign to shift public opinion to ‘demand for action’ will
involve discussions of solutions invariably. Shifting the debate from “cap and trade” to “revenue-neutral carbon
taxes” is preferable to “is it happening”. Realistically however, an “Emergency Legislative Plan” must be
prepared and ready to execute when any window of opportunity to overcome the political stalemate occurs;
whether that is one “shocking and conclusive event” or a series of different climate disasters that happen in
proximity. There is no question, given the science, that there will be such a moment where denial will be
exposed for what it is; self-interest and treacherous to mankind. In such a climate, there will be large enough
majorities to overcome a filibuster and pass a discharge petition in the House. The name of the bill should reflect
the emergency nature of the action. Since any legislation of this magnitude takes time, this process should begin
now. WH officials, Secretary of State Kerry and climate leaders in Congress, among other should form a working
group with this aim and a process to develop “contingency plans for disaster legislation”, as is done with disaster
recovery.
6
ACTION ITEMS TO ACHIEVE OBJECTIVES
1) Multi-Media Campaign with a Call to Action: An Immediate, Personal and Irreversible choice.
Re-Framing the Debate and Creating the Echo Chamber
Before discussing the Actions Items, there is a need to address the underlying issue of framing that has
unfortunately worked to the advantage of climate deniers. The complexity of the science makes it an easy target
for attacks on many angles. Simpler analogies and words like “common sense” can turn the tables.
New rhetorical terms and arguments need to be adopted by the environmental community, scientific and nonscientific alike. Just as Frank Lutz and other pollsters helped the GOP identify words and concepts that resonate
with the public at large (death tax, tax and spend, etc.), the climate change community (politicians,
environmental groups, environmental businesses, etc.) need to reinforce the messaging by using similar
messages that then echo as they are re-enforced. Climate science is far too complex to explain in simple terms,
so analogies will help relate the concepts to “anchors” (known concepts) that people are already very familiar
with.
The biggest obstacle rhetorically is that the media often start every report on climate change with a sentence
such as “Scientists say Typhoon Haiyan cannot be directly tied to climate change, nor can any single weather
extreme, but…”. In short, we can’t say A causes B, therefore, there is room for debate about if A causes B. Thus
the framework of the debate has not changed despite the fact that computer modeling and scientific certainty
as well as consensus around them has made that old framework obsolete.
Changing the Current Debate
From “is it happening and did we cause it” to “climate disasters are worse and what actions should we take”.
Stated earlier scientist-speak of cause and effect, often confuses and defuses the argument. Analogies would
better represent the relation of climate change to extreme weather events.
For example: We know Diabetes increases the risk of heart attacks. Can we say which donut caused a heart
attack, no. Can we say diabetics will suffer more heart attacks than non-diabetics? Yes. So should your doctor
tell you to eat every donut you want because we don’t know which donut will cause a heart attack? No. Do nondiabetics have heart attacks? Yes, heart attacks happen. But having diabetes untreated greatly increases your
risk of heart attacks. That is a fact. Does smoking increase your risk of lung cancer? Yes. Do you know which
cigarette caused the cancer? No. Etc.
Climate change (with increased ocean temperatures) causes an increased risk of stronger Hurricanes (Typhoons
and Cyclones). Can we say which one exactly was caused by the underlying problem, climate change and which
weren’t? No. Can we say that warming oceans mean more energy and that means stronger and more frequent
hurricanes? Yes. Increased temperatures cause more heat waves, drought and wildfires. Can we say which exact
one was? No. Can we say that we will experience more? Yes, with certainty. Etc.
7
We need to explain WHY all the confusion took place. “The oil industry and their allies in the media think they
can confuse you enough to ignore the threat, but we know people are smart enough to get this.” Obesity causes
diabetes. Smoking causes cancer. Climate change cause extreme weather events or climate disasters. It’s just
“Common Sense”.
Extending the Argument to All “Climate Disasters”
“Extreme weather events” should all be called “climate disasters”, in the same way that “death tax” ties cause to
result. Record-setting extremes such as heat waves, blizzards, flash flooding, drought, wildfires, should be
lumped together as “climate disasters”. The science behind why climate change manifests in these very
different and often opposing weather events (blizzards and heat waves, flooding and drought) is confusing, and
allows opposition to take one weather extreme such as a cold snap in September or in Florida to ridicule “global
warming”.
For example: We also know that Diabetes causes increased risk of strokes, blindness, kidney failure, nerve
damage, skin infections and dental disease. So is all gingivitis caused by Diabetes? No. Are all kidney problems
caused by Diabetes? No. Does the risk of these go way up for untreated diabetes? Yes. dramatically so.
So, is every snowstorm caused by Climate Change? No. Is every dry spell caused by Climate Change? No. Does
Climate Change increase the probability of more extreme weather events like blizzards and droughts? Yes,
dramatically.
Multi-Media Campaign with a Call to Action: An Immediate, Personal and Irreversible choice.
Objectives #1 and #2
Shifting public opinion 1) away from partisanship and 2) toward an immediate, personal and irreversible choice
requires that we break down the populations into various segments and use different messengers and tactics as
listed below. These tactics are just examples of what can be done that we haven’t done in any organized fashion.
THE “MANY WORLDVIEWS APPROACH” MEDIA/MESSAGING CAMPAIGN
Perceptions on climate change are shaped by numerous factors: upbringing (subconscious beliefs), family’s
political affiliation, current personal party identity, business and income sources, friends and social circles;
religious beliefs, cultural groups and of course the sources of news information, and the diversity of opinions
one is exposed to as a result, as well as multiple other sources that collectively make up “public opinion”.
“Perception is Reality” has more scientific truth (quantum physics) to it than is generally understood as yet.
Knowing this opens many more doors for changing hearts and minds on the topic of climate change as just “a
political issue”.
Therefore understanding this, I broke them into groups, which seem to be supported by a recent Pew Research
Poll. I broke them down into five categories as follows: Plain Believers, Profiteers, National and Local Media, The
8
Intellectual and Religious Right, and The Confused Masses. For each I have suggested some tactics which may
turn the tables.
1. PLAIN BELIEVERS - Just plain believers – generally undereducated, they hear people they support say it
(Rush Limbaugh, Sarah Palin, Members of Congress, etc.), and therefore it is the truth. This group
equates roughly with the Tea Party, who according to Pew, are the only group left who don’t believe it’s
happening (13 percent of non-Tea Party Republicans. 41 percent of Tea Party Republicans).
TACTICS:
1) “Sandra Fluke” Talk Radio.
Talk radio is 97% conservative with mostly all climate deniers as hosts. Traditional News/Talk Radio has
59 million listeners, second only to country music (13.3% vs. 12.1%), off all radio formats, according to
Arbitron’s latest findings. Radio listening remains second only to TV, even with the growth in digital
media and since all those listeners are constantly barraged by climate deniers, they remain confused,
either in complete denial or that it is not human induced. Talk radio needs to be addressed. The good
news is that it won’t take much to get the American public to target advertisers of shows where hosts
are climate deniers. The frustration with the inaction from lawmakers has heightened the public’s desire
to engage in non-violent civil disobedience, boycotting denier’s shows and its advertisers is therefore an
easy first start. A recent study by the Yale Project in Climate Communication found that “One in four
Americans (24%) would support an organization that engaged in non-violent civil disobedience
against corporate or government activities that make global warming worse.”
The backlash of Rush Limbaugh’s “Sandra Fluke incident” is instructive; it turned the talk giants
(Cumulus and Clear Chanel on their heads). Advertisers began dis-investing from his show (some $70
million from Rush alone), and then any station that had him on (or was all conservative) to limit their
commercial liability. Cumulus, under crushing balloon debt due in 2016, did not renew his contract nor
Sean Hannity’s, which will both end this year. They will move to Clear Channel stations, because they are
owned by Clear Channel (through Premiere Networks), which has more stations than Cumulus, but
much smaller signals. So 50,000 watt stations such as WABC in New York (he will move to newly
acquired WOR), WLS in Chicago, and WJR Detroit among others (he is on 40 Cumulus stations currentlyexactly which stations are still not fully decided). A new VP of Programming for Cumulus, Randell
Bloomquist, was announced November 11, 2013. He is considered more of a business oriented “radio
guy” vs. an “ideological” programmer, which offers some hope of a shift in the “all white male
conservative” world of talk radio which is suffering financially as a result of its all white male aging
conservative demographic.
Cumulus has chosen to replace Rush/Hannity with Mike Huckabee/Michael Savage (both as vulnerable
as climate deniers and worse). Third quarter profits for all talk radio stations (5 largest players) were
either up 1 or 2% or down slightly, due to “losses in political and Christian” formats (this during a boom
9
in corporate profits in general). Perpetrating the hoax that climate change is a hoax is far more
egregious than the smearing of one girl’s name, and as such, advertisers who choose to support climatedenying shows (with even existing poll numbers) are vulnerable. Social media makes old fashioned
boycotts with signs obsolete and is international, as are some of the largest advertisers. Climate change,
unlike all politics as they say, is not local.
2) Expose the Financial Interest of Climate Deniers:
Bill Koch recently said “Carbon tax supporters are on acid.”. Connecting the dots on the money that
supports the Tea Party undermines their credibility of their candidates they fund as “shills of the oil
industry”. The other two Koch brothers, whose billions were derived from fossil fuels, were major
funders directly to campaigns, and to the Tea Party itself. Much has been said in the media about the
influence of Koch brothers, in a post-Citizens United world, but very little of has been said as to why
they are pouring hundreds of millions into these races; their worth depends on the status quo in regards
to the petroleum dependent world infrastructure. Some good investigative journalism has already been
done. Getting it out through a wider media campaign is important for exposing the motives of the
deniers, from pundits to member of congress. As all good litigators know, motive undermines the
credibility of the witness. It’s time to cross examine deniers on motive.
2) PROFITEERS - Those who know the truth but profit from the confusion and inaction PURPOSELY. (Oil
companies, paid scientists, talk show hosts, right-wing “think-tanks”, and right-wing politicians (who
scale the gamut from true believers to pure profiteers
TACTICS:
1) Try to flip them as whistleblowers. The value of an insider coming out with the truth is enormous, as
evidenced by Russell Potter, the former Insurance Industry insider, who became a well-known
whistleblower. He has written books and appears on TV frequently. Getting an insider to admit to an
explosive headline like “Oil lobbyist admits: We knew it wasn’t a hoax” would rise above the ordinary
noise levels on this debate and undermine the credibility of the other deniers.
3) NATIONAL AND LOCAL MEDIA - Those who know the truth but nonetheless profit from the
confusion and inaction (mainstream media who gin up ratings with faux debates, violating
journalistic ethics) AND local news (which either ignores it, or TV “meteorologists” who fail to make
any connection).
NATIONAL MEDIA TACTICS:
1) “OPEN LETTERS” TO THE MEDIA FROM SCIENTIFIC LEADERS
10
During coverage of Typhoon Haiyan, CNN once again committed journalistic malpractice when Piers
Morgan said that “there is still a debate among scientists” and had a climate denier debate with The
Nations magazine’s Environmental correspondent and author, Mark Hartsgaard, who actually called
Morgan out for “journalistic malpractice”. Objectivity and balance are different things. The latest
CBS/Benghazi report shows how sustained pressure on the media can work.
When these “faux debate segments arise”, an “Open Letter” should be published and signed by the
various government and private scientific bodies that form the consensus, from the IPCC, Nobel
Laureates, to the US and other Foreign Agencies, and Private Scientific and Academic Institutions,
including the American Meteorological Society (which polices TV weathercasters- and is fully on board
with international scientific consensus). It would be hard for news editors to ignore a statement of this
stature – and if credibility is a concern (for Fox – it may not be), then they will be pressured to add “the
vast majority of scientists….” to every report on climate change.
1) SOCIAL MEDIA CAMPAIGNS WHEN THEY AVOID CALLING IT “CLIMATE CHANGE”
The national media go to great lengths to avoid the word climate change when reporting extreme
weather events, as I imagine they think its supposed “controversial nature” requires they avoid it.
Instead they use words like “Rare tornadoes in November” or “strongest-storm ever” without making
the connection. Climate Change is not a dirty word; it’s reality. They are abdicating their duty to inform
the public as to emerging threats of all kinds. They are happy to air their reports on “the dangers of
mascara; what every women needs to know” and any findings of health warnings like trans fats. They
routinely employ health reporters, (Dr. Sanjay Guptka-CNN, Dr. Nancy Sneiderman-ABC, etc.) after a
new study comes out suggesting different advice on diet and medications etc., but they have no
‘climatologists’ on staff to discuss an extreme weather event, which happens more frequently than new
studies that are truly newsworthy.
In addition for formal calls to News Executives to add professional Climatologists as Contributors, social
media can be used to catch these frequent journalistic lapses and call them what they are on Facebook,
Twitter and the rest #MediaMalpractice alerts. They will feel the pressure of trending.
LOCAL MEDIA TACTICS:
Reframing the Definitions of “Climate and Weather” and Climatologists and Weathercasters
A major problem is that the people least educated about climate change, “weathercasters”, have much
larger media penetration on a daily basis than the most educated, climatologists, who are rarely
interviewed on TV. Some TV weathercasters have a degree in meteorology, but most call themselves
that regardless, raising ethical concerns according to this piece in the New York Times. Still, even
meteorologists with a B.S., only study short-term weather patterns. This arms the climate deniers with
the weapons they need to mislead and confuse people, as this example in Forbes Magazine, “Shock Poll:
Meteorologists Are Global Warming Skeptics”, which states that according to a survey by the American
11
Meteorological Society, only 30 % of meteorologists are worried about global warming. The article uses
this “survey” to discount the 2007 official statement on climate change by the American Meteorology
Society, which correctly assessed the difference in short-term weather events and climate, and
acknowledges that human-caused climate change will result in proportionately more extreme weather
events. The most current AMS Official Statement goes much further.
“This statement provides a brief overview of how and why global climate has changed over the past century and
will continue to change in the future. It is based on the peer-reviewed scientific literature and is consistent with the
vast weight of current scientific understanding as expressed in assessments and reports from the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, and the U.S. Global Change
Research Program.”
The statement advocates that climate change, including anthropogenic caused warming, be taught in
educational curriculum from elementary school on, and opposes the efforts of climate deniers to call the
science “controversial”, or with too much “uncertainty” to be part of standard science curriculum.
“With this statement, the AMS seeks to confirm the solid scientific foundation on which climate change science
rests, and to emphasize that teaching approaches different from other sciences are not warranted. Uncertainty is a
natural component of all scientific endeavor. The existence of uncertainty does not undermine the scientific validity
of climate change science; to the contrary, it provides a sound example for broader instruction of the scientific
method.”
Those who study Climate: Climatologists
(Work for government, scientific research firms and institutes of higher education) - study current and
historical weather conditions to project long-term trends, such as shifts in precipitation or temperature.
(Education: PhD)
Those who study Weather: Meteorologists: Two Types as defined by the U.S. Bureau of Labor
1. Broadcast Meteorologists or Weathercasters (The TV Weather man or woman) –who prepares
short-term weather forecasts for TV and Radio. (Education: Bachelors or less)
According to the American Meteorological Society, a meteorologist is “an individual with specialized education
who uses scientific principles to observe, understand, explain or forecast phenomena in Earth’s atmosphere
and/or how the atmosphere affects Earth and life on the planet.” The organization also says that those working in
a professional capacity without formal education are merely “weathercasters.”
2. Research Meteorologists (Work for Gov’t Agencies and Colleges) – who prepare and collect weather
data and produce forecasts. (Education: Master or Higher)
1) USE QUESTIONAIRES AND A WEBSITE TO EDUCATE THE PUBLIC ON THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN
TV WEATHERCASTERS, METEOROLOGISTS AND CLIMATOLIGISTS.
12
A questionnaire should be designed for every local TV News Department. It should ask the station GM to
identify the “Weatherperson/s”, ask what level of education and or degrees they have achieved, and
whether they are a member of the American Meteorology Society. The second half should be filled out
by the weathercasters. Questions should include: what is their view on the nature of climate change, is it
happening, is it anthropogenic, do you see a relation between extreme weather reports and climate
change models, do believe it will worsen, or is not a problem?, etc. The questionnaires will be available
to the public and a media campaign will encourage people to see if “Their Weathercaster is a Denier”.
The organization 350.org has begun tracking the statements and blog posts of weather casters and have
“outed” 55 deniers thus far. As with many of these initiatives, where activity has begun, there should
becoordination to strengthen those efforts. Reinventing or duplicating efforts is not wise for obvious
reasons. The upside of connecting the many different organizations is to help coordinate messaging and
framing, so that the echo chamber has maximum impact.
4) THE INTELLECTUAL AND THE RELIGIOUS RIGHT -The educated right (those who believe that it is
happening but use the “natural variability” argument), and the religious right (who stress the biblical
“dominion” of man on earth.)
According to the latest Pew Poll, Republicans are Deeply Divided on Climate Change.
Opinions of Republicans and Republican-leaning independents divide into four roughly equal size groups: 23% say
there is solid evidence of global warming and it is mostly caused by human activity; 19% say warming exists but is
due to natural patterns; 25% see no solid evidence and say it is just not happening; 20% say there is no solid
evidence but not enough is known yet.
Among Tea Party Republicans, the largest share –41% – says that global warming is just not happening, while
another 28% say not enough is known. Among non-Tea Party Republicans, just 13% say global warming is not
happening and among Democrats and Democratic leaners, just 4% express this view.
The polling data support my splitting of the right into roughly these two groups; confused but
intellectually honest enough to be persuaded, and the very culturally or religiously conservatives who
adamantly refuse to hear evidence not in line with their beliefs.
For the Intellectual Right – It would seem that the most credible voices to them would be “Business
Leaders and Military Voices”. It takes the subject out of partisan politics and into their real world of
Capitalism and National Security. There are already many voices in each of these categories. Working
them into some consensus on messaging and developing two ad campaigns based on that, would go a
long way to breaking through to them. The aim of messaging is to reposition climate change as beyond
politics (“I’m a Republican but…”).
TACTICS
13
1) Develop an ad campaign with Business Leaders: I see this as compiling video clips of well-known
business leaders saying it’s real, into a fast-moving spot, which ends with the simple CEO in a chair
saying: “They say” that we can’t afford to do anything about climate change. As business leaders we
know the truth, we can’t afford not to. American ingenuity is ready for the challenge and eager to
innovate and create jobs in the process. So forget what “they say”, “they’re” wrong. We must and we
can act on climate change.”
The ad campaigns to redress the partisan nature of climate change should include references to
Theodore Roosevelt, “the first American environmentalist”, Richard Nixon’s establishment of the EPA,
George H.W. Bush signature of the first Clean Water Act, and other accomplishments of the Republican
Party throughout history. It should also appeal to their patriotic roots, as doing what is right for the
country, “A house divided cannot stand”, as Lincoln said.
2) Develop an ad campaign with Military Leaders: This campaign will specifically focus on the national
security threats posed by massive dislocations and wars over scarce resources that will ensue.
For the Religious Right – The most credible voices would be the evangelical pastors and organizations
which have accepted climate change and stress the moral imperative of preservation of God’s Creation.
Again, a large number of groups and voices are doing this. Organizing these voices with campaigns that
target this group (Christian and Catholic Radio), through Pastoral Training Partnerships, etc. seem the
best avenue; putting Faith above Party.
TACTICS
1)Develop an ad campaign with Religious Leaders: More and more Evangelical leaders have stepped up
to the plate as a Christian’s duty to protect God’s creation. Some have been fired for even speaking that
truth. I think that their stories carry even more credibility. They did what was right despite the
consequences, a central theme in the life of Jesus. Pope Francis in his inaugural mass, cited the
Environment and the Poor as his first priorities and on UN Environment Day, gave his boldest speech
ever citing Genesis 2:15, that man was put on the earth to take care of it, as God’s demand that we care
for all of creation, including the natural environment that sustains us. Even Muslim leaders, through the
Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) have taken up the call to train Muslim leaders on Climate
Change, and the Jakarta Post supported this position. With 1.5 billion Muslim’s, a third of the world’s
population, those efforts should be fostered by American Muslim leaders.
5) THE CONFUSED MASSES - The dazed, confused and too busy and stressed out to worry about it, and
therefore ignore it. These are the people who “don’t think it will affect them much” or as some
“possible danger way off into the future, and not of immediate concern, or believe that if the threat
were real and serious enough that “the powers that be” will be acting on it appropriately; all false
assumptions. Many have vague worries about their children’s future, but left at vague and
uncertain, it’s just in-actionable. Actionable implies they have a choice or action to make. The truth
14
is they have not been asked to make a choice; they’ve just been bombarded by media reports of
“the debate between scientists”.
TACTICS:
Many of the previous tactics obviously will affect the masses of confused people; educating them about
climate change through the efforts aimed at national and local media coverage of climate disasters,
through messaging from religious and business leaders, and by providing them outlets to express their
dismay at inaction (through targeting the deniers of talk radio and forcing the question into political
campaigns, etc.).
But the foundation of a generalized media campaign aimed at the public must involve emotion and
imagination; emotion of what hell their children will endure without action and imagination about a
future where the crisis was averted. They must choose now between 1) an “I’m sorry note” to their
children and grandchildren; and 2) an “imagination campaign” that describes “here’s how we did it” in
some detail, yet another greatest generation’s efforts to stop the forces of destruction.
The Choice Campaign: Immediate, Personal, and Irreversible.
PRESENT A DEFINITE CHOICE – WHICH IS IMMEDIATE, PERSONAL AND IRREVERSIBLE
IMMEDIATE – The time for “wait and see has passed”. It must be made right NOW!
PERSONAL – This decision must be made by you, not by what Party you belong to; for this decision is
beyond ideology and defines you as the person you really are and how you see yourself in the eyes of
God.
IRREVERSIBLE- Economic policies can be reversed, wars can be ended; the only political decision that
cannot be reversed is whether to act now on climate change or not. Once we reach that tipping point of
450 PPM of CO2 in the atmosphere, our climate will be hostile and unable to support the vast majority
of the human population.
Every person must make an immediate choice because the time for “wait and see” has passed. Are you
pro-Earth (or pro-Action) or anti-Earth (or anti-Action)? The choice that you make defines you . It defines
what kind of future you want your children and theirs to live in to live in twenty, fifty or seventy-five
years from now. Without action now, all of those intervals will be exponentially harsher to survive in. It
is a choice that defines who you really are; did God intend for us to be the last generation to live
peacefully in our natural environment?
It is too late now for the climate on earth to stay as it is now. It has begun to change for the worse. It is
not too late to stop it from being a hostile environment subject to frequent extreme weather events
that will cost many lives and constant economic chaos and disruption of life as we know it now. Your
15
choice NOW, will decide if your children will experience the beauty and splendor of nature or its decay
decline. Your choice NOW, will decide if THEIR children will have a planet capable of sustaining life,
human and all of God’s creation.
It’s simply a choice between ‘Preservation and Prosperity’ of the Earth or the ‘Destruction and Decline’
of the Earth as we know it.
4)Develop and ad campaign with these two scenarios:
I’m Sorry Campaign: “Scientists say we are now heading to the point of no return”…with short facts
about what a 500-650 ppm or 4C rise portends for the future (with graphic projections) followed by a
series of “I’m sorry” statements from normal people.” People must be jolted out of the tunnel vision of
everyday life. Their lack of attention to climate change is indeed a choice. It is a choice with
consequences that science has modeled out. They need to know the consequences of the choice to
avoid or ignore the threat. Another powerful option is to have people who have lived through a climate
disaster and now believe in it involved in the ads. Yale’s research says that these people are the most
likely to have changed their minds, following a personal experience with a weather extreme or that of a
someone close to them.
Imagination Campaign: Just as Kennedy used the imagination of the American public by putting the goal
of manned space flight to the moon in the American mind, there must be more concrete images for
people who feel that the situation is hopeless.
"Imagination is more important than knowledge."
Albert Einstein
Imagination, as most great physicists, inventors, athletes, authors, composers and more know, carries
with it the amazing power of creativity. Indeed, the science of quantum physics has experimentally
concluded that any outcome is chosen among a wave of possible outcomes; the probability of one
outcome or another depends on the observer and his expectations or intentions.
It is critical to instill concrete visions of an alternate future where a rapid transition to renewable fuels,
with technology providing wide scale innovations that pave the way to a new energy path is possible;
just as humanity moved from wood to coal to fossil fuels, they will continue to move to a
solar/hydrogen economy with an array of other technologies like biofuels, wind energy, and geothermal
energy.
Innovations in technologies are exploding such as the recent discovery of self-healing battery electrodes
that extend the life of lithium iodide batteries for cars and cell phones and recent breakthroughs in the
development of “quantum computers. In conventional computers data is stored as a string of 1s and 0s.
16
In quantum computers bits of information, 'qubits', are put into a 'superposition' state in which they can
be both 1s and 0 at the same time – enabling them to perform multiple calculations simultaneously”,
according to physics.org news. Quantum computing will enable millions of calculations simultaneously,
instead of one at a time in sequence as ordinary silicone-based computers of today do. –These major
leaps in processing power will aid in the development of real-time smart energy grids and many more
breakthroughs we can only imagine today.
Quantum mechanics have led to discoveries at Cambridge that may double the power of solar cells by
using the visible and UV photons of the sun (instead of just the infrared photons that solar power uses
today), by splitting the energy of excited electrons, vastly increasing the efficiency of solar with cheaper
materials.
Clean and Safe Quantum Nuclear Power: Particle accelerators like the LHS at CERN, and others (some
20,000 existing around the world) have unlimited potential other than discovering such things as the
Higgs Boson particle (the so-called God particle). In new applications, a type of nuclear power called
Accelerated Driven Sub-critical Reactors (ADSR), uses thorium, instead of uranium. The fission reactions
are not self-sustaining (unlike uranium which cannot be stopped) but are maintained by a high-powered
beam of neutrons. If there is an incident, the reaction can be stopped. The waste product of thorium is
of no use for weapons and this new reactor can even process current nuclear waste into a less
dangerous form.
The “Imagination Ad Campaign” will feature these scientists and their mind-blowing breakthroughs in
simple 30 second spots.
1. “Imagine Clean and Safe Nuclear Power”: “Short description...”. “It can and it is being done”.
2. “Imagine Doubling the Power of Solar Energy”: “Short description...”. “It can and it is being done”.
3. “Imagine Car Batteries that Heal Themselves”: “Short descriptions”...”It can and it is being done.”
“Hope and Change” is what the Imagination Ad campaign rests its foundation on. But it will take the “I’m
Sorry Campaign” to force the wake-up call. Finally, there is a third ad campaign called “It’s Your Choice”.
The “It’s Your Choice” Campaign will feature a variety of high-profile people who are trusted and are
either non-partisan or will have both partisan viewpoints saying the same thing (if those people are
willing). This campaign will stress that a decision to act, is not up to your Party, it’s not up to your
congressmen and women to decide, it’s a very personal choice that each individual must make; because
it’s irreversible. People will be recruited from The Reader’s Digest survey of “The 100 Most Trusted
Figures in America” and asked to participate. From TV talk show hosts like Oprah Winfrey, Rachael Ray
and Ellen DeGeneres, to sports figures like Time Tebow, Phil Mickelson, and Eli Manning to media
personalities Katie Couric, Diane Sawyer, Christianne Amanpour, Sanjay Gupta to celebrities like Tom
Hanks, Clint Eastwood, Adam Sandler, Julia Roberts, Arnold Schwarzenegger, to Business leaders (Bill
17
Gates, Warren Buffet, Jeff Bezos – Amazon, Jeff Skroll), to households names on TV (Pat Sajak, Kelly
Ripa, Steve Harvey, David Letterman, Jay Leno and more).
These are the people that are the most familiar faces to the American public. They must all have
opinions or can be persuaded to review a summary report and decide to join the “It’s My Choice” Ad
Campaign. These well-known figures are relatable in a way politicians are not. The partisan divide and
madness has perversely affected the general public’s perception of what is truly cause for concern or
whether it’s just the agenda of one side or the other.
The “It’s Your Choice” Campaign
Example: “I’m Tom Hanks. I’ve seen the science, I see the extreme weather, I see the costs of inaction
on Climate Change. I’ve made my choice. I choose Action. What do you choose?”
Example: “I’m Oprah Winfrey. This is what I know for sure. We can change directions in economic
policies, wars can be ended, but there is one choice that is irreversible; the choice to act or not to act on
climate change. No politician or any one country can undo changes to the atmosphere that will make
the planet uninhabitable for our grandchildren. Only you can, but your choice is right now.”
Example: “I’m Clint Eastwood (or another high-profile Republican). Climate change has nothing to do
with politics. It has to do with each and every one of us making a choice to act now, while we still have
time or accept the consequences of inaction. I have seven children. I choose to act” .
The statements can vary as can the background graphics but the focus is the same; it’s a personal choice
that is immediate and irreversible.
ACTION ITEM #2 –AN EMERGENCY LEGISLATIVE PLAN
A Legislation Plan/Execution which will pass when “The Threshold Disaster” hits America.
Develop a “Threshold Legislative Plan”. There will be one day be a natural disaster devastating enough
to shock the average American out of complacency (A Threshold Moment) and paralyze the forces of
inaction in the Congress. Typhon Hiayan, with its enormous size and devastation began the first real
debate in some media on climate change. It’s remoteness to Americans however, is not sufficient to
transcend the political division. An American disaster of this order or a series of abnormal events will
“catalyze” action, that even the most ardent House member will be unable to stop action on. The Plan
should include well-defined legislative, media, and execution tactics, so when a Threshold Event/s
occurs, the plan is deployed. There is increasing bi-partisan support including business leaders, some
Republican figures and conservative media for a “revenue neutral carbon tax” to decrease the deficit
and increase renewable production, but whatever the actual plan, it should be ready to go to the Senate
(and hopefully the House) floors immediately after the event, or to employ a discharge petition if the
House remains under Boehner’s control and Tea Party influence.
18
This addresses perhaps the biggest obstacle in action on climate change; time delay. The increasing
extreme weather events has gradually changed public opinion on “the reality” of it, but action to avert
the worst outcome is required now.
In the late 19th century, nobody believed in the existence of an atom, even though theoretical models
had predicted its existence, because “it couldn’t be seen”. With the advent of the sub-atomic
microscope and a couple of decades, nobody doubted its existence. Unfortunately, the stakes are much
higher with time delay on climate change.
ACTION ITEM #3 – FUND THEM UPFRONT
If both the intermediate media campaign described below is developed and implemented while a
different high level group is convened to develop some plausible “Threshold Legislative Plan” that
appeals to enough of the moderate Republicans and business leaders, then both initiatives should be
written up in a prospectus of sorts for a $50 -$100 million fundraising goal. The funding will target
environmentalist billionaires first, Tom Steyer, Bill Gates, Ted Turner, Paul Allen, Larry Page, among
others. Worth Magazine’s Lists the Top 10 Billionaires Saving the Planet. A $5 -$10 million dollar
commitment from each should be sought. A Tier Two fundraising plan will also be established for
celebrity activists and other environmental donors.
The appeal to funders is that there will be a precision media plan to tee-up public demand for action and
a legislative plan in place to utilize a discharge petition if the House remains controlled by climate
deniers. Tom Steyer, for one, is actively funding candidates who run on climate change as a great wedge
issue. I ran on climate change in 2006, in the seat of the auto industry and almost upset a 14 yearincumbent. The climate in 2014 will be much more favorable to climate change advocates, as
Republican majorities now believe in it (Just 13% of non-Tea Party Republicans doubt the reality of
climate change.) So a wider media campaign involving clever messaging, celebrities, business leaders,
etc. will bolster the efforts to win back the House seats in play, because most Republicans and
Independents now consider climate change an important issue.
19
On A Personal Note…
NANCY SKINNER - MY CLIMATE CHANGE CAREER PATH
Life and my study of its meaning, has broadened my understanding of others and what makes them think and
act the way they do. As someone whose life mission, as it were, was to fight climate change, I have moved
through several stages.
ACTIVIST
First, as an activist, I spearheaded an effort by the government and a dream team of architects and engineers to
rebuilder two Midwestern flood-towns (Great Mid-Western floods of 1993) as models of sustainable
redevelopment. After being inspired with that idea, I called the White House (Clinton’s) and was shuffled from
agency to agency until I was sent to Bill Becker at DOE. Bill, who had done something just like this in his own
small home town of Soldiers Grove, WI, rebuilding it as a solar village. Together we assembled a dream team of
green architects and engineers, I found two flooded towns to serve as pilots, Valmeyer, IL and Pattonsberg, MO,
and working with the community, we rebuilt those towns on higher ground using a whole host of sustainable
design and technology: Passive solar homes and photovoltaic applications, geothermal, we even used pig-power
by using swine waste in an anaerobic generator to produce energy. We were awarded a Presidential Award from
Clinton’s Presidential Council on Sustainable Development, presented by VP Al Gore. The whole story was
included in the book Eco-Pioneers, Today’s Visionaries Solving Tomorrow’s Problems, by Steve Lerner. I went
into media and Bill Becker is now the Executive Director of the President’s Climate Action Plan announced last
June.
BUSINESS/FINANCE ACTIVIST
As a finance major from The University of Michigan, I helped Richard Sandor, former President of the Chicago
Board of Trade, with the launch of The Chicago Climate Exchange, the model for Cap and Trade, as I believed
that market-based solutions could use the power of profit to induce massive behavioral change of corporations
on climate change.
MEDIA (PUBLIC OPINION)
I determined that I needed to have a voice to affect public opinion, and “fight back” against the Rush Limbaugh’s
of the world, who have so conveniently profited from the intentional misinformation campaign to deny the
existence of climate change. With no radio experience, I somehow landed on the third largest talk radio station
in Chicago WLS in 1997, and my very first guest was Ross Gelbspan, author of The Heat is On, which documented
this misinformation campaign funded by the oil industry. My second guest was Senator Dick Durbin. I went on to
be co-host of a nationally-syndicated morning show on 465 stations, ranked number 7th among all shows in the
country by Arbitron ratings, and finally solo hosted a nationally-syndicated a show. Starting in 1999, I became a
20
fixture on Cable TV on Fox News, CNN, MSNBC, CNBC and Fox Business Network. I debated climate change on a
regular basis, mostly calming trying to explain away the various myths and inform on how the scientific body of
evidence was developed and explain the various complex extreme events associated with climate change as well
as associated effects: ocean acidification and coral reef bleaching, decline of plankton populations (base of the
food chain), species extinction, etc. As a regular on Fox News, when the “climate-gate” scandal was in full force
(where the University of East Anglia’s climate research center’s email system was hacked days before the
Copenhagen Talks and climate skeptics made wild claims that this “proved” climate change was a hoax), and
even the mainstream media entertained these faux debates. I was asked to do one of those debates with a
Heritage Foundation fellow and conservative columnist, and finally called out the climate skeptics on their
misinformation campaigns. Eight committees investigated the allegations and published reports, finding no
evidence of fraud or scientific misconduct
POLITICS
U.S. SENATE DEMOCRATIC PRIMARY
After eight years on WLS and as a nationally-syndicated radio host, I decided I needed to run for office and have
actual political power to affect real legislative change, as the politicians of the day seemed to have no backbone.
Little did I know that when I threw my hat in the ring for an open U.S. Senate seat, there would a guy in the
Democratic Primary whom pollsters said had “no chance of winning” because of his name, Barack Obama. As it
turned out, we shared the same ideas on most every subject and I came to see his vast intelligence and potential
well before the rest of the world would. As a result, we got along very well, more like allies than opponents in a
field of seven candidates. His signature issue was healthcare and mine, as he would say to this day, was global
warming. President Obama once kidded me by impersonating my constant mantra during that race in a moment
of humor, “All we need is COURAGE and BIG BOLD IDEAS”. In his speech announcing his Climate Action Plan in
June, the President said “All we need is the Courage to Act.” I still believe that and have devised the “Big Bold
Ideas Strategy” in a white paper.
U.S. CONGRESSIONAL RACE in 2006
After the Senate primary I returned to my hometown of Detroit and did a local morning radio talk show, I
decided to challenge a 14-year incumbent Republican, Joe Knollenberg, who had won his races with wide
margins, because the suburb where I lived that was the seat of the auto industry, and I ran on the “Greening of
the Auto Industry” and was endorsed by and in a commercial spot with Robert Kennedy Jr. for my leadership on
the issue. It was a near upset, and stunned the party and the press. I may have won actually, as my largest
minority precincts were closed there times during a freezing sleety day because “they ran out of ballots”.
I returned to my entrepreneurial roots and joined with my brother to design and build an HD TV studio, offering
the full spectrum of media services, from HD fiber-optic “liveshots” of remote guests to all the national cable
networks, to video production, from creative, to technical to marketing, and had a full social media and
interactive marketing arm at our studios, which was well ahead of its time and incorporated QR codes and apps
among other things into our client’s projects
21
STRATEGIST AND AUTHOR
As many of us in the climate change movement were, I became angry with the deniers and frustrated with the
media, which under all journalistic standards, had a duty to put into perspective the fringe views of deniers and
were as culpable as setting up a debate about the rotation of the earth around the sun to gin up ratings and
profit from what was settled science. I’ve spent a good deal of time studying the many facets that act on
people’s perception as it relates to climate change. Perceptions come from more than media and upbringing;
they come from religious beliefs, cultural groups and multiple other sources that collectively make up “public
opinion”. Knowing this opens many more doors for changing hearts and minds on the topic of climate change,
than just as “a political issue”.
My own strange journey somehow led me to meet so many of the amazing people leading the fight for action on
climate change; including Ted Turner (whom I spoke with on a conference panel of Sustainable Development),
Bill McKibbon, Al Gore, many authors I had interviewed over the years, business leaders like Ray Anderson,
dubbed “the Greenest CEO in the World” of Interface Carpets, which transformed his business into the most
eco-friendly and doubled his profits in the process people, and many of the innovators and greatest minds like
Amory Lovins, Paul Hawkins and more. Who would have thought that the man I worked on rebuilding flood
towns with, Bill Becker, would end up many years later being the Executive Director for the President’s Action
Plan and that President would be a man I ran against as a state senator, someone whom I greatly admired, and
would become against all odds, the first black American President? Life never ceases to amaze me.
My own experiences spending every Friday night at my father’s football games (as well as U of M’s) and my love
for the game have informed the analogies I used in this paper as well. My father, in the Michigan Football
Coaches Hall of Fame himself, taught me to always follow my passion first – and I couldn’t go wrong. The
football analogies themselves seem so obviously fitting and I surely have taken his advice about following my
passion.
There is still time on the clock, there are more people waking up to the climate reality because it is happening
before their eyes. Humanity does have the ability to evolve quickly enough to a higher level of consciousness to
address the climate crisis. But the time is short and the disasters more frequent. Most of my proposals or
tactics are aimed at playing defense more vigorously (Sandra Fluking talk radio, pressuring national and local
media, etc.) and engaging all our offensive forces (with a multitude of ad campaigns) in what really needs to be a
hurry-up no huddle offense. It certainly can be done. It will require teamwork, execution, determination and
positive expectations.
I still like our odds.
Nancy Skinner
22