'Global warming' is so passé. This would be hysterical… if it wasn’t so scary and devious!
Some experts think the environmentalist movement has an image problem. According to them, greens are losing the battle against primeval despoilers of Nature's awesome bounty because they continue to use antiquated, in-your-face terms like "global warming," "cap and trade," and yes even "the environment." So says a new report by ecoAmerica, a cutting-edge, Washington-based nonprofit that specializes in environmental marketing and messaging, as reported in the New York Times (henceforth known as the Green Lady).
According to ecoAmerica, which has conducted rigorous, focus-group research in this area, environmentalists are taking it on the chin because politically charged terms like "global warming" conjure up images of hirsute, confrontational '60s types. "When you say 'global warming,'" Robert M. Perkowitz, ecoAmerica's president and founder, told the Times, "a certain group of Americans think that's a code word for progressive liberals, gay marriage and other such issues." How about… the fact that it is just a wrong assumption?
Sadly, Mr. Perkowitz never explained how this "certain group" manages to draw a connection between global warming and gay marriage. And it must be said, I'd love to see his raw data on the subject.
In any event, to right the listing ship of sustainable biodiversity, ecoAmerica recommends that environmentalists mothball the textured scientific lingo and get right down to the nitty-gritty. That means ditching excessively technical terms like "carbon dioxide" and substituting catchy phrases like "moving away from the dirty fuels of the past."
EcoAmerica also recommends jettisoning the cumbersome term "the environment" and replacing it with the infinitely more felicitous "the air we breathe, the water our children drink." The organization probably got paid tons of money for this high-level research, so its advice should not go unheeded…?
Clearly, ecoAmerica is on to something with this bold initiative. But perhaps the subtle neologisms it's proposed don't go far enough. No one pays any attention to bloodless expressions like "depletion of the ozone layer" anymore. Moreover, "depletion" is a stupid word, since what it's supposed to decry is "catastrophic destruction" of the ozone layer, not its mere shrinkage.
What is needed here is more graphic language that the man on the street can understand. Thus, instead of saying something like "If mankind continues to deplete the ozone layer, we will cause irreparable damage to the environment," activists should say: "If we keep using the dirty fuels of the past to mess up that awesome thing in the sky that prevents our butts from like totally frying at the beach, then we might as well just spew filth into the air we breathe and the water our children drink and all curl up and die right now. Am I right, or what?"
Anyone can see how more colorful, less partisan, less politically rancorous language would enable environmentalists to seize the higher ground. Now it no longer sounds like some prissy elitist's butt that's going to fry. It could be somebody in a trailer park. Maybe even Dick Cheney.
There are many other environmentalist catchphrases that could use fine-tuning. "No carbon footprint" is a term so trendy, so precious, that it cannot help but reinforce the image of environmentalists as condescending do-gooders. Surely something less deviously euphemistic would work better.
Instead of hanging a sign in the window reading, "As of midnight Tuesday, this dining establishment will no longer leave a carbon footprint," restaurant owners could hang a placard reading: "Starting Tuesday, we will no longer allow disgusting fumes to belch all over the food your kids are eating and stinking up the air you breathe. We already warned the cook."
Similarly, instead of talking about "the melting of the polar ice cap," a phrase too apocalyptically antediluvian to scare anyone anymore, environmentalists should start referring to "dead polar bears in your driveway." "Degradation of habitat" could be replaced by a more evocative phrase like "torching Bambi's crib."
The one term environmentalists should probably deep-six, though, is "biological diversity." The ding-dongs who confuse "global warming" with gay marriage might think that biological diversity refers to features of the environment that only ethnic minorities care about. At this rate, we'll never get the planet back in working order.
By: Mr. Queenan, a satirist and writer, is the author of numerous books. His memoir, "Closing Time," has just been published by Viking.
Source: online.wsj.com
As funny as this is… the process of rebranding the Green Movement by “the powers that be” and the companies like G.E. that will benefit from Cap-and-Trade and new Green Energy Project contracts” has begun…
The bottom-line here is that Global Warming is a farce. The Earth has actually been (overall) cooling the past 10-years, but no matter how many scientists present their studies to Congress and the White House and no matter how much the American Public is against the new “Green” program because it will cost the American taypayer more money… a lot more money as well as 'lose jobs' not increase them at a time that America just can’t afford it... the powers that be trudge on! Cap-and-Trade is a huge tax. And 'two' jobs are actually lost in the United States for every 'one' Green job created. As for Al Gore, is he evil? No… just being used and a bit clueless!! After all, he wants to be remembered for something and thinks he invented the Internet… and that should say it all.
Should we all care about the environment… absolutely! Are there many issues that we should all get behind… stopping deforestation, cleaner disposal and recycling of our waste, loss of plant and animal species at an unimaginable rate, cleaner water, cleaner air… and the list goes on? Should we encourage the world to stop procreating irresponsibly?… absolutely! And should the world slowly and responsibly shift toward cleaner and renewable energy sources, with a little help from the government?... absolutely! We should have started doing all this 40-years-ago when the flower children and hippies were protesting about it! Just like we should have planned ahead and stopped borrowing from social security and Medicare and planned for the Baby-Boomer Retirement at least 20-year-ago. I have books in my bookcase from 20 and even 40 years ago predicting and discussing all the above. But if you are buying into the present Green movement (rebranding of Global Warming) and Cap-and-Trade… you are being had!
Before it is too late… educate yourself, and that does not mean watch the daily regular media news, especially NBC, whose parent company is General Electric (GE) and is in the bag for the Obama White House and that has and stands to make billions. They already have received $139 Billion from the FDIC in bailout money. HMMM… are they a bank?
Green Hell – A Must Read!
What Can I Do?
- Educate Yourself (Starting Now) – You are living during a time that will change the America we know forever. You owe it to yourself and future generations to pay attention
- Watch, listen and read a full spectrum of news and informational TV programs, Internet websites, newspapers, magazines and books
- Contact Your Representatives (ASAP) and let them know you are against Cap-and-Trade and that you think Global Warming is a farce
- Get Involved – Be Creative; Organize a Green Tea Party/Anti-Cap and Trade Tea Party; Tell Just One More Person…
- Stop Believing That The Government Will Look Out For You... For Us..., So Functioning as 'The Silent Majority' Is Okay!
- Cast an ‘Educated Vote’ Not An Emotional Vote in 2010 and 2012
Green Hell – A Must Read!
There was a time in America when politicians answered to the people. When spending money from the public treasury was considered a sacred duty to be done with reservation and care. $11,000,000,000,000 later we’re slowly realizing that we’re no longer the America we grew up in.
