Is negative green language a hinderence?

Question

I have come across this blog which puts it well, though comes up with no real solution.

http://climatedenial.org/2007/11/23/don%e2%80%99t-save-the-planet/

Don't "Save the Planet", keep it cool.

Answer 1

I don't think people are ready for the type of content that is in this article.  It is easier for people to read "save the planet", "earth friendly", "green living", etc \than the messaging exposed here.   I believe it is a good idea to change some the messaging but let's not make it to complicated.  Face it, people today are extremely busy and do not take the time to read long messaging as shown in the article.  Keep it short and simple.  Either way, most of us are working toward the same thing and that is leaving a great environment for our children, grand children, etc.

Answer 2

It's a delicate balance...if you pansy-foot around it too much, people miss the point and the urgency.  As with most things, the answer lies somewhere between the two militant extremes.

Answer 3

The only green government cares about is money.

Answer 4

Permaculture bella and this blog make good points.

We need to encourage responsible behaviour in ways that are not aggressive but which point out the benefits.

I do not think we can avoid pointing out the dangers of global warming and and the waste of resources but it is important to do this in ways that emphasise the benefits of action (a cleaner and richer world in terms of resources) and the fun inherent in the simpler lifestyle that is the solution.  People can also enjoy the challenge of developing the technologies of wind, wave, tide, hydro and solar power and the energy saving devices and homes of the future.

I think one of the most effective ways of demonstrating that an environmentally responsible lifestyle is fun is to do so by example.  And this also demonstrates to the politicians that there are votes to be had in adopting sensible policies (like no more runways).

Our message must be enjoy a simple lifestyle, instead of trying to keep up with the neighbours' spending, and you will have fun and ensure a cleaner world in which there is plenty for everyone.

Answer 5

I agree with the general idea of the article. However it's important not to forget that, when it comes to global warming, saving the planet is what we are doing. This time we are playing with a live bullet that may annilihate higher life on this planet.

Answer 6

there is no single answer - but language is key to most human cultural behaviour

there needs to be protest to stop things getting too bad,

then there need to be positive examples to aspire to.

everyone will have their own approaches and position to take between these two.

and most importantly we need a cultural shift away from industrial growth to life sustaining values

http://greatturningtimes.org/

Answer 7

I totally agree with the article. Communication of ideas is vital to any cause and Green language often gets the communication wrong so the message is misheard, or not heard at all.

If you want to ensure you back somebody into a corner, then

be 'alarmist', always give the worst case scenario, and insist that people take immediate action. If you never want people to listen to what you say, shout very loudly for a long time, or label those who do not share your view as psychotic, irresponsible or ignorant.

If you back somebody into a corner, the only responses will be aggression, which is never helpful and  total denial; even if they agree with some of your points or would have usually been more neutral. The person may become an 'opponent' determined to 'prove you wrong' or act in an opposing way.  Or finally the person may become so overwhelmed that they feel helpless which leads them to doing nothing.

People have much better access to information. People can look at professional reports, read academic papers and read other people's views. The Internet has given us much better access to a wide range of research/literature/views than ever before. Now, it may be that people have too many views/papers/research and they are, again, overwhelmed by the task of reading them.

However, for those who do read widely, access to this information can help people make much better decisions than ever before. The problem is conveying the message, if you sensationalize information to grab headlines or others' attention, then you now run the risk of other people looking at your sources and providing evidence to support their opposition.

If you attach blame to behaviours, or target particular groups, again, people disengage.  If you label things or use phrases such as 'save the Earth' as a shorthand, then this emotive language will be dismissed or disputed. It is a disservice to the 'cause'.

Look at terminology such as  the word 'sustainable'. The idea has been hijacked by politicians and used to 'sell' their political agendas. For example 'sustainable pesticide use'. When the word is used in this way, it actively works against Green agenda's. In fact the best way to alienate people from key Green issues such as sustainability is for a Politician to declare his green agenda and use 'green' words. The people who would support green issues then spend all their time discrediting the politician and do not continue in raising awareness of green issues. The new 'politician's' usage of the word, which is weak and often misrepresentative, is then taken on board by the media as being the accepted meaning.

Again taking the emphasis away from the central green issue.

Language is a way we express our ideas and values to others. This can be positive or negative, clear or confusing. We all have a responsibility to ensure that a positive message which does not blame, nor sensationalize, nor overwhelms or misdirects people, but inspires and motivates people to support Green issues.