Tom Friedman: Time to Switch the Climate Change Frame

Readers of this blog should find the arguments in Tom Friedman's column today familiar. On climate change, Friedman argues that it's time to switch focus from cap and trade to a carbon tax, a policy that most Americans can understand.

But switching policy is not enough, you also have to switch the frame from a dominant focus on impending catastrophe to a focus on economic development or "American renewal." Here's how Friedman explains this economic development frame:

We need a price on carbon because it will stimulate massive innovation in the next great global industry -- E.T. -- energy technology. In a warming world with huge population growth, clean power systems are going to be in huge demand. The scientific research and innovation needed for America to dominate E.T. the way it did I.T. could be the foundation for a second American industrial revolution, plus it would tip the whole planet onto a greener path. So American economic renewal is the goal, but mitigating climate change would be the great byproduct.

Friedman also gets it right when he argues that not only does the lead frame need to change, but so do the lead spokespeople on the issue. According to Friedman, the person who needs to be front and center on climate change for the American public is Obama's National Security adviser General James Jones. (To this I would add, tailored to respective publics and communities, public health officials focusing on the health implications and Evangelical and religious leaders focusing on the moral dimensions of climate change.)

Based on his column, it's clear that Friedman understands the important connections between policy action and framing. For more on these connections, see this recent article at the journal Environment.

I will be talking about framing and climate change communication at a presentation today at NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center in Maryland.

More like this

Last night in his State of the Union address, Obama asked Congress to send him a bill that caps carbon emissions, with the president framing the matter primarily in the context of economic recovery and energy innovation: "But to truly transform our economy, protect our security, and save our…
In the wake of last week's defeat of cap and trade, the predictable narrative offered by bloggers and commentators has been to blame the failure on industry, skeptics, and Republicans. It's also the explanation likely echoing in the minds of many scientists and environmental advocates. But it's…
The New York Times led their Sunday edition with an article by John Broder focusing on recent Defense department conclusions on the national security risks of climate change. Here's the key takeaway from the article on what it could mean for re-framing the debate over cap and trade legislation for…
On Thursday, at the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard, I served as one of the panelists at the event "The Public Divide over Climate Change: Science, Skeptics and the Media." The two hour session drew roughly 100 attendees, was organized and moderated by Belfer Center fellow Cristine…

Carbon tax is likely not going to happen. The corp[orations can't cheat with a carbon tax the way they can with cap and trade - it not as easy to misuse. As All of Washington is in the corporate back pockets, sadly including Obama as is evidenced by his handling of the bank bailouts, it just is not going to happen