Much emphasis in traditional conservation is paced on 'charismatic megafauna,' meaning the species that we all know and love. The heroes of the big screen. Save the Oceans for Flipper and Free Willy. Keep those penguins marching and the polar bears drinking Coca-Cola. Market the smiling dolphins, the majestic blue whales, and those adorable baby seals. 'Save the Sea Cucumber' just doesn't have the same clout. Package your landscape or region of choice under the umbrella of huggable marine mammal and everyone's on board to clean up the next oil spill and protest dynamite fishing. All in all, a good strategy.. but wait, who are these masses you're appealing to?
The superstar that will really make waves in conservation isn't any of the aforementioned lovable cuddly ocean dwellers. In fact, the most critical of species is repeatedly overlooked. Ladies and gentlemen, I give you Homo sapiens sapiens. That's right people.
You see, as a global population, the 'animal lover in all of us' only goes so far. Take oil drilling in the outer continental shelf. While we generally don't want tankers colliding with manatees, socioeconomic incentives such as decreased dependence on foreign oil and national security also happen to be aspects of the big picture. In other words, the broad perspective includes key economic drivers and this game is all about spin (I believe this is one area where Chris may hold a different view). Residents and policymakers will not want to see tar balls rolling up on their beaches in a state maintaining high revenues from tourism. It's these factors that are most apt to drive policy decisions.
The challenge for environmentalists is to speak with regard to the human element of important issues. Make the connection between our actions and their impacts on us. Are we really a society of egomaniacs? Well no, but we are apt to be motivated when our lifestyle and purse-strings may be at stake.
Charismatic megafauna mostly appeal to those already convinced, but when human interests are part of the big picture, new possibilities abound. For action, as scientists we must present our message and rationale in a way that makes it personally relevant to everyone. Frame it right!
Expect a last post on urgency, spin, and politics around 3:30 pm.
posted by Sheril R. Kirshenbaum
- Log in to post comments
Good Framing?
"Greenpeace started to build a Noah's Ark on the Mount Ararat to point to the threat of the new climate catastrophe,"
http://www.treehugger.com/files/2007/05/greenpeace_recr.php
As always, Sheril, you make an excellent point. And, what's more, you make it well.
One thing most people forget is that even the... more conservative... among us have to live in the world we make. So when something truly horrid appears in our very backyards, we can count on a tremendous outcry, a protest from every voice in the neighborhood - Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, and even a few die-hard Know-Nothings and Whigs. Which, of course, accomplishes absolutely nothing.
Here in Old Town, Maine, we've got a massive landfill piling up with everyone else's trash. We the residents had no real say in the matter; all we can do is sit and watch a mountain being built off to the north of us, full of garbage from every state in the Union. And so there are loud complaints, and protests, and gripes.
What we don't see is public outcry for increased funding for our recycling program... or even widespread participation in the program we have.
People only want change when they get uncomfortable. And the People expect to be comfortable for at least the next ten minutes. So why worry?
The story's hardly a new one, and the moral is clear. My question is, how do we fix it? How do we get people to want to change their behavior?
If I were asked (as I was once, by the Minnesota Daily) why evolutionary theory is important, I would (and did) frame it thus: Jobs. Biotech jobs depend on good science, and if they're getting it in China and India but not here, guess who's going to win that little bake-off? And apart from that, health. The bitch goddess evolution stops for no one, and she'll cook up pathogens to rot your parts off if she can, so to stay one step ahead, we MUST understand how that works. So do you want your kid ending up poor and partless, McWinkle, or can we put down the dumb "Icons of Evolution" garbage?
"Greenpeace started to build a Noah's Ark on the Mount Ararat to point to the threat of the new climate catastrophe,"
While these kinds of emotional stunts may grab headlines and influence persons whose only information comes from the popular press, they can produce negative responses from anyone that has more than the most superficial understanding of the subject.
It takes only the slightest internet digging to reveal that even the IPCC doesn't forecast catastrophic sea level rises in the foreseeable future (hundreds of years if ever).
This quickly puts the stunt and those responsible, in a very bad light and casts serious doubts on their true motives and credibility.
In Greenpeace's defence, they do not claim (http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/news/mount-ararat) that the altitude of their ark is supposed to correlate in any way to the expected rise in future ocean levels. Its location is seemingly purely symbolic and surely will, as you say, grab headlines.
Hey Lance, let's all wait and see what tomorrow brings. Then, at the last minute, as the oceans are rising and the ozone layer fades into memory, you can tell us that it wasn't going to happen this soon. We cannot wait to convey the message because the oceans are rising and the air is warming, albeit slowly. Coming slowly, yes, but this little planet will not be turned around overnight. What is taking a long time coming will take a long time going. This is the story to be told and Sheril is giving us a great perspective on how to tell it well.
At the last minute, Arthur?
Here is a reality check on the need for ark building from wikipedia.
"Sea level has risen around 130 metres (400 feet) since the peak of the last ice age about 18,000 years ago. Most of the rise occurred before 6,000 years ago. From 3,000 years ago to the start of the 19th century sea level was almost constant, rising at 0.1 to 0.2 mm/yr.[1] Since 1900 the level has risen at 1 to 2 mm/yr; since 1992 satellite altimetry from TOPEX/Poseidon indicates a rate of rise about 3 mm/yr.[2]"
'The IPCC notes, however, "No significant acceleration in the rate of sea level rise during the 20th century has been detected."[2]'
Did you catch that last part Linda? So unless your real intention is to outright lie about the imminent dangers of a "deluge" any time soon there is just no reason for stunts like ark building.
I suspect you have bought into the emotional and political trappings of AGW and don't really want to be bothered with the pesky facts. Judging from the moralizing tone of your post I'm guessing you have already decided I'm an evil "denier" trying to cloud the moral issue of climate change.
Hi Sheril,
Thanks for your good work on the Hill. I think we did OK for fish conservation in the Senate last year using a science-based and people-friendly message. All under difficult political circumstances. Is that how you see it? Did we frame the science well?
Mark
You're not an evil denier, just a denier if you don't believe there is a problem. Even if it will be 400 years before the deluge, why wait to start making things better?