Emergency talk costs lives?
Some people think the rhetoric of climate change is too emotive. While others, like me, would wish some could just stick to the facts and stop trying to gild various lollies, equally shrilly, for 'our' own good.
No doubt it's serious. And needs addressing.
I just can't help but notice that the current level of rhetoric doesn't seem to be working. So maybe we need a change in that approach, plus of those who see themselves as the messengers of 'the word'.
Maybe there's a lesson from the ad world (ok, it's a first when it comes to man-worsened climate change), which I have worked in most of my life, and especially life assurers. It has long been appreciated that shrieking 'we're all going to die!' doesn't sell policies as well as more subtle, end-benefit, persuasion-based approaches.
Oh, and rushing out the next half-considered survey to offer a ready target for those of a more cynical disposition to illuminate, tends to knock calmer efforts back even more.
It looks like we are playing chicken with the future, but I'm not to sure the nicely funded Green-Elite Chicken Littles who think they have grasped the wheel are best suited to turn it.
No comments:
Post a Comment
I believe in freedom of speech. But I also don't like bullies on blogs, even verbal ones, as they can drive away those with something valid to say... or offer.
Subjective is fine, but well argued and substantiated is even better. Calm and polite tops. Anything that crosses my personal line will not go up. There may be reasons given, but not guaranteed.
I'm not too keen on 'Anon' as a handle (and the content usually explains why), so if that's what you opt for it may not make it. Sorry.