Following the Climate Conference in the United Arab Emirates, many questions arise, such as which term we should use when discussing the climatic disasters our planet is facing: Is it “climate crisis,” “climate change,” or “global warming”?
The Fires Almost Consumed His Home
The conference reminds me of what happened to Dr. Frank Luntz, a former political consultant for the U.S. Republican Party and a pollster, a few years ago when he was at his home in Southern California one morning. His phone rang at 3:15 a.m., alerting him to evacuate his home immediately. Luntz saw flames outside his bedroom window—the wildfires that broke out in Los Angeles in December 2017 had gotten dangerously close to his house.
Since that day, the climate crisis has become a personal issue for Luntz. He was the one who coined the term “climate change” and advised Republicans in the United States to use it instead of “global warming” to cast doubt on the severity of climate-related phenomena. The climate issue was no longer just a public matter that Luntz advised Republican leaders about; it was something he nearly experienced firsthand.
That day changed Luntz’s perspective on the issue. But how did this happen?
In the United States, a major industrial nation, there is no political consensus on the climate issue, with differing viewpoints between the two major parties—the Republican and Democratic Parties—as well as on other major issues like “abortion,” “gun ownership,” and “taxation.”
The U.S. isn’t the only major industrial nation with voices skeptical of climate phenomena and their scientific basis, or with negative stances on environmental issues. Such voices have also been heard in Brazil during President Bolsonaro’s term and in Australia during the tenure of former Prime Minister Scott Morrison.
However, I’ll focus on the U.S., as it plays a significant role in exacerbating the climate crisis, being the largest industrial nation, and because the political disagreement between Republicans and Democrats on climate and environmental phenomena has become a significant issue, especially during former President Trump’s administration.
The political disagreement between the parties regarding the climate, which has essentially turned into a political conflict, stems from differing values each party embraces.
The Republican Perspective
The Republican viewpoint is based on several key concepts, including:
- Doubting the consensus among scientists on the climate issue, which states that human activities, such as burning fossil fuels, are the main driver behind various climate phenomena. Republicans tend to question the severity of climate change and create doubt about the necessity of immediate action to address climate-related issues.
- Opposing any measures aimed at reducing greenhouse gas emissions, such as carbon dioxide, methane, and ozone. This stance has led Republicans to oppose policies like the Clean Power Plan and fuel efficiency standards for cars that were implemented during President Barack Obama’s administration to curb carbon emissions.
- Promoting fossil fuels as essential for economic growth and energy security. Consequently, Republicans oppose any policies restricting fossil fuel extraction and usage.
- Emphasizing the importance of economic growth and job creation, even at the expense of the environment. Republicans believe strict climate regulations could harm businesses and the economy.
- Advocating for an independent U.S. energy stance without concern for other countries’ positions, encouraging local energy production, including fossil fuels, as a means to reduce reliance on foreign energy sources.
This doesn’t mean there’s complete uniformity among all Republicans regarding global warming. Views may vary based on regional factors, voters’ perspectives, and individual beliefs, depending on the state.
A notable representative of the Republican stance is former U.S. President Donald Trump, who described climate change as a “hoax.” He tweeted in 2012, “The concept of global warming was created by and for the Chinese to make U.S. manufacturing non-competitive,” a claim unsupported by scientific evidence. He also said in his characteristic style, “The entire climate crisis is just fake news; it’s false science.”
Trump was a practical man. His actions went beyond rhetoric, as he withdrew from the Paris Agreement in June 2017. He formulated his energy policy based on the principle of American dominance, reinforcing this by making the U.S. an independent energy exporter.
Trump’s administration reversed some environmental regulations intended to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and promoted fossil fuels like coal, oil, and natural gas. This shows the Republican stance, which doesn’t acknowledge the dangers of global warming and dismisses scientific evidence as misleading, serving a particular interest.
The Democratic Perspective
The Democratic stance is based on different key concepts, including:
- Firm support for the Paris Agreement and the need to rejoin it.
- Promoting policies aimed at transforming the U.S. into a clean energy economy, which often involves increasing investments in renewable energy sources like wind and solar power.
- Controlling greenhouse gas emissions by implementing regulatory measures to limit emissions in various sectors, including transportation and industry. This leads to setting specific emission standards for vehicles, encouraging clean technologies, and regulating emissions from power plants.
- Emphasizing the importance of preparing for and adapting to the impacts of climate change, including protecting vulnerable communities from rising sea levels and extreme weather events.
- Linking the climate issue with environmental justice to ensure all communities bear the brunt of climate impacts, not just marginalized ones.
- Supporting investments in scientific research and development to advance clean energy technologies and accelerate the transition to a low-carbon economy.
President Biden’s policies, after taking office, reflect this ideology. His first step was to rejoin the Paris Agreement in 2021. Biden also issued several executive orders directing federal agencies to review their regulations to align with policies aimed at reducing toxic emissions, focusing on renewable energy sources, and promoting electric vehicle manufacturing.
Biden followed the scientific consensus on climate and engaged scientific experts in policymaking on this matter. His administration set 2035 as the target for achieving a carbon-free energy sector and zero percent toxic emissions by 2050.
The essence of the Democratic Party’s position is a sense of looming danger threatening humanity due to global warming and a belief in collective action among nations to confront this threat.
A Secret Memo on “Climate Change”
An important question arises: How do Republicans and Democrats present their policies and ideologies to the American public to gain votes during election campaigns?
This is where linguists and pollsters come into play, shaping concepts with expressions that serve each party’s ideology. I’ll focus on the Republican Party.
As mentioned at the beginning of the article, one of these experts is Frank Luntz, who dedicated his efforts to serving the Republican Party and its politicians.
Luntz, born in 1962, studied history and political science at the undergraduate level at the University of Pennsylvania. He obtained a PhD in politics from Oxford University in the UK, contemporaneous with former British Prime Minister Boris Johnson. His dissertation, focused on election campaigns, became the basis for his book “Candidates, Consultants, and Campaigns: The Style and Substance of American Elections,” published in 1988.
Luntz has taught at various universities, including the University of Pennsylvania, George Washington University, and Harvard. He advises politicians to be mindful of the expressions they use during campaigns to be more influential with the public.
Some of his significant contributions to Republican terminology include the term “death tax” instead of “estate tax,” “climate change” instead of “global warming,” and “tax relief” instead of “tax cut.”
Luntz describes his work as “finding words that help his clients shift public opinion on a particular issue or candidate, or market their products.”
He crafts his terms based on Republican Party values, which emphasize “individual and personal freedom,” “limited government intervention,” “promoting economic growth,” and “encouraging private businesses by reducing taxes.”
In light of these values, the party rejects the idea that human activities are the cause of global warming and also refutes scientific claims linking the current climatic disasters, such as storms, hurricanes, floods, and fires, to climate change, as stated by most scientists.
This skeptical stance toward the climate crisis prompts Republican politicians to downplay the urgency and severity of the issue, leading them to reject imposing certain policies like specific fuel efficiency standards for cars, which they view as government interference in personal freedoms.
Based on these values, the party also promotes investments in fossil fuels, as it creates jobs and promotes economic growth, providing opportunities for private companies.
In 2001, Luntz wrote a secret memo for the Republican Party, which was later revealed, where he admitted that the party had “lost the communications battle on the environment” and that the new Republican president, George W. Bush, was at risk. He urged Republican politicians to spread the idea that there is no scientific consensus on the risks of greenhouse gases, as noted by Oliver Burkeman in The Guardian (March 4, 2003).
Luntz advised Republicans in the memo to emphasize that there’s a lack of scientific certainty on the climate issue, creating doubt in the public’s mind, as there’s still room to challenge scientific conclusions for Republicans. He also urged them to stress the importance of “acting only if all facts are known,” aligning with the White House stance, which opposed mandatory restrictions on emissions, as required by the Kyoto Protocol, until scientists conducted more research.
Why Did Luntz Favor the Term “Climate Change” Over “Global Warming”?
Luntz advised the party and its politicians in the memo to abandon the term “global warming” and replace it with “climate change.” But what is the fundamental difference between these terms that led Luntz to make this recommendation?
The term “global warming” implies a climatic phenomenon characterized by a measurable rise in the Earth’s temperature. This phenomenon is not local but global, affecting many countries worldwide.
This is precisely what the Republican Party aims to cast doubt on to protect the interests of major oil and natural gas companies and maintain economic growth, which could suffer if fossil fuel use is reduced.
Thus, Luntz came up with a new term that doesn’t evoke the imagery of rising temperatures or the fires they could cause, but instead strips the climate issue of its essence.
When the American public hears the term “climate change,” it doesn’t invoke any specific climatic phenomena because the word “climate” used in the term is vague and abstract.
Moreover, the word “change” is also indefinite; it doesn’t specify what kind of change is occurring. By using this term, Republicans ensure a neutral public reaction mitigated by this strategic phrasing.
The party was also encouraged to describe its policies as “conservationist” rather than “environmentalist,” as “most people” believe environmentalists are “extremists” with eccentric behaviors that deter many voters. They were advised to avoid discussing the business sector whenever possible to prevent public suspicion about their motives.
Luntz had previously pointed out that the common perception of Republicans among Americans is that they are “influenced by big corporations,” whose owners are only interested in profit.
Luntz notes in the memo that any “issue can be compelling, even if it lacks reliance on facts, but it will be more compelling if it appeals to emotions instead of presenting dry facts.”
Republican strategists warmly welcomed Luntz’s advice, as reported by The Guardian.
The term “global warming” was still used in Bush’s speeches for a while in 2001, but its usage diminished until it almost vanished by 2002 following the release of Luntz’s memo.
Acknowledging Science Is a Virtue
Frank Luntz remained steadfast in his stance on the climate issue until he personally faced the flames drawing closer to his home. At that moment, he realized that destructive climate phenomena were a undeniable reality that couldn’t be ignored.
He recounted the incident in a 2019 testimony before the Senate, saying, “Brave Los Angeles firefighters saved my home, but others weren’t as fortunate. Rising sea levels, melting ice caps, and hurricanes are becoming fiercer than before.”
In his statement before the Senate Climate Committee, Luntz said, “I was wrong in 2001. I just hope you’ll stop using something I wrote 18 years ago because it’s no longer accurate.”
Luntz admitted regret over coining the term “climate change,” stating in a 2021 interview with The Times, “I didn’t just get it wrong, I want to fix it.
