How using different language can help us unify around environmental initiatives.

I had an interesting lunch with a cousin of mine in NYC last week. He is a proud Republican (nothing wrong with that 😉 ) and does not agree with any of the so-called “climate change fanatics”. His view is that the science is on both sides of the argument. As the conversation went on, I began to wonder whether or not he had a very good point in that the verbiage used by the “Treehuggers” was as extreme as those protecting coal jobs in Kentucky, which is to say non-inclusive and of dubious character.

What would happen if we were to find language and purpose around which we could unite? What would happen if the conversation was not about “climate change”, which creates discord, but about health, clean air and water. When I used those words, he agreed whole-heartedly. So perhaps he is right…the left is using language which is actually of a “fascist” nature in trying to over-regulate. What if regulation wasn’t geared towards some sort of questionable goal? What if regulation was to help our kids have clean air, clean water, clean lungs and a clean earth to live on when we are all dead and gone? Would the ensuing benefits to the “climate” not come, although through a different path?

I believe it is well worth looking at another paradigm shift. We used to talk about global warming. Then we moved to climate change. What if we simply talk about a “clean earth policy”? Who could be against that? And what if that policy helped industry create jobs through the pursuit of technologies which helped deliver on that goal? I know that to some this may seem like semantics, yet language is so powerful a tool in the creation of unity that I’m beginning to wonder if he isn’t right about the methodologies of “liberals”…perhaps the environmental guys are acting like fascists in dictating rather than unifying?

Show me the money. That’s what industry wants. It’s what a healthy economy wants. So why not show how investments in such technologies which can deliver a “clean earth” will yield greater rewards/returns than investments in dirty energy. Let’s drop the world renewables. Let’s just call them clean and dirty. In Australia, they use the term “black energy”. Maybe that’s not politically correct in North America. Can we generate new suggestions to create a greater width of population and political interests which would support the “end-game” together?

Thoughts welcome…dirty air and water…not so much.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *