Skip to comments.
Running from Climate Change: The Obama Administration’s Changing Rhetoric
Climate and Development lab ^
| December 22, 2011
| By Graciela Kincaid
Posted on 12/26/2011 5:06:22 PM PST by Ernest_at_the_Beach
At both President Obamas job speech to the Joint Session of Congress and his speech at the Clinton Global Initiative last September, one issue was shockingly absent from the agenda: climate change. The term was scarcely mentioned in either speech, and more surprisingly, the administration also failed to deliver on the more popular message of clean energy. For all the talk of job creation and economic growth, the role of green jobs and a potential transition to a green economy were missing from the dialogue. In fact, lately the green jobs issue has taken a serious hit because green innovation has not been proven to create enough immediate boots, jeans and helmets jobs.
The phrases climate change and global warming have become all but taboo on Capital Hill. These terms are stunningly absent from the political arena, and have been since 2010. As Senator Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) said on October 13th, It has become no longer politically correct in certain circles in Washington to speak about climate change or carbon pollution or how carbon pollution is causing our climate to change. Why?
As part of a Brown University research project this summer, I conducted a comparative analysis of the Obama administrations use of climate change and clean energy rhetoric, and how they were changing. We examined 1,606 speeches by administration officials over three and a half years (January 2008-July 2011), assembling keyword counts from a campaign speech database and the White House Speeches and Remarks Archive. Rhetoric was sorted by categories: climate and energy.
The results were dramatic:
The ratio of the administrations usage of climate change versus energy has changed significantly since Obamas 2008 campaign days. Climate change rhetoric saw its brief heyday in 2009, thanks to the popularity of the President, the streamlined message of unified party government, and the hope for legislative action before the United Nations climate change negotiations in Copenhagen. Climate change rhetoric was most prominent during 2009, when it was mentioned 246 times and the months with highest frequency were April and November. Interestingly, the only point at which these two levels were equivalent was in November of 2009the month the Copenhagen Conference began. Since then, the ratio of energy to climate rhetoric has steadily increased, and the phrase climate change is routinely omitted in favor of clean energy-related diction.
The difference in magnitude for the two classes of rhetoric usage is striking. The overall ratio for this 3.5-year period is 7.6:1; energy is mentioned over seven times for each mention of climate change. The ratio of energy to climate rhetoric usage was 9.6 in 2008, 5.0 in 2009, 10.6 in 2010, and 14.6 in the first half of 2011. These ratios climbed since President Obama took officetripling between 2009 and 2011revealing the administrations urgency to outpace the depressing climate change imagery with the more upbeat promise of clean energy. Noteworthy are the State of the Union speeches, meant to be indicators of the presidents agenda. These speeches regularly favor energy to climate change messages. In 2009, climate change was mentioned only once while energy came up 14 times; in 2010, climate change was mentioned three times to energys 15; and in 2011 while energy was mentioned 9 times, climate change was not mentioned at all.
What has caused this significant shift in rhetoric? Climate change is apparently politically tainted, a doomsday issue, and the administration has re-branded it under a clean energy and energy independence discourse. The administration has clearly responded to increasing hostility (on one end of the political spectrum) towards the effort to address climate change, scrubbing out words like global warming, cap-and-trade, and climate change from agency communication. Surveys are showing drops in public concern for the issue, and since 2010 House Republicans have directed an increasingly right-wing agenda against it, striking down climate change legislation and funding at every opportunity. Climate change is a hard sell amidst the economic downturn, and the environment always loses to job concerns. By contrast, the push for clean energy seems bipartisan, positive, and more difficult to publicly oppose. The political calculus seems clear: job creation, national security, and oil independence all seem to be credible, patriotic, and appealing reasons to promote the green sector.
As the calendars flip once again into campaign season, we may see a different strategy from the Obama administration as it seeks to distinguish itself from its Republican challengers. We have already seen more proactive rhetoric from Obama, with digs such as this at Governor Rick Perry: I mean, has anybody been watching the debates lately? Youve got a governor whose state is on fire denying climate change. However, the UNFCCC climate change negotiations in Durban this month saw little effort by the president to shift attention to the issueObama chose to send Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to Busan, Korea for a conference on foreign aid instead of to South Africa for COP17. The presidents intentions are revealed by his weak rhetoric and avoidance of anything tainted with the terms climate change or global warming. Unfortunately, the atmosphere doesnt understand our delicate sleights of tongue, only the gases that continue to belch from our cars and smokestacks.
Notes:
1. Climate included the phrases climate change, changing climate, climate negotiations, climate bill, and global warming.
2. Energy included clean energy, renewable energy, green energy, energy economy, energy technology, energy independence, energy dependence, energy efficient, energy efficiency, energy security, energy capacity, energy supply, energy-saving, energy plan, energy policy, energy bill, energy jobs, energy industry, energy production, energy use, energy grid, energy future, energy development, energy revolution, energy prices, and energy needs.
TOPICS: Chit/Chat; Conspiracy; Science; Weather
KEYWORDS: climatechange; climategate; climategate2; globalwarming; globalwarminghoax
H/T to Judith Curry's Climate Etc blog.
To: TigerLikesRooster; landsbaum; Signalman; NormsRevenge; steelyourfaith; Lancey Howard; ...
To: Ernest_at_the_Beach
the bottom line with climate change/global warming issues is energy. Advocate producing more energy and energy efficiency and everyone will be on board
3
posted on
12/26/2011 5:11:30 PM PST
by
4rcane
To: Ernest_at_the_Beach; WL-law; Berlin_Freeper; Horusra; Darnright; rdl6989; bamahead; Nervous Tick; ..
4
posted on
12/26/2011 5:12:00 PM PST
by
steelyourfaith
(If it's "green" ... it's crap !!!)
To: Ernest_at_the_Beach
I’ll bet that there is a hockey stick signal buried in there somewhere.
5
posted on
12/26/2011 5:14:20 PM PST
by
Paladin2
To: All
To: All
Posted on December 23, 2011
by Judith Curry
Here are a few things that caught my eye this past week.
Changing rhetoric
Brown Universitys Climate and Development lab has in interesting post entitled Running from climate change: Obama administrations changing rhetoric.
The phrases climate change and global warming have become all but taboo on Capital Hill. These terms are stunningly absent from the political arena, and have been since 2010. As Senator Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) SAID on October 13th, It has become no longer politically correct in certain circles in Washington to speak about climate change or carbon pollution or how carbon pollution is causing our climate to change. Why?
The ratio of the administrations usage of climate change versus energy has changed significantly since Obamas 2008 campaign days. Climate change rhetoric saw its brief heyday in 2009, thanks to the popularity of the President, the streamlined message of unified party government, and the hope for legislative action before the United Nations climate change negotiations in Copenhagen. Climate change rhetoric was most prominent during 2009, when it was mentioned 246 times and the months with highest frequency were April and November. Interestingly, the only point at which these two levels were equivalent was in November of 2009the month the Copenhagen Conference began. Since then, the ratio of energy to climate rhetoric has steadily increased, and the phrase climate change is routinely omitted in favor of clean energy-related diction.
JC comment: the changepoint at Nov 2009 is telling.
To: All
From above:
*****************************EXCERPT*******************************************
JC comment: the changepoint at Nov 2009 is telling.
*********************************************************
Well,....just about the time of Climate Gate......
To: Ernest_at_the_Beach
Well,....just about the time of Climate Gate......Yeah, the first Climategate.
The second Climategate from last month was at least as devastating to the "global warming" fraudsters as the first one, only it's impact was less dramatic since the whole "global warming" scam is now pretty much dead. People trying to talk seriously about "global warming" and "climate change" and "green" crap are laughed off with rolling eyes these days, like a bad joke told too many times.
To: Ernest_at_the_Beach
Now those that wish to gain easy money must become extremely stealth in how they proceed. The cat let out of the bag back in Nov 2009 started to shake them all up. The public at large and the Congress have been awakened to the scam.
11
posted on
12/26/2011 5:35:19 PM PST
by
Marine_Uncle
(Honor must be earned.)
To: Ernest_at_the_Beach
The rhetoric may be changing, but the regulations designed to shut down half of America’s power generation have not.
12
posted on
12/26/2011 5:41:02 PM PST
by
BfloGuy
(The final outcome of the credit expansion is general impoverishment.)
To: BfloGuy
You beat me to it by 2 minutes.
The rhetoricis changing but hiis WPA is still shutting down electric plants,and coal mines while he is still tossing money at Green products that don’t work.
13
posted on
12/26/2011 5:52:58 PM PST
by
Venturer
To: Ernest_at_the_Beach; AdmSmith; AnonymousConservative; Berosus; bigheadfred; Bockscar; ColdOne; ...
14
posted on
12/26/2011 6:05:24 PM PST
by
SunkenCiv
(Merry Christmas, Happy New Year! May 2013 be even Happier!)
To: 4rcane
He has given all his friends in the jobs business all money he could give them ,the whole green jobs thing was just a scam to fill the pockets of his friends
To: Ernest_at_the_Beach
Now if we can just stop their war on coal.
Climate Gate II
Solyndra
Can’t wait to see what’s next.
16
posted on
12/26/2011 6:44:36 PM PST
by
Rocky
(REPEAL IT!)
To: Ernest_at_the_Beach
The chart correlates quite nicely with James Hansen's global temperature "data". The peak in 1998 temperatures is similar to Obama's peak after he won the election. The other two peaks correlate with another couple of warm years after that.
Any idiot who can see global warming since 1998 in Hansen's data should just as easily see an INCREASE in global warming rhetoric from Obama, as well. Therefore, I totally reject the conclusions from this idiot.
17
posted on
12/26/2011 7:31:50 PM PST
by
norwaypinesavage
(Galileo: In science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of one individual)
To: norwaypinesavage
18
posted on
12/26/2011 9:41:43 PM PST
by
Publius6961
(My world was lovely, until it was taken over by parasites.)
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson