Published by the Breakthrough Generation.

Climate change can be framed in many ways. It could be framed as a problem of democracy—how can the short-term feedback mechanisms of democracy, namely election cycles, cope with emergent long-term problems? It could be framed as a problem of international governance—how can the anarchy of nation-states deal with challenges that transcend their national borders? And it might also be framed as a problem of perception—how can ‘we’ as individuals, citizens, and consumers, deal with problems that are disembodied and imperceptible in our daily lives? Even though these framings are relevant to climate change policy debates, one particular framing features prominently: climate change as a pollution problem.

Australian politicians, climate change advocates, and policy makers currently frame climate change in this way, and is illustrated well by the title of the Australian Government’s climate policy—the ‘Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme’ (CPRS). While the pollution framing is obvious in the title, the influence of this framing is much deeper. The pollution frame appears to have influenced the Australian Government’s approach to climate policy—its aims and instruments—as proponents a carbon cap-and-trade view the implementation of such a scheme as the best way to reduce Australia’s carbon pollution.

Does the US climate policy currently being considered by the Congress resemble the pollution framing that informs Australian climate policy? Well, this is a big question (especially when we consider the length of the bill!). We can however gain a small insight by looking to the title of the ‘American Climate and Energy Security’ (ACES) bill and considering its main policy approach, as I have already done with Australia. While the title of the bill directs our attention to energy and notions of security, the bill concentrates on limiting carbon pollution through cap-and-trade measures, resembling the Rudd Government’s CPRS. The framing of the title and main policy response are somewhat contradictory. Crafting the title in this way might have benefits for messaging but this is superficial. Ultimately, policy that gains public support requires good content, not just a good title.

The pollution framing that informs both Australian and US climate policies highlights the constraints of what The Breakthrough Institute’s Ted Nordhaus and Michael Shellenberger call a ‘pollution paradigm’. The pollution paradigm establishes human actions as harmful intrusions that pollute ‘pure’ and ‘natural’ environments. This model the aim of ‘environmental’ policy—logically—seeks to limit and control such intrusions. Climate change policy debates have largely focused on cap-and-trade mechanisms and greenhouse gas taxation to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. But whether it’s a cap or a tax, both instruments identify greenhouse gases as pollution to be controlled, and seek to reduce them. By increasing the salience of greenhouse gas, policies responding to the direct causes of climate change are privileged over policies that respond to systemic and indirect causes.

The work of progressive linguist George Lakoff points to the importance and implications of ‘framing’ for matters of public policy like climate change and energy. The theory of framing Lakoff sets out in Don’t Think of an Elephant demonstrates that the way problems are ‘framed’ affects the way that the public and policy makers perceive them. Put simply, frames include and exclude selected information and therefore set the parameters for the types of policies that are considered reasonable and desirable.

This brings me to a related issue—the practical disadvantages of using a pollution frame to communicate the need for action on climate change. Social research conducted by American Environics in 2007 highlights key problems with using the pollution framing when communicating climate change. Interestingly, the research shows that it is possible for Americans to confuse air pollution (smog) with greenhouse gas emissions. This misunderstanding has led some to believe that the US is actually leading global efforts to address our changing climate when this is clearly not the case. Additionally, the research shows that respondents value US innovation and entrepreneurship and are more likely to support government action on climate that evokes these ideals.

Unfortunately, the ACES bill focuses too much on limiting human activity rather that encouraging the innovation and entrepreneurship. This represents a missed opportunity to advance climate solutions while working with the aspirations of the American people.