Will climate funders allow Enlightenment Fallacy to destroy the planet?

This is a guest post by FrameLab contributor David Fenton.

Progressives often suffer from what Dr. George Lakoff calls the Enlightenment Fallacy. This is the belief that great ideas are intrinsically convincing because of their obvious brilliance – and because ideas based on science and reason appeal to the rational mind. There is no need to “sell” these ideas, because selling is viewed as dirty, manipulative and sullying to the ideas themselves.

This Enlightenment reason-based view is common among those who study the humanities, sciences and law. 

Conservatives know otherwise. They invest in selling ideas. They often go to business school, where they study cognitive and marketing science, then use these skills to sell products and services — or to spread confusion and disinformation to pass or stop policy changes affecting their businesses. 

Public knowledge = political will

Take the propaganda war to save a livable climate. Only one side — the fossil fuel industry — is really on the battlefield, as there is little investment by climate organizations or funders in creating public knowledge. Yet public knowledge is the foundation of political will, which we sorely lack on climate. 

Research shows the result of this failure to reach the public. In a recent Yale Project on Climate Change Communication’s survey, likely voters ranked climate change 19^th of 28 issues. Nearly two thirds of the American public report they “rarely or never” hear anyone talking about climate change or anything about it in the media.

Most of the public doesn’t believe climate change will affect them, even as extreme weather is going nuts around the world. Most Americans cannot tell you what causes climate change nor how to solve it. The number one reason they give is climate change is caused by the ozone hole, which it is not. How to solve it? Most people say “reduce, reuse and recycle,” which won’t solve it. 

Climate: Failure to communicate

How are we supposed to push politicians and companies to act on an issue people think is a low priority, rarely hear about and can’t even explain? 

This is clearly a massive communications failure by our climate movement. And no, it isn’t just because the fossil fuel industry has more money. It is because they value and understand the importance of public persuasion, and we largely don’t. Look how the fossil fuel companies sponsor all the major political newsletters like Politico, Axios, Semafor and the rest, and so many news programs. They know it is worth it. The climate movement, not so much. 

Why isn’t there philanthropic support to get the most basic information to the public? For example, only 21% of Americans know there is scientific consensus on climate change. Most people falsely believe there is enormous scientific disagreement about whether humans are heating the earth — when, among published climate scientists, there is none. Yale research shows that when you present any group of Americans, even conservatives, with the truth, support for climate action skyrockets. We have no campaign to get this truth to the public at scale.

Metaphors matter 

Why is there no campaign, using the principles of cognitive science, including simple messaging and repetition, to help more Americans understand that pollution from oil, coal and gas is the cause of climate change? Data shows that the simple visual metaphor of the “pollution blanket” around the earth is highly effective in improving public cognition. That blanket is trapping heat that used to go back to space — under it all that trapped energy is making storms and heat waves stronger.

People get this. But they pretty much never see this visual metaphor. 

Recently, someone who works with climate funders told me that there was only communications money for the achievement of “specific policy goals.” If you want funding for a campaign to install more charging stations for electric cars, you might get it. Or to pass a tougher building code in Idaho, for example. This is fine so far as it goes, but completely misses the forest for the trees. 

Because if you really want the public to push for more charging stations, or better energy building codes, or more solar and wind and batteries — help them understand they need these to protect their way of life on a livable planet. That if we don’t rapidly change to 100% clean energy and transportation, their homes, kids, health, safety and security are under massive threat. That their ability to buy home insurance will disappear. Their utility rates will skyrocket. That massive waves of climate refugees will inundate our country, which has already begun. The public largely knows none of this. 

A major climate foundation has raised over a billion dollars (!) for a global campaign to increase the adoption of electric vehicles. This is fantastic, except that it appears almost all this money will be spent to hire lobbyists and experts to achieve policy goals. Little or nothing will be invested in public understanding and demand for electric cars. There will be no marketing campaign. Meanwhile, the oil companies are funding public disinformation campaigns to discourage electric car adoption. Partly as a result, demand is slacking, and Ford just delayed and, in some cases, abandoned, investments in battery and electric car factories. 

We climate activists bemoan that Kamala Harris only uttered seven words about climate change in her Democratic National Convention acceptance speech, while Tim Walz said nothing at all. We flinch while watching her proclaim proudly that America is the #1 global petrostate, producing more oil than any other nation. Yet we don’t invest in helping the public link this increased oil production to the destruction of our economy and way of life. So maybe we shouldn’t blame Kamala until we do.

Time to start selling 

We are upset that few candidates run prominently on a climate change platform. Yet how can they until we raise the saliency of climate as a voting issue in their districts first? And yes, we can measure the efficacy of every step of such an effort. 

The world needs to rapidly mount a war-like mobilization to decarbonize the entire economy, or we face chaos, destruction and certain economic decline. The thought that we can achieve this without the public demanding it is fantasy.

And why would the public agree to go to war if they don’t even know they are under attack? When it comes to climate change, they largely do not know. Philanthropy has the money to transform public knowledge and thereby provide the political will this country lacks on climate.

Let’s hope they get over the Enlightenment Fallacy and start selling in the little time we have left to save a livable earth. 

David Fenton, a longtime climate activist, is the author of “The Activist’s Media Handbook: Lessons from 50 Years as a Progressive Agitator,” with an introduction by George Lakoff.