This is a well-written essay, but I wonder about the value of publicly
criticizing our allies in the media.  It seems to me we should support (or
at least refrain from denouncing) all efforts to raise public awareness.  It
might be better to save our critical comments for those (and there are many)
who are actively opposed to creating a sustainable human society.

> Oh dear. Why, after so many years, are we still getting it so wrong?

Yes, why can't we understand that solidarity and mutual support are
essential to a successful social movement?

John
---------------------------------------------------------------
John Scull
http://members.shaw.ca/jscull
"It isn't the mountain ahead that wears you out; it's the grain of sand in
your shoe."
                                         --Robert Service




----- Original Message ----- 
From: "George Marshall" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Saturday, March 28, 2009 1:41 AM
Subject: Earth Hour: Turning out the lights plays into the hands of our
critics


> http://www.guardian.co.uk:80/environment/cif-green/2009/mar/27/climate-change-carbon-emissions
>
> Darkness evokes feelings of danger, decay and death. So why use such
> imagery to highlight our cause?
>
> Passengers on the London Eye look our across the capital's skyline.
> Photograph: Daniel Berehulak/Getty Images
>
> In my 25 years of environmental campaigning I have seen lots of inspired
> protests and lots of daft or pointless ones. But the WWF Earth Hour
> campaign has to be one of the most misguided and counterproductive
> actions I have ever seen.
>
> On the face of it, this seems like a rather neat idea, which ticks every
> box for a mass action. Turning your lights off for an hour this Saturday
> from 8.30pm is a small, simple act that is easy to publicise.
>
> It is highly visible. It's something anyone can do and can involve both
> individuals and large businesses. WWF expects hundreds of millions of
> people around the world to take part <http://www.earthhour.org/home/>.
> And, best of all, the action is not just a symbol but it makes a
> positive and even measurable contribution to the core issue ? reducing
> emissions.
>
> Sounds great. However, let's deal with one assumption first: this will
> not actually reduce any emissions. Power companies always keep spare
> capacity and will keep their turbines spinning through this
> unpredictable fall in demand in preparation for when people turn their
> lights back on again.
>
> Given that this action is entirely symbolic it deserves some more
> searching questions: who is this speaking to? What is it saying to them?
> And how does it speak to their existing attitudes and prejudices ?
>
> If you are talking to dedicated green liberals this protest
> <http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/protest> works fine. They already
> believe in climate change
> <http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/climate-change> and soft symbolic
> forms of mass action. They already buy into the concept if reducing
> energy consumption and switching things off
> <http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2007/sep/13/ethicalliving.climatechange>
> ? even if, in practice, they aren't very good at it.
>
> But right now greens are the last people we need to be talking to. The
> absolute priority is engaging the large majority of the population who
> are concerned about climate change, but feel deeply ambivalent about the
> motivations of environmentalists and government.
>
> Repeatedly in focus groups, people adopt a defensive stance
> <http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/cif-green/2009/mar/09/denial-climate-change-psychology>
> against people who ? they feel ? are using the issue to take away
> material benefits. Asking people to sit in the dark plays very well to a
> widely held prejudice that "the greens" want us all to go back to living
> in caves.
>
> And if we examine the deeper symbolism, things become far worse. George
> Lakoff, professor of cognitive linguistics at the University of
> California, argues that while we claim to listen to surface argument, it
> is really the deeper metaphors embodied in our language that create our
> attitudes.
>
> Light has a vast range of positive and aspirational associations:
> civilisation, truth, health, intelligence, safety, hope, life and
> salvation. Those opposing action on climate change understand this well
> and frequently use images of electric light at night in their publicity
> as a metaphor for excitement, civilisation, and progress.
>
> So it is hard to think of any image more destructive to our cause than
> turning off lights. The metaphors of darkness are overwhelmingly
> negative: danger, decay, and death. We see the dark ages as a time of
> brutality. Poets such as Dylan Thomas call on us to "rage against the
> dying of the light". Sir Edward Grey on the eve of the first world war
> said "the lamps are going out all over Europe". Really the cultural
> resonance could hardly be worse.
>
> The overwhelming need at the moment is to inspire ordinary people with a
> vision of a better world, to make them feel that action on climate
> change is utterly desirable and positive.
>
> We have so many positive metaphors on our side ? emerging from the
> danger and filth of buried fossil fuels into the sunlight of solar
> power; the core values of locality and community; the health that comes
> from good diet and exercise; and, as a larger narrative, humanity's long
> journey towards a cleaner, smarter and more efficient future.
>
> Oh dear. Why, after so many years, are we still getting it so wrong?
>
>
>