By Michael O’Sullivan
When I wrote last week about Vice President Harris' clever (and misleading) statement linking the pursuit of diverse energy sources to independence from foreign oil dependence, I suspected there was more to it. I just hadn't come across the evidence—until I saw a headline referencing a recent study documented in a research article published by PNAS. For the uninitiated, PNAS is a well-known scientific journal trusted by many, but not all.
The title of the research article is: Impacts of Systemic Design on Climate Awareness and Environmentalism in the United States and Elsewhere. I know that sounds pretty bold. But I bought and read it so you don't have to.
The goal of the study is to find out whether people are more willing to support climate action if they are first exposed to “patriotic” and “system-approved” messages. My spider sense is already tingling, because there is a hypothesis in this goal that doesn't feel right.
They didn't ask themselves whether people could be influenced by a certain type of message (that would sound like objective science). They started with a specific message – meaning someone wanted to know if that particular message would have the desired effect. That sounds like an agenda.
So let's look at the inciting incident for such a story. The writers point out that concern for the planet alone could not motivate enough people to make the sacrifices necessary to avert a supposed catastrophe. It seems that many of us, like poor R2 unit, have a poor motivator. So we need something else. Something more instinctive. Something that really moves us.
That something, it turns out, is the status quo. Here in America, we care deeply about preserving our way of life. And we should do that—it's a good thing. In fact, the authors suggest that the status quo is what keeps many people from taking action. Their version of supposedly saving the planet requires changes that affect the way we live, and we naturally resist such changes—especially when we aren't convinced that the cause is real. So someone has hatched a plan to use our defenses against us. And they tested their idea with this study.
And so they did. They presented participants with a series of statements and sentimental photos that linked environmental issues with happiness and life in America. At the end it says, “Let's keep the United States the way it should be.” Smart.
After reading the “message,” participants answered questions about the extent of climate change and what should be done about it—from tax increases to government-mandated “sustainable” energy. The control group, which read only a random passage from Great Expectations, answered the same questions.
And now for the exciting conclusion:
In a large, nationally representative U.S. sample, we found that the system-sanctioned change intervention successfully increased belief in climate change among both liberal leftists and conservative rightists, support for pro-environmental policies, and willingness to share climate information on social media.
Sounds Orwellian? I thought so too.
It's probably no coincidence that this study was published on September 9, and the presidential debate was a day later. Kudos to Harris' team for picking up the study so quickly and incorporating it—unless they had an advance copy, because the study was accepted by PNAS in June.
I could say a lot about the study itself and how the “message” is constructed according to the basic rules of propaganda. But few of us are truly innocent of this accusation, even if it is for honorable purposes. Nevertheless, the mission of this type of message is not to win on logical grounds. In the words of the research article, it states:
We tested an experimental manipulation derived from system justification theory in which pro-environmental initiatives were portrayed as patriotic and necessary to maintain the American way of life.
It is objectively clear from the text that someone wants to manipulate us. Someone wants us to hear something that will make us follow their wishes.
If it were really about protecting our way of life, then the environment would be an important consideration. But in today's world, the most important factor is affordable, reliable energy – without it, everything grinds to a halt. If we really want to keep the United States the way it should be, then it all starts with energy. And the only proven solution right now is cheap, abundant oil and natural gas. We have enough of that in America to sustain our way of life for a long time to come. At least until someone perfects dilithium crystals.
This supposedly scientific study is not about preserving our lifestyle. But it certainly provides a basis for a flood of new messages.
Coming soon to a campaign near you.
Michael O'Sullivan is the Program Director and COO of Blue Energy Nation, a nonprofit that educates young people about the realities of energy. He is also a popular podcast host and an advocate for smart energy choices.
This article was originally published by RealClearEnergy and made available through RealClearWire.
Like this:
Load…
