I remain convinced that climate change is the greatest concern facing the world today, more dire than the threats to democracy or the rise of AI. Long-time readers are aware of my priority on tree-planting and other nature-based solutions (“NBS”) to the crisis. Even without the sharp reversals in policy and attitude by the current Administration, changing human behaviors and public policies (including mandatory comprehensive carbon markets) on a world-wide basis will only occur once the impact—storms, famine, heat waves—starts killing millions of people. Those focused on voluntary carbon markets are doing good work, but their scope is small and (as we’ve seen lately in the US political contexts) voluntary corporate commitments to carbon are ephemeral and politically vulnerable.
It's a daunting prospect. Motivating people to take steps in the short-term that will only have the benefit of mitigating (not preventing) these disasters in decades to come is a challenge in any case. The many well-meaning people who “get” the climate crisis are trying to connect and energize broader swaths of the population to take steps to make a difference, but far more is needed. We need the marketing/advertising masters who have promoted our consumer culture to put their insights and inspiration to a more meaningful cause than selling dishwashing detergent or ginning up audiences for “The Real Housewives of South Podunk.” Again, I’m not talking about campaigns to change behavior (reducing power usage, recycling, etc.) or promoting legislation for carbon markets; I’m focused on means to work with nature to avoid the release of carbon or lock up more of it in the natural world around us. NBS can, by reasonably reliable estimates, handle about 1/3 of the world’s carbon problem over the next few decades and make a real difference in the world of the mid-21C.
We need to make carbon fun/engaging/interesting (or at least as fun as possible given the context). The story can’t just be scientific reports and tables of data. That’s not how you sell tortilla chips or athletic shoes and it won’t work with this tougher item. We need catchy phrases, punch lines, and (probably) some adorable creature/mascot.
As one trained in the law and in history, I claim no great skill set in this regard. However clever I might be at word-play and cultural allusions, I have no illusions about my “common touch.” But, since it’s “all hands on deck” for the climate crisis, here’s one way to think about carbon sequestration.
There is a wide range of environments in which nature can contribute to solving the carbon problem. I think of it as a “carbon rainbow.” I got the idea from the “Blue Carbon” deals which the Nature Conservancy (and others) have done with an increasing list of small and less-developed countries in which commitments are made to preserve/extend/protect ocean and lake areas in return for a reduction/rescheduling of the country’s existing public debt load. Then I thought about the various other modes of reducing/storing carbon. The “green” leaves of trees, the “brown” of peat bogs, the “yellow” of grasslands, the “black” of coal/oil,
My initial engagement in this area was in planting trees. Several groups raised funds by offering to plant a tree for a fixed amount. I quickly noticed that the cost to plant in the US was much higher than overseas and, focused on getting the biggest carbon “bang for the buck,” I got involved with several groups in this regard. Some of them also worked with consumer-oriented businesses and offered to plant a tree if you bought a jar of their product or similar schticks. This model had the advantage of being consumer friendly—allowing ordinary folks to participate in the climate-solutions process. However, they had the disadvantage of mis-characterizing the nature of the climate solution. Trees involve much more than planting. They need to be sustained over decades and the “dollar-a-tree” model doesn’t really work. Most of these groups have moved to a less-specific model, raising funds for projects, but in less discrete bites.
So, there’s a gap. We need simple-to-understand programs to connect with ordinary folks at the “small bite” level. In the US, the “Arbor Day Foundation has been working this angle for decades, but needs a real ‘juice-up.’One idea in this regard is to adapt a program that was effective back in the 1960s: the UNICEF milk-carton program by which school kids would raise money for UNICEF by collecting small change in a small orange milk carton when we went around “trick-or-treating” at Halloween. In addition to its financial benefits, this program was quite effective at raising awareness of UNICEF with both children and adults and gave children the opportunity to participate directly in a public-service program. Today, with QR codes and “Go Fund Me” similar programs are digitized, but the underlying public awareness campaign is lacking.
As long as the solutions advanced are macro and distant from daily life and contact, it will remain easy to ignore them and let “somebody else” take care of them. We list saturated fat on all food items, why not their carbon cost as well.
Most of the effort in carbon markets has gone towards large corporations and mega, globe-spanning systems. Those would be great if there was a consensus for action by governments world-wide or even a massive upswelling of popular demand. But that is not the world we live in (even before the present retreat). In the meantime, ordinary folks need to be involved and given the opportunity to participate directly in saving the planet. I’m not sure what the right messaging is or how to combine scare tactics with some kumbaya sensibility. But there are experienced communications professionals out there who need to get us all together on this campaign.
It's a daunting prospect. Motivating people to take steps in the short-term that will only have the benefit of mitigating (not preventing) these disasters in decades to come is a challenge in any case. The many well-meaning people who “get” the climate crisis are trying to connect and energize broader swaths of the population to take steps to make a difference, but far more is needed. We need the marketing/advertising masters who have promoted our consumer culture to put their insights and inspiration to a more meaningful cause than selling dishwashing detergent or ginning up audiences for “The Real Housewives of South Podunk.” Again, I’m not talking about campaigns to change behavior (reducing power usage, recycling, etc.) or promoting legislation for carbon markets; I’m focused on means to work with nature to avoid the release of carbon or lock up more of it in the natural world around us. NBS can, by reasonably reliable estimates, handle about 1/3 of the world’s carbon problem over the next few decades and make a real difference in the world of the mid-21C.
We need to make carbon fun/engaging/interesting (or at least as fun as possible given the context). The story can’t just be scientific reports and tables of data. That’s not how you sell tortilla chips or athletic shoes and it won’t work with this tougher item. We need catchy phrases, punch lines, and (probably) some adorable creature/mascot.
As one trained in the law and in history, I claim no great skill set in this regard. However clever I might be at word-play and cultural allusions, I have no illusions about my “common touch.” But, since it’s “all hands on deck” for the climate crisis, here’s one way to think about carbon sequestration.
There is a wide range of environments in which nature can contribute to solving the carbon problem. I think of it as a “carbon rainbow.” I got the idea from the “Blue Carbon” deals which the Nature Conservancy (and others) have done with an increasing list of small and less-developed countries in which commitments are made to preserve/extend/protect ocean and lake areas in return for a reduction/rescheduling of the country’s existing public debt load. Then I thought about the various other modes of reducing/storing carbon. The “green” leaves of trees, the “brown” of peat bogs, the “yellow” of grasslands, the “black” of coal/oil,
My initial engagement in this area was in planting trees. Several groups raised funds by offering to plant a tree for a fixed amount. I quickly noticed that the cost to plant in the US was much higher than overseas and, focused on getting the biggest carbon “bang for the buck,” I got involved with several groups in this regard. Some of them also worked with consumer-oriented businesses and offered to plant a tree if you bought a jar of their product or similar schticks. This model had the advantage of being consumer friendly—allowing ordinary folks to participate in the climate-solutions process. However, they had the disadvantage of mis-characterizing the nature of the climate solution. Trees involve much more than planting. They need to be sustained over decades and the “dollar-a-tree” model doesn’t really work. Most of these groups have moved to a less-specific model, raising funds for projects, but in less discrete bites.
So, there’s a gap. We need simple-to-understand programs to connect with ordinary folks at the “small bite” level. In the US, the “Arbor Day Foundation has been working this angle for decades, but needs a real ‘juice-up.’One idea in this regard is to adapt a program that was effective back in the 1960s: the UNICEF milk-carton program by which school kids would raise money for UNICEF by collecting small change in a small orange milk carton when we went around “trick-or-treating” at Halloween. In addition to its financial benefits, this program was quite effective at raising awareness of UNICEF with both children and adults and gave children the opportunity to participate directly in a public-service program. Today, with QR codes and “Go Fund Me” similar programs are digitized, but the underlying public awareness campaign is lacking.
As long as the solutions advanced are macro and distant from daily life and contact, it will remain easy to ignore them and let “somebody else” take care of them. We list saturated fat on all food items, why not their carbon cost as well.
Most of the effort in carbon markets has gone towards large corporations and mega, globe-spanning systems. Those would be great if there was a consensus for action by governments world-wide or even a massive upswelling of popular demand. But that is not the world we live in (even before the present retreat). In the meantime, ordinary folks need to be involved and given the opportunity to participate directly in saving the planet. I’m not sure what the right messaging is or how to combine scare tactics with some kumbaya sensibility. But there are experienced communications professionals out there who need to get us all together on this campaign.
RSS Feed