Climate: Using the wrong language

To be successful, communication must transcend words. Intention, perspective, even plain meaning varies by individual and must take emotion into account. Otherwise an exchange of words becomes like a repetitious congressional budget debate, leading nowhere and facing a shutdown.

Take marriage troubles, for example. They too often center around money, but is it really the money itself? Rarely so. It's what money symbolizes: security, inequality, power. As long as the couple keep fighting about money, instead of what they really fear or want, they'll keep fighting.

The debate over climate change is no different. Compassion from both sides is lacking; they aren't speaking each other's language. Perhaps the greater responsibility, at least at this point, lies on one side.

Bear with me.

Broken down to simplest form, one side of the climate change debate could be called "science." Ask the other side, however, and they'd name it "environmentalism," at best. Right there we have a clue: Those who believe that there is no problem, or the problem has been exaggerated, disbelieve the science. No matter what side you fall on, no one really wants to see Earth's atmosphere burn up, people suffer, and so on. To accuse anyone of such belies a lack of understanding of the belief, the fear, behind the words.

So from a purely communicative standpoint, how helpful is it to keep arguing the same global warming statistics? It isn't. Yet that's what continues.

If it isn't about accepting science for many of these folks, what is it? Policy. This is where more compassion could come from the opposing side, or at least practicality. What they're really saying is, "We don't trust government. We don't trust what it's telling us (here or abroad, where there is no debate about climate change) and we don't trust what it would do to address the problem."

A dose of skepticism is a very healthy, and very American, thing.

From a policy standpoint at the crux of this argument is economics, so the language of climatic debate needs to espouse those terms. Like the couple fighting over money, it boils down to trust and common goals.

Few Americans would argue that reducing pollution in concept is bad (regardless of how much damage may exist now), but we disagree on how it occurs - who controls private action and to what extent - so we're not getting anywhere.

What we need is private leadership. Bring to the debate economists and business leaders; see if more can agree that in terms of resources, compromise and voluntary restraint can benefit all.

It wasn't long ago that curbside recycling was unheard of; now participation grows voluntarily. Some businesses have already followed suit: Companies brag about environmental friendliness, cars are designed to emit less. It may seem slow, but there is progress.

Like the therapist's counsel to the fighting couple, communication in this debate needs to change. If we can speak the same language, we may get somewhere.

Sholeh Patrick is a columnist for the Hagadone News Network. Email sholehjo@hotmail.com