Climate Change Has A Branding Problem


G’ Day Everyone I want to play a game with
you all. I’m going to say a name, and you think about
how the word makes you feel. Ready? Heres the Name Christopher Columbus. Now depending on your political outlook, Chris
Columbus can be either a hero or villain, make you feel either proud or angry. The textbook view on Chris is that he was
a cool explorer, but he was also a bit of a douche, because he enslaving and mutilating
flogging and executing without trial of what is now Haiti and the Dominical Republic. So one word can mean two totally different
emotion n depending on your outlook. Lets play the name again and I’m going to
give you another phrase: Climate change The politics of climate change are well documented:
If you’re a democrat it probably made you feel like worried about the future, proud
of the discoveries of the science and like thinking about ways to make the world more
sustainable If you’re a republican, and i said Climate
Change, it probanly makes you think those Damn scientist who dont know what they are
doing, and China has a hoax on us all. Views along climate fall pretty exactly along
the political spectrum. when a group was asked: Can Climate Scientists
can be trusted to give accurate information, only 15% of conservative republicans said
yes, compared to 70% of liberal/progressive democrats. So you can see its a pretty big margin depending
on what side of the political spectrum you sit on So when one phrase, climate change, has this
completely different meaning to two groups, it has what’s called a “branding problem”. And this happens alot, both in the corporate
world but also in the political world So for example, Philip Morris, they sell cigarettes
and they are well known for selling cigerates but they also have a number of other companies. To protect their non cigerettes stuff they
had to rebrand the name of their company and get a new logoand they became Altria in 2003
so that people wouldnt hate the company Steve jobs changed Apple computers to just
‘apple’ before launching the ipod Anti abortionists deliberately rebranded themselves
to be “pro life”. instead of anti abortion And pro-abortionists called themselves “pro
choice”. They’re both pro something that sounds good Shell shock as renamed post traumatic stress
disorder in recent times the more accurate of how one gets it and how it can be treated Those are some examples from the corporate
world but we do it in politics as well for example The affordable care act was rebranded by republicans
as Obamacare to make republicans hate the idea of universal healthcare that would benefit
them During WW1 The German Shepherd was renamed
the “Alsatian,” by the British who hated the German During 2003, french objection to War in Iraq
led to French fries renamed ‘freedom fries’. And oops I used the wrong name there. Bush chose to brand the war in Iraq “the
war on terror” to make it more politically palitable to mainstream america So rebranding is done alot of the times for
alot of reasons and its usually done when the thing we are talking about ‘Climate Change’
is starting to take on negative political association. If we are serious about getting the republicans
party and the conservatives in America to support action on climate change, we need
to stop using the phrase Climate Change. It has negative association that no amount
of fact or data or information are ever gonna solve. So what do we call this thing climate change. Well alot of people are talking about actions
on climate change that sound really good like supporting energy independence or renewable
energy. They sound like things that are cool. But we can also rename the whole idea of climate
change to something thats more accurate. I suggest Human Caused Climate Instability
its more accurate it tells a more accurate picture of what it really is. it tells you that its caused by humans and
it more accurately reflects the output of climate change because we need to talk about
climate change we kind of think about weather, when we talk about climate instability, we
think of storms and hurricanes and stuff thats gonna happen because of climate change So ultimatly we know that climate change has
a really big problem and the scientific community needs to stop telling people heres the facts
and needs to rebranding and tapping into the power of marketing. I dont know why we never managed to do this
but time is running out on convincing the public, we know we are doing a teriible job. we are gonn have to do something drastic and
we gonna have to do it soon So what do you guys think. Do you think human caused climate instability
is a good name for climate change? have you seen any others? what do you think in general? let us know in the comments below. HI everyone! I’m Jayde Lovell, resident science nerd at
the Young Turks Network. You’re watching SciQ, and we know you don’t
want to miss an episode, so click the subscribe button down below.




Comments
  1. Do you think "Human Caused Climate Instability" is a good name for climate change? Have you seen any others? What do you think of rebranding in general? Let us know your thoughts in the comments below!

  2. Climate Change inc. has more than a branding issue.

    Its a fraud.

    CO2 is life. Plants need it to grow, right?

    CO2 is a heavy gas right? so how the fuck does it affect the jetstream at 10km alt. while nothing grows over 5km, mainly for lack of co2?

    Also why are the highest concentration of CO2 found in the hemispheres are always during the winter season? Aint that shit supposed to HEAT the atmosphere?

    Not to mention that earth has lost 25% of its magnetic shield already and that the SUN is now entering a solar minimum

    Youre a joke. You should be ashamed.

  3. I like the Human caused climate instability, but getting republicans to stop taking bribes from the fossil fuel industry will require moving money out of the equation. So long as politicians take money from the people whose only vested interest is to deny the facts we will be on this dead end path until DC is under water. The fact that the effects of climate change are already being felt in areas like the arctic and the pacific islands is not convincing them is proof they will have to be dragged, kicking and screaming, towards the facts. Sorry this seems gloomy, but the good news is the rest of the world is on board.

  4. Great video, glad to see the channel is growing and I think your right about re-branding climate change. Anytime you bring it up to a Republican they go nuts o crazy pants on your ass. Republicans have done a great job of re-branding climate change within their own party. I just hope we can turn their minds around before it's to late for future generations. We'll be alright for now, uncomfortable but alright.

  5. Climate has changed since the first creature walked on this earth man is affecting climate this is true but so did the dinosaurs they created greenhouse gases every time they farted I'm not trying to be funny just stating a fact the climate will always change yes we can help change the way we do things but we will always have mini Ice Age is we will always have drought that's just the way the world works I don't think rebranding is going to change the way people treat this planet I hope it works but man as a whole is a destroyer not a creator.

  6. Re branding something doesn't make it right or wrong, if anything it often hides the real issues.
    For example: abortion. To hide the fact that we are indeed killing a baby, we give it different name: a fetus, now we can displace our guilt by convincing ourselves their is not an issue of ethics that needs to be addressed. If you disagree, then survey all the pregnant women that want to keep their children, they don't walk around exuberantly discussing their fetus. They talk about their baby. Those that are proponents of cutting short a potential life, choose not to use the word baby. This is standard psychology. But in this "branding" example there is something to address.
    Your other "branding" examples are all examples of a similar psychology. But in each case their is a legitimate argument on each side.

    However with "climate change" you have no foundation of discussion. Their is no "branding" because you are trying to simply rename a vacuous thought. Renaming "climate change" to something else is like saying that 2+2 = 22. And calling it "progressive math".

    To me science is more than the Latin root. "Knowledge"
    Science is systematic knowledge. Systematic in that it conforms to the scientific method. Conjecture, experiment, prove or disprove. And it has to be repeatable. And it has to be predictable.

    All I here in "climate change" or whatever name you want to give it, is the first part: Conjecture, and the last part prediction.
    Show me the repeatable experiments, and the proof.
    Show me where one prediction has come true. Show me science.

    Until you do you can call "global warming" (hmmm the first re-branding), or climate change or whatever:
    "Grimms fairietales about the Earth"
    Probably a better name for it.

  7. I don't think it matters how you rebrand climate change – infacts "brands" and marketing is the problem itself. The very occurance of climate change, and us even having any responsibility to do anything about it, seems to me contrary to dominant philosophies in western culture. LGBT is another example of this. But then anything that is different is confusing for people: everything is treated like a lifestyle choice – even if you were born African-American or you have a disability you were born with. All lifestyle choices have a philosophy behind them and frankly Transgender doesn't really have any philosophy to support it other than tolerance – Atheism, Rationalism, Libertarianism and Liberal Socialism and Feminism really don't ideologically support the reality of Transgender people. Academic fields such as Sociology don't support transgender people. It is an inherent problem with the shift from spiritual beliefs to atheism/rationalism with the rise of capitalism through technological advancement (so we're all products essentially)… Anything that falls outside – even natural things such our planets reaction to the human production of CO2 – might as well be with the beliefs of the Dog Heads. Frankly, the political problem needs solving – that's what we're trying to do today with the candidate of Jeremy Corbyn for Prime Minister in the UK parliamentary elections… You guys should've pushed harder for Bernie Sanders.

  8. Pro choice people are not pro abortion — being pro abortion would mean thinking every pregnant person should always terminate that pregnancy with an abortion, and I've never heard of anyone who thinks that. It's called pro choice because it's the stance that says no one should be forced either way.

  9. Ten seconds after you announce the new branding, guess what the conservative Republicans will develop a bias against? There's nothing wrong with "climate change" or "global warming" inherently. They have been targeted because of their contents, not their phrasing.

  10. Why not interview someone like "Contrapoints" for a perspective on why the left has failed and why the right is winning – I mean your video will probably get flagged and taken down but it's worth a try no?

  11. You are spot on here! This would be the one big thing that the climate science cause should do to get more support around the world. I think the same thing about any Green Party in politics. They need to rebrand if they really want people to vote for them in any big way. 👍🏼

  12. Those that say we must stop the "climate change" also are against the less CO2 emitting, safer and stable energy sorce: Nuclear. That is their hypocrisy.

  13. I'm with you on the branding problem but it's frustrating because we already had to rebrand global warming into climate change. I just hate that we have to keep doing this to convince people who would rather be right than correct.

  14. Are you really that stupid?

    1) Climate is always changing, it's a normal phenomenon.
    2) With chemtrails & HAARP, climate is being manipulated by some government officials. For personal financial gains, depopulation, and even used as a weapon! (Go ask the people of Fukushima, there has never been a tsunami like that in the history of Japan!)

  15. In America whether or not you believe in science is dependent on your political leanings. Should you really be considered liberal just because you accept that science is a real thing? Or should that be something everyone just understands? This must seem absolutely Froot Loops to people in other countries. And it is. But in the US the mere existence of science is a political issue. That's fucking bananas. B-A-N-A-N-A-S.

  16. The "rebranding" examples you have given are part of a branch of linguistics called 'Neurolinguistics', where the effects of words used to describe events and things are changed in tone to make the subject matter less incisive in its overt description and more palatable among the general public or target audience. Climate Change has already been through this process before with it being called Global Warming in the late 90's, whereas Climate Change was introduced by politicians and the media in the early 2000's to give the effects of global warming a more ambiguous tone of phrase to lessen the alarm surrounding the issue.

  17. Jayde, I'm afraid you may have forgotten that Climate Change has already been re-branded to make it a more palatable concept for conservatives. We used to call it Global Warming because that was the most obvious effect, but conservatives kept arguing that snow was an obvious sign of how wrong that was. Nevermind the skyrocketing summer temperatures. So we all started calling it Climate Change, which is a more scientifically accurate term, but more importantly it has the word change in it. Since conservatives hate change, they should therefore also be more amenable to preventing Climate Change. Unfortunately, they used their other typical approach, sticking their heads in the sand and pretending that it doesn't exist.

    Marketing and re-branding does sometimes work, but mostly only when it flies under the radar. This kind of intentional, willful ignorance can only be fought with brute force. We prove the reality, vote out the bastards resistant to doing the right thing, and change the corrupt system that put them in power. Want to fix Climate Change? Help get rid of the Electoral College. Conservatives are losing the vote but getting elected, anyway. Fix that and we'll quickly see that the vast majority of the population is on the right side.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *