E2, NRDC and other environmental organizations seek to communicate environmental values to different groups of people. We strive to increase our effectiveness and therefore face the question: How do we target our message, or "market" environmental values, to reach the broadest possible group of American consumers and voters?

E2 is a non-partisan group and does not endorse candidates. Our particular interest is having citizens demand better environmental policies from their elected officials.

To put this discussion in context, consider this glaring contradiction: Polling shows that in the upcoming election, Americans will be "voting on their values." A Gallup poll early this year showed that on a scale of not at all important to extremely important, 62% of American voters ranked the environment as an issue that was "somewhat to extremely important" to them - a clear statement of values. Yet, in a subsequent Gallup poll that asked voters to name the issues most important to them in this year's presidential election only 1 to 4 percent ranked the environment as a priority. (By contrast, see E2's Jan 2004 newsletter for a survey about the public's view of the current administration's environmental agenda.)

With these sorts of results, it's no surprise that neither presidential candidate has focused much attention on the critical environmental challenges that our country faces today. And, we are left to wonder why there is there such a disconnect between the value and the vote.

We believe one answer lies in the basic business discipline of marketing - perhaps the environment needs a "PR overhaul." It's time we started borrowing from the increasingly rich discipline of strategic marketing in order to frame and communicate our message more effectively - to express today's environmental debate in terms that connect squarely with the core individual values. Today, our "competitors" (defined here as organizations that are willing to take risk or damage the environment in order to promote other agendas) are controlling the debate over environmental issues, and they're defining the positioning of protecting environment as inconsistent with other values such as business growth. They say we have to choose:

• between a robust economy and clean air, or safe drinking water;
• between energy security and destruction of pristine wilderness like the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, or other places in our Western states;
• between jobs in communities and public health;
• between national security and environmental quality; and
• between "the American way of life" and higher fuel efficiency standards for America's vehicle fleet.

These are all false choices, yet they've dominated public perceptions for a dangerously long time. At our October San Francisco EcoSalon three speakers addressed this problem from their own professional perspectives. George Lakoff, Senior Fellow at the Rockridge Institute and Professor of Linguistics at U.C. Berkeley discussed the importance of framing issues to communicate to a wider audience. Jacob Scherr, Director of NRDC's International Program and Biogems Initiative, talked about the marketing tactics he currently employs to save endangered ecosystems. And Catherine Stellin of the market research firm Youth Intelligence described the environmental attitudes of Generation Y and how to appeal to this group of future advocates.

Professor Lakoff explained that people understand concepts in terms of "conceptual frames"; images or terminology that make sense to them based on their value systems. Words that are associated with frames provide a context for the message so that when you hear the word you think of the frame.

For example, think of the phrase "tax relief." The frame for the word "relief" is the removal of an affliction. The image is of an injured party, and a rescuer who takes the affliction away. When you add the word "tax" you get a metaphor - taxation is an affliction that needs to be eliminated. Whether you like it or not, this association has been built up in people's brains.

According to Professor Lakoff, this is why it's counterproductive to use your opponent's words. Factual arguments are futile against an established set of frames, as the "frame" tends to trump the facts. To build on the above example, consider the statement "tax relief is bad". "Bad relief" just doesn't make sense to most of us because of our established recognition of "relief" as a "good thing." For a frame and its associated words to be successful takes careful thought, constant repetition and adoption by the media.

In applying his work to the environment, Professor Lakoff noted that few people identify personally with the word "environment". They do, however, identify with "health" and with "business". Rather than thinking of the environment as a stand-alone topic, Professor Lakoff suggests that more people will identify with environmental quality issues when they are framed in terms of personal health and well being, and as the foundation for good business.

Jacob Scherr discussed the NRDC Biogems Initiative, which was launched after NRDC's successful campaign to save the gray whale breeding ground at Laguna San Ignacio. The program has made wide use of the Internet to rally citizen letter writing campaigns and consumer boycotts, using a communications strategy built on "rescue" stories to save biologically important wild places under imminent threat. Jacob also noted that "charismatic mega-fauna", such as the gray whale in San Ignacio, help people identify with the need to protect certain areas. The frame "Biogem" is starting to stick. When NRDC added the Cumberland Plateau, a rare old growth forest area in the Southeastern United States, to its Biogem program, the NRDC designation received press coverage in the local newspapers.

Catherine Stellin, Vice President of the firm Youth Intelligence, discussed her specific research on the values of "Generation X" (25-35 year-olds) and "Generation Y" (15 to 25 year-olds), done for NRDC. Her findings indicate that younger generations don't see the environment as their top issue when compared to war, drugs in school and violence. Being able to worry about the environment is a luxury issue to them. They want to focus on items that are life or death issues. Fortunately (or unfortunately), many environmental issues fall into this category.

To successfully gain the attention and support of young people, the environmental issue has to be seen as a badge of honor, something you would even pay a little extra for because it is important to your identity. For example, driving a Prius (or other hybrid car) would be important to this group if it were viewed as a statement and a status symbol.

Catherine noted that, on the whole, Gen Y is more optimistic than Gen X and might better receive environmental messages. This group has been nurtured to think they can make a difference in the world, but they need a clear definition of what they should do and why it will make a difference.

Making it Matter

As the 142 E2 Members and friends who attended this EcoSalon in San Francisco learned, having the facts on your side isn't always enough. When we seek to reach new groups of people, we need to communicate in ways that resonate with them. Particularly, when we talk about environmental issues, we need to be aware of the language we use, and be able to frame these issues in ways people can easily understand - with strong connections to personal health and well-being. E2's particular lesson from this discussion is that we need to be able to effectively communicate that a healthy environment is the foundation for a stronger economy - not something that we achieve by making economic sacrifices.

We'd like to thank E2 Members Noelle Leca and Michael Moradzadeh for generously hosting this thought-provoking event.