I noted a presentation last week in D.C. from political pollster Frank Luntz regarding the language around climate change that I thought you’d find of interest.  Luntz’s firm, The Word Doctors, conducted a national poll of 1,007 registered voters (+/- 3% margin of error).  The firm also conducted a series of “Instant Response” qualitative dial sessions around the country.

I’ve provided his presenation for your review here: Language of Climate Change as well as a few media reports for your consideration. Reuters reports that U.S. climate bill backers are pushing the wrong message, http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN21137517 and the Financial Times Energy Writer asks whether the climate change debate even matters following Republicans victory in Massachussets, http://blogs.ft.com/energy-source/2010/01/22/will-there-be-a-climate-bill-left/.

But his research highlights a few points which I think may be relevant as organizations chart their path forward in the climate conversation.  Specifically, I think they should consider these points from the research:

• The national security that comes through energy independence is the primary reason that cap and trade is the right policy.
• The economic rebound will be driven by clean technology companies and investment
• “Carbon neutral’ is not a persuasive message with both opinion elites and general consumers of information while “clean technology’ is recognized as being compelling.

While not necessarily highlighted by the reporting and Luntz’s presentation, I think each of these points provide insights into how clean technology and green energy companies can and should be shaping their branding and communications programs.

In addition to the items I noted above, Luntz had the following observations about the current political landscape and the conversation around cap and trade.

Luntz’s research unveiled areas of clear agreement on climate legislation between Obama and McCain voters, and among the general public:

“Americans want their leaders to act on climate change – but not necessarily for the reasons you think,” Luntz said.  “A clear majority of Americans believe climate change is happening.  This is true of McCain voters and Obama voters alike.  And even those that don’t still believe it is essential for America to pursue policies that promote energy independence and a cleaner, healthier environment.” In reference to recent political events, Luntz added: “People are much more interested in seeing solutions than watching yet another partisan political argument.”

• Republicans and Democrats agree that national security is the top reason to enact comprehensive climate policy.  Luntz noted that national security “crosses demographic lines, is embraced by opinion elites and doesn’t require a belief in climate change.”
  • Pitted against economic and environmental arguments, national security was consistently the highest priority.
  • McCain voters in Luntz’s qualitative research strongly believe “the costs of our addiction to oil are too high in terms of lives, money, foreign policy and standing in the world.”

• Reducing pollution and holding companies that pollute “accountable” enjoys broad bipartisan support.
  • Americans see climate legislation as more than just corporate social responsibility.  When given a list of business and economic reasons to support the legislation, the top choice mirrored the public’s highest priority for Washington and Wall Street: accountability.  The exact language of the statement: “Cap and trade will limit the amount of pollution companies can emit, giving companies incentives to reduce emissions—and holding those who don’t accountable…”

This was chosen as the top reason for supporting the policy among both Obama and McCain partisans – a rare example of bi-partisan public consensus.

Luntz concluded, “Americans want clean, safe, healthy, secure energy.  That’s why Republicans and Democrats alike strongly support action to address climate change.  Sure, Republicans are more concerned about the national security component and Democrats the health component, but support for action right now spans all partisan and ideological lines.”