Clean Words = Clean Policies? Politicians Seem to Think So

Let’s say you’re a politician, and you have a policy you want to push to the public. How do you get the backing?

You turn to semantics.

Do you call it a bailout or a rescue plan? Invasion of privacy or the Patriot Act? A War on Terror or an invasion of a country that doesn’t possess WMD? Do you say we’re looking for oil independence or to drill in ANWR? Do you call it global warming, admitting that the earth is indeed warming, or do you call it climate change?

Politicians love to manipulate words. And it can make a difference when they’re trying to get the public to back a policy that may not be the best for the people, or the environment.

The two candidates for office are doing just that – turning to semantics to push through policies that aren’t as clean or green as they claim. And it’s not the first time this has happened with the environment – George Bush is guilty of the same.

But first to the candidates.

Clean Coal

Both candidates love to spew the phrase “clean coal.” Now, we all know coal isn’t clean. The very nature of coal isn’t clean. Let’s go to Webster’s dictionary and see what it says:

Coal:

1. A thoroughly charred, and extinguished or still ignited, fragment from wood or other combustible substance; charcoal.

2. (Min.) A black, or brownish black, solid, combustible substance, dug from beds or veins in the earth to be used for fuel, and consisting, like charcoal, mainly of carbon, but more compact, and often affording, when heated, a large amount of volatile matter.

I don’t know about you, but nowhere am I seeing the word “clean,” or even the potential for “clean” to be put into the definition of coal. So what exactly do they mean? Finding processes to emit less carbon into the air? I suppose that’s a start, but the fact remains that carbon is still being emitted. Coal is simply not good for the environment.

But maybe we’ll convince the public otherwise by adding the word “clean” in front of it.

Clean, Green Natural Gas

Sarah Palin also used the word “clean” to describe an environmental policy of the McCain-Palin campaign. Here’s what she said in the Couric interview:

“And it’s why we should have started ten years ago tapping into domestic supplies that America is so rich in. Alaska has billions of barrels of oil and hundreds of trillions of cubic feet of clean, green natural gas onshore and offshore. Should have started doing it ten years ago but better late than never. We need to make sure that our nation’s taking those steps to become energy independent.”

The phrase I’m concerned with is “clean, green natural gas.” It’s one that she said in the debate, too. I’m sorry, but what exactly is “clean, green natural gas?” I’ve punched this into Google, and I came up with a few transcripts of the interviews and a few blogs asking the same question I am. Nowhere is there an explanation of what this is – I’m convinced it’s a made-up term.

But it uses words that the public will respond to. It sounds like you’re doing something for the environment.

George Bush Does It, Too!

George Bush also used semantics to push through environmental policies that weren’t necessarily the best for the environment. His “Clear Skies initiative” sure sounds like a promising way to clean up the planet’s skies. But in breaking down the act, it’s almost exactly the opposite. According to the Sierra Club, the act weakens many parts of Clinton’s Clean Air Act by requiring fewer reductions of air pollutants.

But hey, the initiative uses the word “clear.” So it must be good.

Politicians are just big advertisers. How many times do you see ads that say products are “organic,” “eco” and “natural?” It’s hip to be green, and politicians are jumping on that bandwagon.

Granted, I’m not saying the public is stupid. There are those who can read through the lines. But if you have nothing else to go on but these “clean” words and if you’re not well-versed in environmental lingo, it sure makes these candidate’s policies seem a lot greener than they actually are.

This scares me. After all, Bush frightened us into a war by using the words “terror” and “weapons of mass destruction.” I hate to see what could happen to the environment through misleading words.

Related Posts:

• Greenpeace Dissects Clean Coal
• Mean Joe Green: ‘Clean’ Coal!?
• What Does Pa. Know About Clean Coal That No One Else Does?
  

Photo Credit: aterkel on Flickr, under a Creative Commons License