Finding Solutions to Global Warming Even Skeptics Can Support

Just don't call it global warmingJust don’t call it global warming

Despite the best efforts of those involved in the disinformation campaign against climate science, finding common ground on issues relating to energy and climate is possible. When the agenda moves from sowing confusion and doubt to finding solutions, even those most fervid skeptics of human-caused global warming can find common ground with climate change advocates.

Kansas native Nancy Jackson was so convinced of it she founded the Climate and Energy Project. Jackson proved that reframing the issue and working toward solutions to real, everyday problems can sometimes be the best way to fight global warming – just don’t call it global warming.

Read more about Jackson and the Climate and Energy Project in a recent post just published in

Thomas Schueneman
Thomas Schueneman
Tom is the founder and managing editor of and the PlanetWatch Group. His work appears in Triple Pundit, Slate, Cleantechnia, Planetsave, Earth911, and several other sustainability-focused publications. Tom is a member of the Society of Environmental Journalists.

Get in Touch

  1. Until recent months, my main approach was not to address anthropogenic climate change, but rather talk about fossil fuel dependence, peaking oil and landscape use changes (all of which have a major impact on ACC). It also helps because the problem doesn’t seem as immense when you break it down into smaller problems.

    • Yes, this is a good approach – just like Nancy Jackson\’s Climate and Energy Project, framing the issue toward common (and more agreeable) concerns is the way to engage people toward solutions.
      I guess the problem is there is a concerted campaign afoot to hold the discussion on divisive talking points to discredit any attempt to address climate change.

      • It's also much more effective because, breaking it down means that it's possible to do at a local level – much like ICLEI has been doing for over a decade.
        What I think will have the best effects is; decarbonising energy as much as possibe; reducing the need for personal vehicles (public transport, bicycles and walking – awesome for health also); a much more vegetarian diet (plus stimulating backyard vegies – great for your budget, fresher, healthier food, carbon sink, connection to your landscape etc etc); creating expanding corridors of native veg that side against agricultural land (increasing ecological services) and open space entertainment (connection with the landscape and ecology) > which would require centralising populations in nodal pedestrian metropolitan developments (apartments, and open walking malls of multi-use facilities) – this way, you have the best of everything within walking or rail distance.


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Related Articles

Get in Touch


Latest Posts