After 4.5 billion years, finally climate change has a new logo.
But even some fans of the the Big Scare Campaign don’t like it. I can’t think why…
It looks to me like an inverse-SEO campaign designed by someone deeply afflicted with ASE (Artistic Status Envy — see also its Literary equivalent). Is the aim here just the banal trickery of ambushing the new skeptics who type “It’s not warming” into their search engines? Will gullible teens type in the phrase and find nothing but links to soft-green propaganda? (This could so easily backfire).
Or is this a new form of mental programming for the inductees into the climate faith? Now, when they hear “it’s not warming”, they’ll be getting confirmation — warming means “bad stuff”, now not warming means “bad stuff too!” It’s a form of deep psychology — so deep it’s done right through the magma and come out the other side.
If it looks upside down, that’s because it is.
“It’s not warming, it’s dying.” That’s the message from the man behind the “I ♥ NY” logo, Milton Glaser. The message comes with a logo and buttons that people can buy and wear. Glaser says that “global warming” is not good language. On that, he’s right, but reframing it as “global dying” is worse.
In an interview with WNYC’s Brian Lehrer, Glaser said, “Global warming in its own way sounds sort of reassuring and comforting … that’s terrible. You begin by attacking the phrase itself — the word and what the word means — because the truth of the matter is that the earth is dying. And wouldn’t it be nice if today was the beginning of the most important date in human history which is the date we decided not to let the earth die?”
Arguing that the earth is dying is serious error and will probably do more harm than good. Two reasons why:
- “Global dying” keeps the issue firmly in the abstract.
- The earth isn’t dying. People are.
How could you knock back buttons this compelling?
No self respecting climate-goth would be without one.
Porter finds something nice to say: “At least the buttons don’t have any words on them.”
That really sums up their arguments perfectly.
Me I think this is a case of over-reach. It’s a clumsy attempt at a segue from the not-so-scary “climate change” and the failed “global warming” to see if they can get to “global dying”. And there they go following a hero again. Glaser is a “legend” who designed something “iconic”. What could possibly go wrong?
h/t to Joe.