Richard Kerr's recent news feature at Science magazine offers a compelling look at the many communication challenges on climate change, especially at a time of apparent "climate fatigue." As Roger Pielke comments in the Science article, by sounding the alarm on climate change too loudly, campaigners may be causing important segments of the audience to tune out their message.
In a separate article at Yale Environment 360, Ted Nordhaus and Michael Schellenberger offer a similar argument to those I have made in the past, most recently in a paper at the journal Environment. Here's how Nordhaus and Schellenberger sum up one of the main drivers of public indifference to climate change:
The lesson of recent years would appear to be that apocalyptic threats -- when their impacts are relatively far off in the future, difficult to imagine or visualize, and emanate from everyday activities, not an external and hostile source -- are not easily acknowledged and are unlikely to become priority concerns for most people. In fact, the louder and more alarmed climate advocates become in these efforts, the more they polarize the issue, driving away a conservative or moderate for every liberal they recruit to the cause.
So what might be an alternative engagement strategy? I am quoted at the end of the Science news feature arguing that we need to conceive of the communication challenge not in terms of short term campaigns but long term civic education: What does it mean to be a citizen in an era of disruptive climate change and scarce energy? Part of this challenge requires rebuilding the media infrastructure at the local and regional level so that communities can collectively plan, connect, and adapt to various impacts.
I elaborated on these ideas in a recent blog post on climate change education and review the research in this area in a recent co-authored paper at the American Journal of Botany (PDF).
Many of the issues emphasized in the Science and Yale Environment 360 articles will be addressed in a special workshop session next month at the meetings of the American Geophysical Union. Go here for more information.
- Log in to post comments
Given that deniers tend to label any talk of AGW as "alarmism" it's a bit of a conundrum. In comment threads you sometimes see concern trolling in the form of non sequitur, straw man attempts to derail a conversation by shifting to a blame-the-alarmist-messenger mode. Frames within frames...
Just like the anti-fallout campaigns of the '50s and '60s and the nuclear-winter warnings of the '80s respectively scuttled the anti-proliferation and SALT treaties, right?
Oh, wait...
Yeah, I'm not sure I see so much hyperbole any more except for sceptic talking points. But maybe that's just a function of where I've been lately.
Given that deniers tend to label any talk of AGW as "alarmism" it's a bit of a conundrum. In comment threads you sometimes see concern trolling in the form of non sequitur, straw man attempts to derail a conversation by shifting to a blame-the-alarmist-messenger mode. Frames within frames...
For me it's a marketing problem, plain and simple, it has to be sold to people. My idea would be to relate more directly to people and not use scare-tactics (in 50 years the earth will perish) but use a more positive approach: We can improve living conditions now: cleaner air, more nature etc. etc.. I think most people can relate to problems like smog, respatory afflicitions and other results of "dirty" technology, problems that happen now, not in 50 years.
Another issue is that the idea is usually that it wil cost a lot of money to solve this problem. I'm not so sure. I'm in the business of selling products that save energy. The "Save the planet" approach is usually a very good way to get people to attend seminars or lectures but usually you will see their ears prick up when you start to explain that this energy you save actually translates in quite a lot of money: "Your payback time is 4 months and after that you save enough money to buy a new Prius every year". Sounds good doesn't it?
So, even though I'm on the skeptic side of neutral in the whole AGW debate, I'm all for implementing CO2 reductions and what have you. Why? Because I think that this could actually be a (much needed) boost to the economy. All the money spent will go to companies that can provide energy-saving or Co2 neatral solutions. These companies will provide work, buy stuff etc. etc.
So: Go Copenhagen!!
For Narcissus: Right On! Being positive is the secret. Show people what is in it for them (the ultimate question people always ask) Today the mitigation of climate change appears to a lot of people to be something with only a negative answer to the whats in it for me. To make the mitigation measures pass politically the answer has become a positive one.