|
The alarmist language used to discuss climate change is tantamount
to ‘climate porn’ - offering a thrilling spectacle,
but ultimately distancing the public from the problem - according
to new research published by the Institute for Public Policy
Research (ippr).
The research analysed more than 600 articles from the UK
press - as well as over 90 TV, radio and press ads, news clips
and websites - to find out how the media, government and green
groups are communicating climate change.
The report argues that the discussion on climate change
in the UK is confusing, contradictory and chaotic - and, with
the likely result that the public feels disempowered and uncompelled
to act.
The report says that climate change communications should
avoid using inflated or extreme language and placing the focus
on small actions to solve the problem. It identifies ten different
ways of talking about climate change - of which the first
two are dominant -
- Alarmism (‘we’re all going to die’) - this
pessimistic approach refers to climate change as awesome,
terrible, immense and beyond human control. It excludes
the possibility of real action - ‘The problem is just
too big for us to take on’. Alarmism might even become
secretly thrilling – effectively a form of ‘climate porn’.
It is seen in almost every form of discussion on the issue.
‘A world of climate chaos spiralling out of control’
- Small actions (‘I’m doing my bit for the planet
– and maybe my pocket’) - the ‘small actions’
approach is the dominant one in campaign communications
from government and green groups. It asks a large number
of people to do a few small things to counter climate change.
The language is one of ease and domesticity, with references
to kettles and cars, ovens and light switches. It is often
placed alongside alarmism. It is likely to beg the question
- how can this really make a difference?
‘20 things you can do to save the planet from destruction’
The report suggests that communications from government and
green groups should treat climate-friendly activity as a brand
that can be sold - making it feel natural to the large numbers
of people who are currently unengaged with the problem. It
says that solutions to climate change could appeal to Britons’
sense of ‘ordinary heroism’ - as exemplified in the
Battle of Britain and Make Poverty History. It also says the
argument on climate change should be treated as having been
won.
Simon Retallack, ippr’s head of climate change, said - “If
the public is to be persuaded of the need to act, we must
understand how climate change is being communicated in the
UK. Currently, climate communications too often terrify or
thrill the reader or viewer while failing to make them feel
that they can make a difference, which engenders inaction.
“Government and green groups should avoid giving the impression
that ‘we are all doomed’ and spend less time convincing
people that climate change is real. The focus should be on
the big actions that people can take to address climate change
- like switching to a hybrid car, fitting a wind turbine or
installing cavity wall insulation - not just the small ones,
such as turning down the thermostat or switching off the lights.
Climate-friendly behaviours need to be made to feel like ‘the
kinds of things that people like us do’ to large groups
of people.”
Ways of talking about climate change continued
- Settlerdom (‘What’s all the fuss about?’)
- this approach dismisses climate change as a thing so fantastic
that it cannot be true. It rejects and mocks the alarmists
and invokes ‘common sense’ on behalf of ‘the sane
majority’ in opposition to ‘the doom-mongers’.
‘It’s not going to happen in my lifetime’
- British comic nihilism (‘Oh, bugger it and open
another bottle!’) - this is whimsical, unserious,
blithely irresponsible – a sunny refusal to engage in the
debate. It adopts a very British self-mocking and contrary
tone, dealing with adversity and threat with the use of
humour.
‘Global warming has a lot to answer for. According to
the scare stories, by 2050, Kent’s chalky hillsides will
be full of luxuriant vines, the oast houses will be turned
into wineries.’
- Rhetorical scepticism (‘Its bad science, over-hyped’)
- this involves an aggressive campaigning scepticism. It
attacks the expert view of climate change as ‘bad science’
- using terms like ‘pack of lies’ and ‘propaganda’.
It characterises the green movement as irrational and naďve
and treats issues such as energy efficiency as ‘something
only liberals, tree-huggers and sissies believe is possible
or necessary’.
‘A massive scam based on flawed computer modelling, bad
science and an anti-western ideology…’
- Free market protection (‘Ah, but what you haven’t
thought of is…’) - the free-market protection approach
is concerned with the possible negative effects of actions
that may be taken to counteract climate change. It says
that efforts to curb emissions are the one thing that might
ruin our chances of survival.
‘In the total sum of human well-being, money spent on
battling climate change could be better spent elsewhere.’
- ‘Expert’ denial (‘I beg to differ…’) -
with this approach, scientists slug the debate out on their
own terms. It is characterised by a tendency to construct
climate change as being predominantly caused by ‘natural’
(not man-made) factors. It includes the complaint that the
language of climate change is becoming ‘religious’.
‘The Earth’s climate has always shown natural variation…
There is nothing to suggest that any warming we are seeing
now is not part of that natural cycle.’
- Warming is good (‘Relax, don’t worry…’)
- this approach displays an apparently informed optimism.
While the comic position makes a joke of it, the ‘warming
is good’ line of argument proposes, seriously, that
climate change brings benefits.
‘If you could vote for a change in climate, you would
always want a warmer one.’
- Techno-optimism (‘Technology will provide the answer’)
- there are two forms of this particular approach - one,
that technology or business will find the answers and the
other that says the answer will come from inventive genius
and independent interests - while business and existing
interests are an obstacle to progress.
‘My vision is for green fossil fuels’
- David and Goliath (‘A small number can change the
world’) - this approach gives the impression of
positive action. However, its aggressive, oppositional style
can be used all too easily by others to dismiss the advocates
of action as ‘long-haired hippies out to change the world’.
‘Never doubt… that a small number of dedicated people
can change the world. Indeed it is the only thing that ever
has.’
|
