Detail from "Behind the Great Wave at Kanagawa" by Katsushika Hokusai.
Credit: iStockphoto
"The impact [of climate change] will be catastrophic, forcing hundreds of millions of people to flee their devastated homelands, particularly in tropical, low-lying areas, while creating waves of immigrants whose movements will strain the economies of even the most affluent countries."
- (U.K.) Observer, Sunday, January 21, 2007
By doing what they do best, the media have taken hold of the climate change debate and placed it firmly in the public and political psyche. However, its predominantly gloomy spin does not appear to have had a significant affect on our day-to-day behaviour; for the majority of people it's business as usual.
The alarming way in which climate change is presented to the public was referred to recently by a leading U.K. think-tank as 'climate porn'. It has been described as unreliable at best and counter-productive at worst. Perhaps, then, we need to ask why this language of fear and catastrophe is failing to translate into action. Just how well are scientists, politicians, media and interest groups communicating the climate change risk, and how are the public reacting to the news that the end of the world could well be nigh?
The issue of 'language' in climate change reporting was apparent earlier this month as scientists and journalists wrangled over the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's (IPCC) Fourth Assessment Report, finally issuing a statement that global warming is real and that humans are very likely to blame. While the IPCC's goal is to balance statements carefully against uncertainties, many scientists and interest groups feel the predictions do not go far enough. But the more alarmist views, typified by Tim Flannery's hardline, high profile stance (catastrophe is imminent unless radical action is taken now; see Australia should lead the energy revolution, Cosmos Online) and pushed to even greater heights by a hungry media ("A disaster for life on earth", The Age, February 3rd, 2007) may well be damaging the legitimacy of climate science and delaying positive action.
The vast uncertainties associated with climate modelling make fertile ground for sensational reporting - by scientists and the media. For example, a report published in the British journal Nature in 2005 described the effect that doubling the amount of carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere would have on temperature. It suggested that, overall, this would lead to an increase of about 3°C. However, a small percentage of the models produced by the study showed very high levels of warming - up to a startling 11°C. The related press release only mentioned the significance of the 11°C results, and led to hard-hitting and disturbing headlines, from "Global warming is twice as bad as previously thought" (The Independent (U.K.), January 27, 2005) to "Screensaver weather trial predicts 10°C rise in temperatures" (The Telegraph (U.K.), January 27, 2005).
Evidence for the negative effect of this 'overselling' of climate change can be seen in public surveys carried out by the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research in the U.K. These show that while people have a strong idea of what climate change is about, it is seen as a distant problem, both in time and space. This is backed-up by other British and American research that shows disturbing public ignorance of the causes of climate change (many people still confuse ozone depletion with the greenhouse effect; see Lorenzoni et al., Journal of Risk Research 2006) and a feeling that it will affect far away people at some point in the future.
Daily news headlines of "globally catastrophic impacts", "tipping points", "devastation" and "collapse" have become familiar. Yet despite this vivid sense of impending doom, people are not changing their behaviour to reduce carbon emissions. The reason seems to be that many feel they do not have the power or resources to do what it takes to save the planet. 'Shock' may make compulsive news, but the vastness of its implications distances us from the reality of the risk. This phenomenon is not only seen with climate change; negative reporting of Third World conflict and famine on a biblical scale makes us think that there is little point responding because we are powerless to fix such a major problem.
So, paradoxically, while climate change ranks fairly high in people's concerns, public response to the problem remains decidedly weak. It is easy to express concern for global environmental problems, indeed it is socially and politically unacceptable not to, however the problem at the moment lies in converting thoughts into action; and it is this dislocation that is of concern. As long as the language of chaos continues, it seems the public are faced with a threat that looms so large it is beyond their focus.
If we want to see real action, we need to stop frightening people into inaction. The solutions to such a vast and complex problem make the public's response seem insignificant, futile and in some cases too late to make a difference. As Al Gore pointed out last year, we have moved from a position of "denial" (believing that there is no danger), to one of "despair" (believing that there is nothing we can do about it), without stopping in between. Now that scientists are 90 per cent certain we are causing climate change, perhaps it is time to stop shouting and to start taking action to address the problem.
Tom Lowe is a research fellow at RMIT University in Melbourne, Australia, and conducts research into the communication of climate change risk for the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research, in the U.K.
........
People these days...........gosh. Blind to the truth that the world is ending.
Is over-reacting really a problem anyway?
I don't see the media's over-reaction, if it is one, as a problem. On what basis does the author assume this will lead to inaction? Will it? Why?
It would seem to me that the strongest warning is most likely to have the intended effect of coaxing people into action, rather than the suggested ironic effect of overwhelming people into inaction. There is no reason given in Climate Porn for suggesting this ironic effect.
In any case, I think that an over-reaction is better than an under-reaction. Don't you think?
What's the worst thing that could happen if we over-reacted? The world would be cleaner and a more effficient producer and user of energy, and new industries and technologies would grow in place of old dirty ones, sparking new tiers to the economy. That doesn't sound too bad to me. Now, what would happen if we under-reacted? Scarry to think.....
Over-reaction
I totaly agree with the author. say your washing machine broke down, you call in the engineer, he tells you it will cost $10 to fix you take action and pay your $10, on the other hand he tells you it will cost $150 to fix, what do you do? give up and buy a new one.
climate porn - sustainabilty myth
I had an interview with a state government planning department and the word sustainablity came up. In order not to prejudice my employment propsects I had to hold my tounge.
As a practicing town planner - I see little evidence of environmental sustainability - its just the same ol same ol high energy motor vehicle centric crap getting approved with building designs still with no eaves - large window facing west - depsite state governments talk - the over arching poilicies and requirements mean didley squat to effecting any change.
I tend to be a pessimist - cultural, economic, techological and social change will come when disaster strikes.
PS My house near the coast is on a hill a reasonable distance back for the existing coast line and I am considering remaning it rising tide.
Do remember that the current coast line is less than 10k years old.
global warming
i think we need to seriously consider making some huge changes in our society in order to protect our planet.
How profound!
How profound!
The author is correct, but forgot one thing...
The author is correct, but forgot one thing, the credibility gap of the media, and I dare say the climatologists. Alarmism sells newspapers, but if we believe the alarmists are self serving egocentrics, us mere "commoners" will simply brush off the message due to the pitch of the rhetoric.
I'm 41 years old and I still remember a Superman cartoon that I watched as a child in the middle 70's about a ficticious world that was enduring severe "global cooling" due to atmospheric polution (smog) blocking out the suns warming rays. That was the looming global consequences back then, and we had a winter in 1976 that could have convinced me at only 11 years old. Now three decades later "global warming" is all the rage. Reminds me of the boy who cried wolf! Every freakin' environmental issue is a another potential global catastrophe to you people!
Lower the rhetoric and get some perspective for what you sound like to the rest of us. Not only do I not want to listen/read about it any more, you've turned me into a true skeptic with the flip flopping predictions. I truly question your motives. Newspapers want to sell copies, and climate scientists get big research grants to study and model the climate. The bigger the percieved problem the bigger the grants. Can you say conflict of interest?
The environmentalist movement has become a religion, and unfortunately, nearly as full of fantasy! I'm all for sustainable use of resources and a clean planet, but I'm turned way off by the shrill voices of the environmental messengers.
Blame ...
Back in the 1950s there was a debate over anomalous weather and a naturalist on the radio (I apologise that I have forgotten his name) pointed out that although people were then blaming nuclear tests previously they had blamed radio waves and probably in 1066 they had blamed all those arrows at the battle of Hastings (or maybe the comet).
The truth is the weather is always changing. in the 1960s we were told to prepare for another ice age and now global warming. People have simply become blase about the hype.
Two thousand years ago the Bible was warning that global warming would be solar driven and be so bad that "men were scorched with great heat, and blasphemed the name of God" Revelation 16:9. It just seems that we have heard it all before.
Is all porn bad?
If we want to create change of the scale we need, then this will require the public to demonstrate enthusiasm for far-reaching legislative interventions. And our enthusiasm for these will, presumably, be linked in part to our understanding of the full consequences of inaction.
Afterall, when the government seeks public support for far-reaching anti-terrorism legislation, it reaches for a set of scare tactics before all else. Is all climate porn bad?
Climate Porn
It is always a good idea to cut down on emissions and find cleaner sources of energy but global warming is not definitely proved to be caused by human activity, in fact it has not been proved that there is going to be a runaway greenhouse gas catastrophe.
The science behind the Earths climate is in dispute by tens of thousands of scientists. On the one hand you have government scientists insisting that it is a proven fact and on the other hand you have the other side saying it is not a proven fact.
Now, if they can not agree on whether global warming is real or not how can the public know for sure what is right and what is wrong.
Anyone can have their point of view on this subject but we won't know for sure what is right and what is wrong until the future comes and goes.
If the global warming scientists are right and we do nothing then we are doomed.
If they are wrong and we start throwing iron into the oceans and putting sulphur into the upper atmosphere then we could be doing damage to our planet.
More study needs to be done to improve the science and we need honest reports from these scientists and politicians on the progress of this science of climate change.