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.
Climate change porn
I don't think there is more inaction, that people are more inclined to go along with government action. Two worries I have are firstly that government action will be too little or inappropriate due to vested interests, and secondly that when the climate passes through a normal phase, because there will still be oscillation, everybody will relax and think "she'll be right mate".
two points
Firstly, this is not the first time the media has been chastised for sensationalising and it won't be the last.
Secondly, I am far from convinced that news of third world suffering and conflict convinces us there is no solution. In general, coverage of the third world is appallingly low in relation to other matters.
We would do well to ask ourselves how major changes have occurred in the past. Sometimes they've been lead from above, often they've percolated from below, and I've no idea how (un)influential the media has been.
Two points
The media are owned by BIG corporations that are gold diggers, there isn't any money in 3rd world suffering....it sucks!
Climate porn?
To me it is so obvious that 7 to 8 billion people on a tiny planet with only a 10 mile high atmosphere are going to have a major effect on the climate if they burn everything in sight. It boggles the mind that anyone could actually think otherwise.
I don't understand why Mr. Lowe would have a view that people who warn of imminent catastrophe are alarmists. I will keep it in mind though the next time I am backing my dump truck up to the edge of a cliff. If anyone yells out to me that I'm about to go over the cliff, I'll just yell back that he's just an alarmist and keep on backing up.
It is unfortunate that a person can obtain a university degree by rot memorization without ever having to learn to reason.
You have entirely
You have entirely misunderstood the point of the article.
We can be sure (as the majority of scientists are - read the article) that climate change is happening, but there is a great deal of uncertainty about the rate of change and the likely consequences. Instead of speculating and scaring people into action, I think the article is suggesting that we should be having a reasoned dialogue about the best way to move forward on this critical issue.
climate porn
right and right^
i walk around every day scared shitless, not about suicide bombers or the so called war on terror. i hope you know what i mean........take a good look around people.
Climate Porn
This article has perpetuated the myth that people will listen to and act on positive messages about Climate Change rather than scare tactics. People will only act when the impact of Human Induced Climate Change starts to impinge on them or people close to them.
For many developing countries the impact of climate change is gathering momentum but they have little or no voice. In the ‘developed’ countries we will be protected from the worst affects for a few years yet. We will not act until then and on current evidence that will be too late. That leaves three options for changing behaviour and prevent the worst affects of Climate Change in the developed countries.
The first is legislation, which is politically unpalatable as it would lead to unpopularity of the ruling party.
The second is a corporate drive to ensure that the goods we consume have little or no impact on increasing the impact of climate change, there a some signs of interest but not enough or soon enough.
Thirdly, there are scare tactics which in my experience as a communicator do not make people ‘switch off’, providing that one offers solutions. This third option also enables political and corporate masters to make more rapid progress with legislation and product efficiency improvements
Climate porn
I see the issues as multilayered. For example, in South Australia, we have a State Government which claims to be "green" and pretends to panic about not getting enough water from the Murray. It has a target of increasing our population by 0.5 million including urban infill on old industrial sites and building housing estates on flood plains outside the Adelaide metropolitan area and seems to expects do so from within existing resources with our River Murray allocation making up the shortfall. No government in this State seems to have listened to reasoned predicitions made at least 15 years ago that winter rains would lessen while summer rains would increase along with the temperature meaning that the rate of precipitation would be less than the rate of evapouration. If I understood it, why have our water managers and politicians failed to act to secure our water supplies within the State?
Power generation is another double standard. We buy a lot electricity from interstate with no-one seeming to bother about either the costs incurred in transporting the electricity or the loss of power along the lines. Instead of supporting renewable energy (for example giving all householders solar cells and solar hot water heaters) our taxes prop up failing car manufacturers and subsidise the costs of entry to an 4 day long entertainment which includes car racing. In my opinion, it seems that, apart from a few demonstration projects to show media and visitors, just about every State Government action or inaction belies its claims to be environmentally responsible.
Do you wonder that I do not believe that my personal efforts can make a genuine difference? I have always lived in an inner city suburbs to minimise travel time to work and recreation. I have not owned a car for over 5 years. My garden is small but I do like to keep it fresh (I am owned by a delightful dog). Where they are suited to my lighting needs, I have some fluorescent lights. There are other ways in which I do try to reduce my personal impact. However, the continuing erection and habitation of several thousand new dwellings in this small area over the last 10 years are among the activities that leave me feeling that I am being used and abused by the State.
Finally there are those feelings of inadequacy raised by the knowledge that whatever I do now will take many years to have an effect and may be totally wiped out by a natural disaster such as a large earthquake on our local faultline, or one of our volcanoes in the south east of Australia choosing to come to life.
Recently, I half heard on the radio as I turned on late for a news bulletin some politician in Canberra - possibly a Minister - admitting that there is climate change and that we need to manage the impact now - I hope that they do, but I doubt it.
Climate Change Coalition
And across the border in New South Wales, the birth of the Climate Change Coalition - that is running for an Upper House seat at the forthcoming election - is a positive step.
With Patrice Newell heading up the CCC ticket, pledging to look at every piece of legislation through the prism of climate change, I hope it will bring a new and reasoned voice to the conversations in the media, the community and the Parliament.
Climate porn
It's all about money, if what we want can bring in big bux then the pollies will surely do something about...they don't care about the average person much as long as WE pay the taxes..you pay peanuts you get chimps, you pay big bux you get GORILLAS !!!!