On Saturday night, I was on a panel at the Hazel Wolf Environmental Film Festival on the subject of "communicating about climate change." My co-panelists were KC Golden of Climate Solutions, LeeAnne Beres of Earth Ministry, and Sean Schmidt of the Sustainable Style Foundation. The moderator was Steve Scher of local public radio station KUOW.
It was fun.
Most of what I said had to do with the following mini-revelation that came to me as I was walking to the event: the problem with communication about climate change is that it has been too focused on climate change. The notion of climate change, and most of what we know about it, came to us from scientists. And it has remained a thoroughly scientized subject. Which is fine if you're a scientist, but not if you're trying to mobilize a large-scale shift in the way the world's people interact with each other and with the planet.
I put it like this: as a lever for creating social change, "climate change" is both too big and too little.
It's too big in the sense that it's difficult to rouse people behind the goal of stabilizing GHG levels in the atmosphere at no more than 450 ppm. That's an enormous, clinical, abstract notion. It does not stir the viscera. And it leaves most people paralyzed. How could you take the first step toward a goal like that?
Whereas, people understand what it means when you say, "make your community safer and more walkable. Encourage the local economy. Support local businesses and local farmers." People understand it when you say, "lobby your legislators to get XYZ bill passed, and vote for candidate X." Or, "stop any more dirty coal plants from being built." Or, "make our country safer by reducing our dependence on foreign energy sources." Or, "make sure new buildings in your community meet high sustainability standards." Etc. People need tangible, short- and mid-term goals and causes.
Luckily, virtually everything we need to do to fight climate change has other, more proximate benefits. So when you're trying to get people fired up in the near-term, focus on those benefits -- benefits they can understand and that they might witness in their lifetimes.
"Climate change" is also too small. Telling people to "fight climate change" is like a doctor telling a patient with an unhealthy lifestyle to "fight diabetes." Yeah, the patient needs to rid himself of diabetes, but what he really needs is to live a healthier lifestyle. The heating of the atmosphere is a symptom of what has become an unsustainable way of living, but it is only one symptom. There's also biodiversity loss, the end of cheap fossil-fuel energy, the death of the oceans, widespread income inequality, alienation and unhappiness among citizens of the developed world, resource conflicts in the developing world, etc. etc.
What we really need is to remake the way humanity lives on the world. We need a Second Industrial Revolution that produces more equitable distribution of resources, greater local and regional self-sufficiency, reduced terrorism, war, and conflict, and above all an immensely reduced ecological footprint.
That's the kind of charge that can inspire a generation. That's the kind of charge that lends itself to narrative and myth. That's a story a generation can tell about itself. "Fight climate change" is clinical, narrow, and negative. "Remake the world" is inspiring, encompassing, and positive.
In short, "climate change" is an inherently scientific notion, one that's too large to inspire concrete change and too small to frame a generational struggle.
Climate psychology in cartoons: clues for solving the messaging mystery
Children and riot police face off in Canadian “Moms” video
Comments
View as Threaded
Delay And Deny Posted 4:18 am
03 Apr 2007
60 minutes did global warming this weekend...you know that once culture goes down the pipeline to Geezerville, it's pretty much jumped the shark.
The Texeme Construct offers international text memetics construction and textcasting services. http://www.you-read-it-here-first.com
Permalink
eriqa Posted 4:32 am
03 Apr 2007
(And yes, I realize this doesn't negate your point about the global scale daunting people.)
Permalink
Trebuchet Posted 6:20 am
03 Apr 2007
I've always liked how the book Ishmael conveys that humanity (me) needs to alter the story we're enacting (related to the "myths" we believe in).
Sure, we were born and raised in an social/political, etc environment that is enacting a certain story, one that focuses on short-term successes/goals as the cost of long-term sustainability. But we have the power to change, to self-help ourselves, our communities, our friends and family, our country and our world. The first step is realizing there's a problem, then realizing that smart people have done good work to come up with solutions. Finally, enacting those solutions powered by our belief that this is the story we want to enact.
Permalink
tico89 Posted 6:20 am
03 Apr 2007
Permalink
ozdoc Posted 2:07 pm
03 Apr 2007
Global Warming is here and it will impact on every one of us - somewhere, somehow, sometime - for generations to come. The simple solution to the issues of Global Warming involves changing one's (personal, business, political) behaviour away from the "me, myself and I" philosophy, to a more unselfish one of really caring for the "other" e.g. people, species, environment. Australia's Prime Minister John W Howard's arrogant pronouncements are not Holy Writ, neither is George W Bush's.
Global Warming is happening but it is not all doom & gloom that some would have us believe. However, we must not put our head in the sand, we have to confront the issues - not deny them. Just as importantly, we need to get on with our lives. As individuals, we can do something from the grass roots level, but we deserve that our leaders take real steps, to address the very real problems raised by the very real facts about Global Warming. We don't want or need political posturing and grandstanding - particularly from our countries' leaders.
Not too many of us understand or realise what's been going on behind the scenes. This has led to a lot of controversy, confusion and uncertainty - and much of the blame for this can be attributed to - politicians, the media, some research scientists themselves and most certainly, to powerful and well resourced vested interest groups, who have the ear, and the funding carrots of, the said politicians, media or research groups.
Excellent work behind the scenes has been conducted by members of the United Nation's Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), aided by environment organisations, business/industry groups, research institutions, local governments and indigenous organisations.
The role of the Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is to assess on a comprehensive basis - scientific, technical and socio-economic information relevant to understanding the science based risks of human-induced climate change - its potential impacts, and options for adaptation and mitigation.
The IPCC doesn't gather scads of data just for kicks - it issues very comprehensive reports at regular intervals for very specific purposes. Why is this so important? Because the IPCC reports are the top of the food chain, the standard of standards, the Big Kahuna of rational and logical reasoning. The IPCC reports are the most ambitious, comprehensive, heavily reviewed, authoritative knowledge-gathering enterprises ever undertaken. It's got its flaws, but nonetheless, it is as close as humanity is ever likely to get to the understanding of climate change.
If you think the IPCC's WG1 report released in February caused controversy - the next two will cause a much greater controversy - watch the sceptics come out of the wood work.
WG2 - "Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability" - THIS WEEK 2-5 April 2007, Brussels, Belgium. Public release 6th, regional explanation for Australia in NZ on 10th
WG3 - "Mitigation of Climate Change" - 30 April - 3 May 2007, Bangkok, Thailand.
189 countries are Parties to the UNFCCC. This almost universal participation demonstrates that countries around the world do take this global threat seriously, that they are concerned, and that they act accordingly.
The Protocol was designed only as a 1st step to tackle the problems of Global Warming. It does have issues, but because it is a dynamic treaty, they are being addressed continually. Negotiations are being had to move the protocol to the next stage, that after 2008. Australia and the US should be part of that.
We have the UN for a reason; it is not good enough for a major UN signatory to take the ball home if they don't like how the other players play the game. It happened with the war in Iraq, it is happening again with the war on climate change.
Australia only produces about 1% of global GHG emissions, but we are the highest per capita contributor of GHG in the world. It would send a very strong message to the world that we are willing to accept our global responsibilities, to be a team player with the rest of the world, if we really involve ourselves in the UNFCCC process.
A definition of sustainable development was given by the World Commission on Environment and Development: `development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs'.
This implies a complex balance - sustaining the economic growth that is essential for poverty reduction while using natural resources in a prudent fashion.
It also implies ensuring greater equity, both within and between societies and generations - achieving a stable relationship between human activities and the natural world that does not diminish the prospects for future generations to enjoy a quality of life at least as good as our own.
People must be able to rely on experts and leaders to guide us. In the context of Global Warming, we have the experts, are we sure about the leaders?
The issue of what we can do is primarily a function of our attitude and behaviour on how we deal with energy use. We need a more sustainable way of doing things - primarily in terms of: - electricity generation, transportation, agricultural and land management practices, intensive manufacturing industries (aluminium, cement, mining, etc), private & commercial practices.
No matter what we do, Global Warming is going to cost us in some way, but those costs can be reduced or off-set.
WHAT CAN WE DO?
We need to think globally, act locally - we can act in an environmentally sustainable way at the grass roots level, but we need our business and political leaders to act in an environmentally sustainable way at the highest levels of society - we have to question our political leaders, our future depends on them making the right decisions.
HOW?
1) Adapt to Global Warming
2) Reduce our GHG emissions
Global Warming is not about political ideology - it's about giving everyone a sustainable life, the planet an environmentally sustainable life - all else follows.
"Aging scientists don't die, they just turn into grumpy old farts and contribute in a small way to GHG emissions."
Permalink
girlonfoot Posted 7:38 pm
03 Apr 2007
Girl on Foot: A regular gal soul-searching the modern day car-free commute.
Permalink
jcurtiswy Posted 1:08 am
04 Apr 2007
The equation is quite simple: Increasing population + limited natural resources (renewable and non renewable) = lower standard of living.
Technology has and can sustain our quality of life, but can do only so much at a time.
The history of the human race as been replete with doom and gloom, and what is occurring these days is probably no different. However, the explosion of instantaneous communication has just help to exaggerate these dire predictions. Truth be told, worldwide, the standard of living is at the highest level (materially) since the dawn of man. We may have lost are spiritual way but I believe that people's relationship to nature and their environment may be just what the doctor ordered for this new renaissance. At least one can only hope.
It seems like we're on the cusp of a paradigm shift in how humans relate to and live in the environment. Maybe the global warming thing is just a final push to do so.
Jan Curtis
Wyoming, USA
Permalink
BernardBrown Posted 1:18 am
04 Apr 2007
I think the Water Footprints of Nations' work with virtual water is a good model to follow - once we have an analysis of how much GHG is produced in the basic, simple little things we do (that of course all add up), we've got something people can sink their teeth into.
Bernard Brown
Change the world one lunch at a time. Find out how at http://www.pbjcampaign.org
Permalink
David Roberts Posted 2:28 am
04 Apr 2007
www.grist.org
Permalink
karenc Posted 9:34 am
04 Apr 2007
An ounce of practice is worth twenty thousand tons of big talk. -Vivekananda
Permalink
hibiscus Posted 7:07 pm
08 Apr 2007
all the churches already figured this out, last year, and have been organizing themselves furiously to prevent the calamities described in the canadian documentary, the great warming. it's been circulated amongst congregations of all the big faiths in the USA, and it's pretty much the whole reason that the evangelical communion went left for poverty and global warming.
the narrative is right there: the great plague, the great depression, the great warming. the movie talks to a bunch of canadian theologians, puts the whole thing in highly moral perspective, has zero "controversy" material in it, and basically scared the living jeepers out of everybody who thought they knew what they were supposed to do with the rest of their earthly lives. it shows people at risk and how to help them. it's really good, and personal, the way the science-oriented stuff, like an inconvenient truth, isn't.
if anybody's uncomfortable calling it something so epochal, so biblical, as the great warming, maybe you oughta ask yourself what you really think you're in for in your coming years, whether you really believe this stuff is gonna be different from managing your retirement account, or something.
(hibiscus)
Permalink