The climate change message is not being heard. Here's how to change tack
Focus on the economic case, drop the activist-speak, talk about solutions rather than doom – and don't rely on politicians
Sunny Hundal | guardian.co.uk | 5 January 2012
Preaching to the converted? A climate march in London, December 2010. Photograph: Luke Macgregor/Reuters
Over the past decade, as news on the looming threat from global warming has continued unabated and become increasingly dire, public opinion has stayed static or become more indifferent to the need to take drastic action.
In 2011 the UK weathered the second warmest autumn on record in more than a century, while land surface temperatures were the seventh warmest on record across the globe. Even the mild-mannered David Attenborough could not conclude Frozen Planet without warning of the dangers of global warming.
But who was listening? Most polls paint a worrying picture for scientists, environmentalists and activists: that attitudes have not just remained static over the past decade but in some cases actually worsened. Increasingly, these groups are left preaching to the converted rather than winning the battle for public opinion.
The annual British Social Attitudes survey released last month said public support for tackling climate change had declined dramatically, as the Guardian summarised. By contrast, the Daily Mail triumphantly applauded the "rise of the climate change sceptics".
Asked if we worry too much about the environment and not enough about prices and jobs, a decade ago 50% of Britons disagreed. Now that number is down to 34%. "People may be less likely to change their behaviour for the sake of the environment if this will cost them money, time or effort," said the BSA report.
The change in attitudes has been starker in the US: the percentage of Americans who believe climate change is taking place has plummeted from 71% to 51% in recent years.
This failure to connect with the public is already having a dire effect on political will to deal with the problem. How should they do things differently?
First, the economy matters. With economic stagnation, scarce jobs and squeezed incomes predicted for several years in western countries, people will increasingly ask whether they can afford policies to deal with global warming. Public opinion could turn sourer if claims that jobs must be prioritised over global warming start to resonate wider.
This approach has become increasingly popular on the right. Secretive thinktanks are starting to bombard the press with research claiming it's too costly to deal with the problem. The Daily Mail has had to repeatedly apologise for exaggerating the cost of "green policies" on energy bills.
Scientists and environmentalists need to place a greater emphasis on the economic dangers of not dealing with the problem: household bills will rise exorbitantly if we don't invest in alternative energy; dealing with disruptive climate change will cost us billions and drive up food prices across the world.
Second, the language needs to change. Phrases such as "climate justice", association with anti-capitalist messages and a focus on living like a hermit are part of the problem. These approaches may be right and have appeal to some groups of people but not only reach the already converted: the drop in support for action on global warming is more on the right (especially in the US) than the left.
Studying the polls closely, blogger Leo Barasi makes another point: while many people sympathise, they're reluctant to associate themselves with the views of green activists and turn away.
Half the population doesn't need more convincing – it's the other half that isn't susceptible to traditional messages.
This means talking about the potential for future innovation, that countries like China and India are investing billions into alternative energy as a key future technology, and how it offers us security from war and disease and a better standard of living.
Talk about solutions rather than focusing on doom. A recent paper, titled Fear Won't Do It, by the Tyndall Centre found that sensational representations of climate change "can successfully capture people's attention" but also disengage them and "render them feeling helpless and overwhelmed".
While most people still recognise it as an important issue, they aren't clear how to put that into action. Inevitably, if that involves spending money then support drops sharply. The mainstreaming of recycling is one of the few bright spots of the past decade, but it clearly is not enough. The challenge is to be clearer on how governments and companies could do more to help beyond global carbon emission targets.
While it didn't come as a surprise the Conservatives went from being the "greenest government ever" to: "we are not going to save the planet by shutting down our steel mills, aluminium smelters and paper manufacturers", the scale of the abrupt U-turn should serve as a warning to campaigners. Relying on politicians to lead on tackling global warming is a dangerous strategy since most will prefer to follow public opinion.
And yet it is the area where scientists and campaigners are comprehensively failing to advance their cause. It's time to rethink strategy.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment