I would like to take a brief pause in our exploration of the paleoclimate record to introduce a rather neat interactive tool I came across. The Guardian have an 'Ultimate Climate Change FAQ', which explores some of the popular debates on climate change, with ocean circulation included (briefly and reductionist, one might say).
I feel this is important just to place this blog in the context of the wider picture. It is important to not take some of the information provided at "face value" per se but instead read it critically (particularly the stuff about ocean circulation in relation to blog post two).
The key take home message (ironically which the "All you need to Know" tool does not actually address!) is the importance of communication in issues regarding climate change. During the summer I undertook an internship with UCL Environment Institute as a researcher for ClimateCom Strategies. This emphasised the importance of communication (via framing and need for a singular positive discourse for policy momentum etc.) to me, particularly through the experience of working with the Department of Energy and Climate Change.
If any of you are interested, UCL Environment Institute are holding a 'Climate Communications event' on the 30th November. This event is based on the topic "Climate Communications 2.0", a research theme developed over the course of the summer and the basis of a current working paper (tbc) which I was heavily involved in.
I shall be exploring the theme of climate skeptics and communication with reference to ocean circulation towards the closure of this blog. As a fun exercise to test your imagination of the climate change debate, are there any themes/topics/issues which the "All you need to know" interactive tool does not take into account?
I look forward to hearing your responses!
Climate communication is clearly critical in terms of the devision of a collective strategy designed to either combat or mitigate the effects of environmental change. Given that 99% of the audience will have little or no scientific background, or perhaps even interest or a sense of participation in terms of contributing to climate change, what do you feel is the most appropriate way to communicate with a mass audience.
ReplyDeleteYou also refer to energy. With significant combustion of fossil fuels, deforestation, land use modification etc occurring in countries of little economic strength and growth priorities, will it even be possible to communicate a message powerful enough to cause a serious rethink in current production, consumption and lifestyle trends?
The communication barrier is a complex one. A key issue is that climate skeptics have played on a variety of frames such as uncertainty in global climate models and exaggerating the importance of solar forcing to highlight the idea of a climate "scam" as we have seen with climategate. Essentially, the key issues are the censorship of press content to climate change (however "neutral" they are with statements such as"give up" on climate treaty etc.)and public critical thinking. The teaching of critical thinking in schools can be seen in Germany, as it can be argued this might be a causal factor behind the public perception towards renewable energy technology.
ReplyDeleteEssentially a paradigm shift in discourse is required, away from the notion of "sin" or "climate conscience" that resonates throughout the market mechanisms out of Kyoto. I feel, as the Hartwell paper (published this summer, a worthwhile read), a pragmatic innovative approach is required to sustain momentum. Under the framework of "deforestation, fossil fuels, economic growth" etc. you raise, I feel a discourse advocating a green economy or the benefits of green economies, are needed. Some argue this cannot occur without an international framework and given the current economic climate, refer to the concept as a "boom policy". I disagree with this and lets take the UK as an example, to highlight the problems. The "negative lock-in" that is the electorate system binds governments to short-term vision, and this has been implicit on stances to climate change. Political will is a key current required and an innovative approach to climate policy is required. Lets take the case that "silicon valleys" are created in the UK North, focusing on renewable energy production and development of technology. The positive feedback loop that would be created would have enormous benefits for employment, regional growth and help readdress regional supply-demand relationships. This would not have to be a "command and control policy", with the private sector also involved, a key barrier to development of this sector, due to regulatory risk.
In short, we need a new communications framework. One that should emphasise a credible pathway of decarbonization, whilst developing flexible institutional structures in the "green economy" is what I would advocate. So that the perceptual bias in "rethink" is overcome by slowing developing and integrating the "green economy" into economic systems across local, regional and ultimately, the global scale.
Do you not feel that the ambiguous and often confusing jargon (as used above) is inappropriate for communicating the issues associated with climate change to the mass audience?
ReplyDeleteThe key issue you raise is that climate change relies on a "deficit" model of scientific communication (i.e. by increasing information available to the mass audiences in the hope that the debate will be understood). However, we as citizens do not judge rationally as take a range of factors (e.g. culture) and are prone to biases (e.g. groupthink)in our decision-making.
ReplyDeleteIn short, the science needs better marketing. I advocated a shift from focusing on the issue to action above, but in relation to the science, we need a a new theory of risk communication that takes these cultural factors into account when communicating issues relating to climate change. This should inform a coherent positive discourse on how to tackle climate change to combat climate skeptics and the ideology of scepticism. As I have learned, there can be no policy without a positive discourse (to give momentum).
So yes, the jargon is inappropriate. We just need to find better ways to "market" the issue per se.
I recommend the following paper:
Kahan, D. (2010)"Fixing the communications failure", Nature, 463,296-297