blog
Claims that human activities are changing the climate are exaggerated?
Posted by: Harriet Kingaby
We came across a wonderful piece of research last week that I felt I ought to share with you. I was helping to present the concept around our 'Sizzle' document recently, up in Scotland. Some people really loved the idea, got the concept and were on board: others really didn't.
Isn't this just terribly shallow? Isn't it time to stop all this woolly thinking around climate change? Shouldn't we shock people, make them realise that what they're doing is wrong and educate them to change their behaviour?
My answer is no. Climate change too important an issue to carry on communicating as we have done before. What about the people we are trying to communicate to (you know, the vast majority who are sitting on the fence about whether climate change is anthropogenic)? Are they listening or going deaf?
There is some very compelling evidence in psychology that 'shock tactics' don't work for issues with consequences that aren't in the direct future, like climate change. Whilst shock tactics might work for seat belt campaigns, where the consequences of not belting up are immediate, imaginable and incredibly nasty, telling someone that they should turn their lights off or polar bears will die/ children in Bangladesh will suffer seems too ethereal a concept for some. In the same vein, there is a lot of evidence to suggest that information alone does not lead to behaviour change (afterall, if this were true then no one would smoke).
Historically, many green campaigns have taken this tack, which is what makes this graph so compelling. Despite an increase of media coverage on green issues, mainstreaming of green products and better education about climate change, the number of people who believe that claims that human activity is contributing to climate change are exaggerated doubled between 2003 and 2008 (see graph below).
Is media hyperbole to blaim for this green fatigue? Is it the recent climate change scandals or the coldest winter for decades? Or is it green communication campaigns themselves? I don't know, I suspect it's a combination of the three, but what I do know is that we need a new way of communicating and we need it now.
For more information, have a look at Global Environmental Change in the coming months, for an article by Lorraine Whitmarsh called: Scepticism and uncertainty in public understanding of climate change.
Comments are closed on this thread.
Archives
- September (1)
- August (8)
- July (20)
- June (20)
- May (19)
- April (35)
- March (35)
- February (27)
- January (36)
- December (23)
- November (16)
- October (8)
Authors
- Ed Gillespie (170)
- Solitaire Townsend (40)
- Henry Hicks (39)
- David Willans (38)
- Doug Stewart (35)
- Laurie Bennett (29)
- Casper ter Kuile (25)
- Jeff Melnyk (20)
- Harriet Kingaby (20)
- Georgina Combes (17)
- Tom Gater (16)
- Lucy Warin (15)
- Alistair Macdonald (14)
I think your right Harriet. People don't want to consume any more information, they don't know what to do with it, how to organise or comprehend it! So they cant be shocked or scared by it, with all the drastic extremes. You mention the cold winter, I really think a lot of people don't get it, and thats understandable! Its not about informing its about leadership for change, if the govenment, major brands and role models aren't appearing to drastically change then the shock tactics really don't work!Especially when the climate change impacts aren't physically obvious to all of us, and by then, it will be too late!
Hi there - you could go one step further and say that the shock and awe tactics don't always work in road safety campaigns - have you seen the new DFT advert: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qbGjeI7Av5w
Glad you liked the post Tom. You're right about leadership. I think there's a real need for companies, government and brands to change the way that they talk to consumers. Arguing over science and prophesizing doom isn't going to get us there, selling a positive vision of the way we want to be living is!
Thanks Tom, glad you liked it. I just found this comment piece in the Teelgraph: http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/georgepitcher/100029346/tory-climate-bores-will-eat-each-other/ which underlines it quite nicely with the paragraph:"The real truth is that most of us in the middle of this debate just don't care. We'd quite like to know if we're damaging the planet and what can be done about it, but are bored rigid by hysterical claim and counter-claim from this weird bunch of anoraky ideologues, who should get out more."A need for compelling leadership and better communications methinks.
really good quote, does sum most of it up nicely. Sad thing is I don't see this leadership is going to come from; Copenhagen was such a massive disaster, and in a lot of ways was never going to succeed in that format, in that time frame. Not even letting the NGOs engage at all, or any scientists that haven't been embedded in political mindsets.. sigh..