The media is ignoring the climate crisis. Global warming is the greatest emergency the Earth has ever faced, but you wouldn't know it from reading or listening to the news. This is a point that needs to be changed urgently
By Kemer Razavi, PhD student at the School of Communication, Simon Fraser University
The new normal - breaking unprecedented records.
In recent days, when western Canada and the United States are under an unprecedented heat wave, all kinds of superlatives have been used to describe temperatures never seen before: in the town of Lytton in British Columbia, 49.5 degrees Celsius on June 29. The all-time temperature record was broken three days in a row.
People are shocked and scared by these numbers. But should it have come as a surprise? No. scientists warn against The connection between long and intense heat events and climate change for over 40 years. The language of "normals" and "new highs" is quickly becoming meaningless.
But the idea that humanity should have known, or should have done something about the crisis earlier—that we should be ashamed of our inaction—is not helpful in dealing with the climate crisis.
So what is a better and more useful approach to climate change communication?
The first thing to do is spend more time talking about climate change. there is Too little discussion around this issue in the public sphere. Global warming is the greatest emergency the Earth has ever faced, but you wouldn't know it from reading or listening to the news.
Last year, stories about climate change accounted for only 0.4% From the news coverage in the USA. In 2019 he stood on 0.7%. Even in the midst of an unprecedented heat wave stretching from California to the Yukon, references to climate change are few and far between.
Information deficit model
Ironically, one of the biggest blind spots has to do with how information on this topic is shared with the public.
The conventional approach relies on the so-called "The information deficit model". The deficit model is based on the assumption that people will take action on climate change if they have more information about זה.
This information-based approach has shaped all kinds of communication, from public safety awareness about the connection between drinking and driving to news reporting on climate and other important issues.
Unfortunately, the relationship between what people know and how they behave is Not always linear. Feeding more facts to someone highly politically motivated to deny climate change will not convince them to pay more attention to the problem.
Climate change is a complicated story to approach. It can feel too big, too scary, and too difficult to fix for a single person. Information, although important, is not always enough.
In order for there to be engagement on this issue, and by extension, political action, the climate crisis must feel personal, connected, understood, and most importantly - solvable.
Charts and graphs—even polar bears—almost never achieve this goal. Eighty-three percent of Canadians agree that the earth is warming. But only 47% think climate change will hurt them personally.
For people to connect to the climate, we need to Have more conversations About how people work to solve it and how these solutions improve the quality of their lives in their place of residence. These conversations turn an abstract, intangible and scary subject into the realm of everyday life - and make it feel intractable.
"How do you talk to someone who doesn't believe in climate change? Not by re-discussing the same data and facts we've been discussing for years," says climate scientist Catherine Hayhoe.
Environmental reporters have long pointed to the overuse of fear-mongering around climate change as one the main problems in the public engagement on this issue.
The challenge is to match fear-inducing messages with information that includes actionable solutions, meaning what people can actually do to mitigate the fear. The combination of fear and practical solutions leads to what is known as risk management, actions to mitigate the danger, as opposed to "fear control", actions to extinguish the fear.
In the case of the corona virus, the practical solutions were clear: washing hands, social distancing, wearing masks. In the climate change issue, information on practical solutions is much less clear, and more difficult to act upon.
It is often argued that the big emitters, mainly fossil fuel producers, are the ones who bear most of the blame, and are therefore responsible for cleaning up the mess. The Guardian Indicates Because 100 companies are responsible for 71% of emissions.
If so, it is clear that the world needs to stop burning fossil fuels - oil, gas and coal. But to get there, people can also set examples of what pro-environmental behavior looks like.
This can be something as simple as posting photos on social media from community clean-ups, nature walks, or posts about any kind of pro-environmental behavior, such as consumption changes. This form of communication - in contrast to the images that promote a high-carbon lifestyle - normalizes the urgency, importance and possibility of protecting the planet.
Some of the most accessible media people are television news meteorologists, who often have a loyal following. More of them discuss in the ways in which Addressing the climate crisis where people live.
seeing is believing
Most of the communication surrounding the risks of global warming is based on the standard of moral injunctions - all One needs or must act to do something. For example, a sign in a park might tell visitors not to feed the ducks because human food is harmful to them. Still, visitors continue to feed the ducks.
Instead, science communicators have to rely on "descriptive social norms," descriptions of behavior that others, like them, already do and benefit from.
In the UK, campaign in 2015 He urged people to "take your waste home, other people do." It was more likely to reduce illegal littering than signs that said "Please keep your park clean and refrain from littering."
solutions, mainly in the form of stories about people and communities taking action to solve the climate crisis, They are among the most effective ways Mediate the state of emergency to the public.
The "First Nations Forward" series of The Canadian site nationalobserver is a prime example of this type of reporting. Story after story, the site details how Indigenous communities in British Columbia are leading the way in transitioning to a renewable energy future.
Mainstream news outlets, like the one I work for, Global News, allocating more resources and rethinking reporting on the climate crisis. A recently published story report on A massive energy transition was already underway in Alberta (the oil capital of Canada AB).
Such stories of change that work convey a message that action to mitigate the climate crisis by ordinary people is doable, normal, empowering and desirable. They energize and mobilize the public ready for action, by providing visual examples of those who lead the way.
They also move the conversation beyond the conventional emphasis on skeptics and deniers, and normalize pro-environmental values and behaviors for the growing number of people who already Worried from the climate emergency.
Stories about climate solutions are far from activating the narrative of fear, and open up the possibilities for practical solutions and the capabilities of people in the face of the impending danger. In other words, they engage the public on climate change by doing what all good communication does: meet people where they are, through a mobilized story.
The main thing is to ensure the involvement of audiences, not to push them away, as most climate reports do.
