IS IT TOO BIG A THING?

Communicating Climate Change. Is it too big a thing?

The subject of Climate Change is difficult to avoid. Its profile in the media is very high. That's good, isn't it?

What do you think when you read or hear about Climate Change? Do you wonder how you can adapt your current lifestyle in order to make a lower contribution to the problem? Or do you consider it a global problem requiring a global response from the world's political leaders?  What sort of language and imagery is helpful in getting the appropriate reaction from people?

There was some analysis recently by the Institute of Public Policy Research on the different styles of reporting on Climate Change and the effect they have ( http://www.ippr.org.uk/ecomm/files/warm_words.pdf ).  The report effectively identifies the tendency of government and campaigning groups to use apocalyptic language and metaphors in the media as counter productive in encouraging viewers, listeners and readers to 'do their bit' to mitigate climate change.  In a similar vein, Futerra Sustainability Communications Ltd published Rules of The Game  ( http://www.futerra.co.uk/downloads/RulesOfTheGame.pdf ) about how to successfully communicate climate change.

Communicating the causes and consequences of accelerated climate change is what the ECO Centre has been doing all its life.  So, are we, and organisations like us, benefiting from the increased level of reporting of climate change in the media?  What should we be communicating?

Are we benefiting? It could make our job easier. We hold events and run publicity that aim to link our activities with energy saving and reducing carbon emissions. The question is do people make the link between the headlines and these sorts of activities?  The answer is, some do. In fact, many do. In promoting low energy lightbulbs at roadshows and events, there is more likely to be an acknowledgement that energy saving is important these days. But this is often related to costs rather than climate change.

And this introduces another issue to the discussion, because the cost and sustainability issue is just as important as the environmental ones. Why are the costs going up? At its simplest because the resources are limited and the supply is by no means secure, be it international security issues or natural ones. Hurricane Katrina had as big an impact on the prices of oil last summer as the conflicts in the Middle East are having.  A key part of our message is about reducing our individual reliance on fossil fuels by reducing our energy demand. Is this how people perceive the news stories about climate change?

Thus we have two strands to this subject. One is climate change itself - the effect on our climate systems of the accumulation of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere as a result of our use of fossil fuels over the last 300 years. The other is the energy issue, the global economy is based on a high carbon economy. The developed world relies completely on fossil fuel for heat and power. Ignoring the climate change consequence for a moment, society still faces a problem in that the fossil fuel reserves are finite - they must be, we are using them up at a far greater rate than that at which they are formed. So saving energy has also been about saving resources.

What should we be communicating? As mentioned above, the tendency is to depict the environmental consequences of climate change in very vivid apocalyptic terms. But is everyone concentrating on the wrong thing? Climate Change is a result of burning fossil fuels, so the potential impact on the planet if all the fossil fuel reserves are used at the current rate is indeed very significant. The drive to change the way people use energy resources stems from the need to prolong the current reserves and slow the rate at which greenhouse gases, especially carbon dioxide, accumulate in the atmosphere. It is also to do with lowering our energy costs in anticipation of the time when energy is prohibitively expensive. Much of the environmental catastrophe described as a result of global warming: ice sheets melting and sea level rise: flooding; biodiversity change etc. is longer term than the economic and social consequences of rapid and large increases in energy costs.

So instead of talking about climate change, should we refocus and be more emphatic that reliance on fossil fuels will lead us into a new 'dark age'?  There will no economic infrastructure, social cohesion will have broken down, basic human needs (as we understand them) will be a struggle to meet. Scary isn't it?

The conspiracy theorists might argue that Government believes this view, but also believes that it cannot force the population to reduce its demand lest this be construed as a reduction in the quality of life. It cannot reasonably implement tax regimes that will make it unpopular. So whilst encouraging energy efficiency and take up of renewables it is planning to generate more electricity to meet the growing demand using nuclear power technology. Whilst the environmental impacts of climate change may be a long time in coming, the construction of a number of new nuclear power stations over the next 10-15 years may arrive in time to take over from coal, gas and oil electricity generation.

So should we be communicating the survivalist message? Will this sort of language and imagery persuade people to do more? Probably not. Is it so scary that, in the end, we do nothing? Is it too big a thing to comprehend? And anyway, if we change our lifestyles but the Americans, for example, don't, what's the point?

Much of the current advertising and promotion regarding energy saving and ameliorating the causes of climate change are predicated on lots of people doing little things. It's an easier message to communicate as it can be made relevant to everybody. But each individual may have trouble convincing themselves that their own actions have value, given the global dimension of climate change and energy politics.

I don't know what the answer is. Many people have written extensively on the issues (Walt Patterson, George Monbiot are just two well-known examples) from a variety of viewpoints. Everyone must do their little bit, but this can be cascaded upwards so that the 'little bit' is relative and the commitment at political level has as much impact as your decision to stop using plastic bags, shop locally and improve your home's energy efficiency.

Climate change is a big thing. But rather than worry about solving the whole problem for everyone, focus on what you can do and encourage others to do the same. You never know, someone you know may know the Prime Minister.

Jake Hollyfield

Previous front page articles can be reviewed on the archive page.