Communicating Climate Change

Add a Comment

Comment by Hazel Chandler on April 22, 2013 at 19:12

I will start shooting a series of documentaries in July, following a woman who started climbing trees at 70 to draw attention to the threats they face, deforestation and climate change but through positive stories. Starting with the mahogany seed collectors in the Peruvian Amazon. A group from an isolated tribe who have found an alternative income to logging and mining- climbing the mahogany trees, collecting and selling the seeds to those who are planting them.

Comment by Sarah Tucker on March 13, 2012 at 17:10

Hi all

I have been sent this link so thought I would share this with you all on this group:

http://www.climateweek.com/run-an-event/

Do post below if you are doing anything for Climate Week which started yesterday!

Sarah

Comment by Jody Joanna Boehnert on August 13, 2010 at 16:12

It is true that adopting low carbon lifestyles is complex. This is why it is particularly important that the RSA addresses the role of communicating these complex issues to enable informed debate and decisions. Unfortunately, Matthew Taylor's comments are unhelpful in addressing problems associated with climate change and peak oil. Instead of a constructive strategy for how we need to deal with the issues at hand, he describes how we are losing. This analysis suggests that there is no alternative - we are stuck with climate change whether we like it or not. While each of the points have some truth, as a totality this position is irresponsible and a poor starting point for the RSA to tackle a threat as severe as climate change. In response to each of Matthew's points:

1. The tendency to overstate the certainty of the science;
This comment reveal thinly veiled skepticism - a convenient way to avoid action.

2. The way that some seem to want to use the issue to smuggle in a socialist utopia through the green back door...
An ideological attack on the green movement revealing an interest in avoiding a deeper pragmatic engagement with the issues.

3. The use of over blown rhetoric about saving the world and providing global leadership...
There will always be overblown rhetoric in politics and the media. We need to counter this rhetoric with something more measured and informed. This list of reasons why we are losing the argument against CC is also over blown rhetoric.

4. The confusing shift from apocalyptical talk of oil running out and the countries being consumed by the sea to rosy accounts of how easy it will be for us all to live carbon free lives.

The issues seems confusing because they are extremely complex and our educational system had not created a basic level of ecological literacy (and energy literacy) required to understand the problems at hand. Cultural institutions such as the RSA should play a role in making some of the complexities more understandable. Peak oil is a real threat, as described in by the International Energy Agency, the UK Industry Taskforce on Peak Oil and Energy Security, and most energy experts. Taylor's use of the word 'apocalyptic' in this context dismisses a serious issue with contempt reserved usually for conspiracy theorists. Island nations are in danger and casually dismissing the loss of entire nations demonstrates insincerity to take climate change as a seriously. Yes, many NGOS and agencies attempt to make it appear to be easy to live carbon free lives - and while it might not be truthful, they are up against enormously obstacles and patronizing defenders of the status quo.

5. Not to mention the constantly changing advice about whether we should or should not buy shipped produce or get wind turbines fitted or new boilers installed.
Again, understanding the issues in regards to energy use and embodied carbon emissions is incredibly complex. Instead of issuing defeatist lists of why we are losing, a more helpful approach would attempt to build the kinds of institutions that could help clarify and educate audiences regarding energy consumption.

The reasons that we are not making any progress with climate change has more to do with the fact that elites deny, disassociate and disengage from the problems associated with climate change and then pontificate on why we are losing the battle. It is easy to criticize but harder to engage in the struggles to stop the climate change.
If anyone is responsible for steering our culture in a more responsible direction it is institutions such as the RSA; but deeper analysis and more intellectual honesty is required. Without this there is little chance of the RSA becoming a vehicle for clear messaging about the challenges presented by climate change.

Comment by David Wilcox on February 16, 2010 at 17:06

There's now a forum discussion on the main site - thanks William. Better than starting one here, so I've deleted mine.

Comment by David Wilcox on February 16, 2010 at 13:51

Thanks William, feel free to start a discussion on focus, or I can later this afternoon

Comment by RSA Projects on February 16, 2010 at 13:48

Great idea...

Comment by David Wilcox on February 16, 2010 at 13:45

Great stuff. How about shifting this into a forum post: "What should RSA focus on" ... then not science? Message? Method? Energy?

Comment by RSA Projects on February 16, 2010 at 12:59

... of course being fairly shallow I think that part of the problem is of humour.

Who is funnier, George Monbiot or Christopher Brooker? Jeremy Clarkson or Jonathan Porritt?

I'm not saying that we need to dash out and find the Stephen Fry of the environmental movement, more that it's symptomatic of how poor the message is that it's so po faced.

Comment by RSA Projects on February 16, 2010 at 12:51

I'm very happy to be involved...

My own take on this Is that I don't think it's wise to knock the science, as Matthew appeared to do in his post. When Matthew gives "the tendency to overstate the science" as one of the reasons why people are turning away from the idea that we need to tackle climate change I'm not sure he's right. The science surrounding climate change is subjected to far greater public scrutiny than any other science, and even after that bruising process, what remains is still extremely alarming. The fact that the science has become contentious is a cultural phenomenon, not a scientific one. It's only "overstating" because it's not what people want to hear.

If we're looking at potentials for change, should we be looking at the reasons why people don't want to hear what science is saying. The traditional green approach to communicating climate is confrontational and full of schadenfreude. We're right living half way up a mountain and you in your 4x4s are all wrong. How can we change that?

What motivates people to look for faults in climate science is - as Matthew says - a belief that this is sneaking in government control by the back door. Well, actually those people have a point. All our thinking on climate is about greater taxation and legislation. If we're going to involve everyone who grew up in a post 70s world, how do we respect the hard one personal freedoms of the last few decades and still persuade people to act on climate?

The IPPR already have research into what switches people off. This recent report said "climate change-related communications, products and policies are leaving most people unengaged and switched off".

So what other messages are there?

Comment by David Wilcox on February 16, 2010 at 12:08

Thinking about organising ... over on his blog Matthew has responded enthusistically to this initiative with the prospect of some events, and also pointed to the excellent comment section on the main RSA site. That's where anyone can engage with RSA events, opinion pieces and animations.
Just checking - is this the place where we aim to organise, then work out how to do some joining up? Could we invite any relevent staff into this group? Looking very promising.

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• Next ›
• Page