CLIMATE CHANGE COMMUNICATION: NO ALARMS AND NO SURPRISES, PLEASE

Nowadays, climate change is probably the most trending environmental topic all around the world. Only Donald Trump has tweeted climate change over 100 times. Ironically, at the same time due to the complexity of this issue, it’s becoming one of those topics to be avoided, falling in the same category as sex, politics and religion. A debate on sea level rise is not precisely a synonym of a joyful social gathering.

Why did climate change become so controversial and polarized? Andrew J. Hoffman in his book How culture shapes the climate change debate highlights the responsibility of the scientific community stating that “one of the reasons (among many) that the public discourse on climate change has become so confused is that too many academics do not see it as their role to engage in it.”[1] However, lately the author introduces the third player aimed to fill the gap between the science and broader society: “the challenge […] is not simply scientific in nature, at this stage it is as much about the communication of science as it is about the science itself”[2]. So, climate change seems to be (at least) a three-player game where the goals are shared but the strategies differ completely.

In this “climatic triangle” communicators basically are aimed to create engagement between the two opposite poles, between information providers and recipients. In other words, it’s our role to encourage people speaking about sea level rise when hanging out with friends. Climate change communication is not about carbon dioxide it’s about the values. It’s about facts mixed with emotions. And that’s where the problems arise.

Climate change itself is quite a peculiar topic because there is neither a clear solution nor a concrete enemy to be blamed. These two factors make this issue kind of uncomfortable and that’s why when treating it, each word should be weighed very carefully. The final goal of each environmental communicator is always to motivate citizens to take action (yes, changing light bulbs also beats global warming) or at least to provoke a reflexion on one or other matter (why do low-energy light bulbs are so expensive?).

Basically, this intermediate player, the one who “shapes” the information provided by the science has two possible paths for achieving the abovementioned objective: to alarm by causing fear or to opt for a positive engagement. For its part, a reader also has two options: to accept or to reject the information. World has three years left to stop dangerous climate change, warn experts, – is a headline of The Guardian you’d definitely skip on your lunch time, wouldn’t you? And no, it’s not about smoothing the problems, it’s about taking into consideration cultural and social lenses which influence readers’ perception on the subject.

As climate change communication is a relatively new issue, there are no clear dos and don’ts here yet. We still don’t know which strategy works best in the long run. However, the common sense dictates that annoying alarms make people search for the snooze button. And snoozing is not exactly the reaction we are looking for. It is in the hands of environmental communicators to influence the way people receive, assess and act upon scientific information. So, no alarms and no surprises, please.