Every
meal you’ve ever eaten……
Every
breath you’ve ever taken……
Every
job you’ve ever had……
Everything
you’ve owned…….
Nature made
it all possible.
Climate
change could make all that impossible!
Are we that much bothered?
Have
the media lost interest? Is it a question of chronic political fatigue? Are our
brains simply not wired to think long-term?
Let
us hear the opinions of four experts:
EBBS
AND FLOWS
Max Boykoff
(founded the Media Climate Change Observatory a decade ago):
"We monitor 50 sources around the
world across 25 countries on six continents. We seek to put our fingers on the
pulse of the ebbs and flows of coverage of climate change over time, month to
month.
"It's not an exhaustive reading of all
media accounts everywhere around the globe across all platforms, but rather is
a way to get us talking productively.
"In 2004 there were relatively low
levels of coverage. Around 2006, into 2007 there was an uptick. There was a
high water mark in 2009 [at the time of the UN Climate Change Conference in
Copenhagen].
"From that high water mark to 2014,
coverage has dropped: 36% globally; 26% in the US; and as much as 55% in the
UK.
"Within the last year here in the
United States, National Public Radio reduced its environment reporting team
from three to one reporter.
"We see examples of
this unfolding quite regularly. There's certainly newsroom pressures. There's
shrinking time to deadline, there's reduced resources to cover complex issues
such as
climate
change that require a certain level of investigation, a certain level of
familiarity with the contours and the nuances of the topics."
COMMITMENT
DEFICIENCY
Jennifer Morgan (Global
Director of the climate change programme at the World Resources Institute):
"Copenhagen was supposed to be the
moment when over 190 countries came together and agreed a new legally binding
agreement to address climate change. It was very much a great excitement and
anticipation of trying to finally get a global agreement after the Kyoto years.
"I remember walking in with a
colleague of mine, and saying 'Okay, we have to do it. We have to get this
done, these moments don't happen very often'.
"But it soon became clear that
negotiations weren't going to plan:
"In the middle of the second week
normally what happens is the options start to get narrowed down, and you can
see the package emerging. That wasn't happening, and that's when we all started
to get very concerned."
China's chief negotiator was barred by
security for the first few days, sessions were routinely suspended in the name
of finishing on time, developing countries said they were ignored, and the EU
was missing from a final meeting where a last-minute, non-binding deal was
drawn up.
"It was terrible. [We felt] an
exhausted defeat, just a deep fatigue, particularly from the European side, of
just wanting to take a break. The personal sacrifice - it sounds crazy - but
believing and trying to make something
happen, I think it was a trauma, just to put so much blood, sweat and tears
into it.
"Right after Copenhagen, there was a
sense that there needed to be a bit of a time out on the world leaders' side of
things. So it definitely went into a very low level of attention for a few
years. The relationships of some of the Heads of State after Copenhagen were
quite strained.
Even months after, it was almost like
[they] had been psychologically burned by this.
"That's had a real impact on the
willingness of these individuals to stay engaged."
MYOPIA
Robert Gifford (Environmental psychologist):
"Our brain physically hasn't developed
much for about 30,000 years. At that time we were mostly wandering around on
the Savannah, and our main concerns were very immediate: feeding ourselves
right now, worrying about anybody who might try to take our territory. There
was very little thinking about what might happen in five years, 10 years, or
100km away.
"We still have this same brain.
Obviously we're capable of planning, but the kind of default is to stick into
the here and now, which is not very good for thinking about climate change,
which is a problem that, for many people, is more in the future and farther
away, or at least we think it is.
MAKE CLIMATE CHANGE SCIENCE
APPEALING
Joe Smith (teaches geography at the Open University:)
"I'm not sure that people need to
engage with climate change at all. It's more or less unreportable if you just
describe it on the page. It's complex, interdisciplinary, the findings drip out
over time, and the boundary between science and policy and politics is a very
messy one. It's a real challenge for the media.
"The idea that we will mobilise any
more people with fear messaging is wrong. I think we've knocked at the door of
everyone that might respond to such a thing, but you've also got to ask whether
it's an accurate way of telling the science. I think it is more respectful to
the nature of the science to say that it's one of humanity's most ambitious
questions.
"There was a tactical wrong turning in
suggesting that by insisting that the debate is over, we can move onto the
action. It somehow implied that the science was complete, and that, of course,
left lots of space for those people who have arguments about the actions on
climate change to stand in the way of us having a proper public conversation
about those actions because they were able to pick apart minor details in the
science.
"It's not just that climate science
isn't finished, it's actually unfinishable.
"The rest of science -
particle physics, cosmology - is allowed to be rather saucy. I would love to
get to the point where we allow climate change science to simply be
interesting, enchanting
even, as fascinating as any area of science
because it's a hugely ambitious and compelling mission.
"If you want to talk to a business
person, you talk about energy security for their business or energy security
for their nation. If you want to talk to a parent at the school gate, you talk
to them about the health of their child, their experience of the trip to school
- wouldn't they be happier walking and cycling?
"Talking about climate change doesn't
have to involve 'talking about climate change' to lead us to some really
substantial actions.
"We don't need to wear a climate
change t-shirt."
Reference:
http://www.conservation.org/
Comments
Post a Comment