Communicating Climate Change

More than two years ago, I spoke on communicating climate change before members of the Philippine Extension Network, Inc., an organization of extensionists in the Philippines.  The things I talked about then were as current then as they still are today, especially in the aftermath of “Sendong” that brought the cities of Cagayan de Oro and Iligan down to their knees, with perhaps the highest number of flooding casualties in the Philippines in recent years.  I would like to revisit my speech in October 2009 because my suggestions then are as applicable today as they were then.

In October 2009, I suggested only three risk communication strategies to help mitigate the impact of disasters like flash flooding on a massive scale.  Let me reproduce here some of those suggestions, which I called challenges.

Challenge No. 1:  Communicating climate change, a scientific phenomenon, to a largely unscientific audience.  I did a very quick and crude survey among ordinary Filipinos and found some interesting data.  I have suspected this kind of data all along, but I still got surprised when I saw the numbers.   I shall compare these with data from the United States based on a poll conducted by Harris International from November 10-17, 2008. As you can see from Table 1, we do have an unscientific Filipino audience.

Table 1.  What Filipinos believe in.

The Issue	Believe In (%)	Don’t Believe In (%)	Not Sure (%)
God	100	0	0
Heaven	98	1	1
Angels	93	1	6
Jesus is God or the Son of God	92	2	6
The Resurrection of Jesus Christ	92	4	4
Miracles	90	1	9
Hell	89	5	6
The Devil	87	4	9
The Virgin Birth	85	7	8
Creationism	83	7	10
Survival of the Soul After Death	83	8	9
Ghosts	68	11	21
Witches	43	21	33
Astrology	38	41	27
Darwin’s Theory of Evolution	34	41	25
UFOs	26	26	48

In table 2, we also see an unscientific American audience.  However, it would be much easier to educate American audiences about climate change compared to their Filipino counterparts.   This is probably one time that we Filipinos should imitate the Americans.  Even so, it appears there would still be a long way to go.

Table 2.  What Americans believe in.

The Issue	Believe In (%)	Don’t Believe In (%)	Not Sure (%)
God	80	10	9
Miracles	75	14	12
Heaven	73	14	13
Jesus is God or The Son of God	71	17	12
Angels	71	17	12
The Resurrection of Jesus Christ	70	18	13
Survival of the Soul After Death	68	15	17
Hell	62	24	13
The Virgin Birth	61	24	15
The Devil	59	27	14
Darwin’s Theory of Evolution	47	32	22
Ghosts	44	39	17
Creationism	40	31	29
UFOs	36	39	25
Witches	31	54	14
Astrology	31	51	18

Source: Mooney & Kirshenbaum (2009), Unscientific America.

We have here in the Philippines a decidedly “unscientific” audience who ranked Darwin’s theory of evolution 15^th out of 16, and prefer to believe in the presence of ghosts and witches. 

Interestingly, few also believe in astrology, and yet, there are hordes of people consulting the palm readers of Quiapo.  This could be taken to mean we have in our hands a confused audience, but an audience that probably has a strong belief system that is less than scientifically-oriented.  The question now is, how do we communicate scientific phenomena to an unscientific audience?  That our science communicators could do much to inform and educate the public about the ill-effects of climate change is a given, but they could also be overwhelmed by the very strong belief systems of their audiences.

Climatic change is a very sophisticated scientific phenomenon, and we must communicate this to a largely unscientific audience.  That is a challenge, indeed. 

Perhaps our pollsters should consider doing more surveys to find out the magnitude in which Filipinos appreciate scientific knowledge so we can at least try to figure out how we could communicate more effectively and efficiently the topic to the public, and perhaps bother less with who will win the presidency today since the elections would not be held today, anyway.

Let us try to recall past thinking on the topic of climate change.    Those of us who have been trying to communicate climate change know that we are dealing with a public that tends to reject the idea that change in climatic conditions is due to human activity.  Our public has always been of the belief that any changes in the climate has always been the handiwork of God.

This is hardly the time for a side comment, but I find this difficult to pass.  One can always  suggest, at least in jest, that those victims of Typhoon Ondoy who are claiming that  their insurance companies are not willing to underwrite the cost of repairing their cars damaged by Typhoon Ondoy, may probably have to line up in church for loan because in this country, as provided for by insurance rules, an act of God is not covered by insurance.(Well, that's probably not exactly correct as I understand that if you, from the beginning, include such things in what you insure and pay for the premiums they might be covered by insurance.  Not sure about this, though.)

In any case, to believe that climate change happens because of the activities of humans is absolutely a different pattern of thinking.  It is a major shift in paradigm.  And we all know that paradigm shifts always take a long time to gestate.

For example, it has been some 150 years after Darwin published his book, The Origin of the Species, and a large proportion of both the American and Philippine publics remain unable to grapple with the theory of evolution.  In America, less than half of the population believes in the theory of evolution, but that means that more than half of Americans do not really believe in it.  For Filipinos, the dividing line is also very clear.   Only 34% believes in it, while 66% does not.

Here is how Simon Donner, Professor of Geography, University of British Columbia, explains why it is a challenge, indeed, to communicate climate change in a largely “unscientific” world:

From Galileo to Darwin, science is full of examples where new discoveries challenged traditional beliefs.  If history is a guide, it can take decades or centuries for the new science to become the new orthodoxy.  The battle over public acceptance of natural selection is still being fought 150 years after the publication of  Darwin’s The Origin of Species.  The potential for human-induced climate change may not belong on a list of the most fundamental scientific discoveries of last 500 years.  Like those discoveries, however, it does challenge a belief held by virtually all religions and cultures worldwide for thousands of years.  This long view of history needs to be reflected in campaigns to educate the public, who do not have the benefit of years of graduate training in atmospheric science, about the science of climate change.

Challenge No. 2:  Climate change is not a breaking news but an oozing phenomenon.  Science communicators, particularly science journalists, have found it very difficult to report on climate change because it is a phenomenon that is incrementally unfolding and the evidences are only trickling in.  In other words, from the point of view of mass media news parlance, the story is not breaking (except in the case of Typhoon Ondoy and other similar cases), it is simply oozing or very slowly flowing.  Such was how it was described by Boyce Rensberger, director of the Knight Science Journalism Fellowships at the MIT (Chandler, 2008) during a panel discussion on “disruptive environments” held last year. 

Panelists were tackling the theme “communicating climate change: science, advocacy and the media.”  Perhaps it is not only a question of how the phenomenon unfolds that is making it difficult for journalists to cover; it is probably partly because the scientists also are finding it difficult to explain why climate change is happening the way it does – oozing, instead of breaking.

An important concept that is always hammered into the heads of aspiring reporters in college is the concept of “breaking news,” which means “it is happening now.”  Climate change is happening now, all right, but why does it not carry the same urgency as, say, breaking news about an ongoing bank heist?  The big difference is that the bank heist happens in just a few minutes if not seconds, while climate change happens anywhere from decades to millions of years.   From the point of view of the public, climate change, unless it translates itself into catastrophic typhoons and floods like Typhoon Ondoy was, appears to be a long, long way into the future and so the urgency is not even perceptively felt.  Scientists, however, feel it is an issue that is absolutely urgent and something must be done now.  Looking at the long-term trend based on data collected over so many years, experts are seeing a quickening of the rate at which climatic conditions are changing.  What they are seeing, based on scientific models and means, is making them more scared.  But the public, not knowing the workings of science, does not appreciate this situation and, therefore, does not feel the same level of urgency so it is not significant information that warrants action right away.  In other words, as it is considered to be act of God, so shall it be.

Do we have a choice in this situation?  It appears we do not have much choice for now.  We will have to continue with efforts at informing and educating the public about the significance of our changing climatic conditions.  There are ways of doing this, such as focusing on the public’s experience with, say, the El Niño and La Niña phenomena because these are events directly affecting the daily lives of people.       

One of the panelists in last year’s discussion at MIT was MIT’s Kerry Emanuel, professor of atmospheric science, who attracted worldwide attention when, just a few weeks before Hurricane Katrina slammed into New Orleans last year, he published a paper predicting the increased intensity of hurricanes due to global warming.   Emanuel’s comment in the panel discussion rings loud and clear when he said, “when it comes to explaining complex scientific work to the media and the public, scientists are ‘not very well trained’.”  Still, Emanuel said, it should be pointed out quite clearly that science, indeed, is built on incremental progress and could be explained only in terms of simplified metaphors, which also invites criticisms from other scientists because metaphors are not exact (Chandler, 2008).

The message is rather clear: climate change is an unfolding phenomenon, and communicating it to the public is always work in progress.  Given such a situation, therefore, the communication expert would now have to devise ways and means of making such a content much more understandable to the public and invite appropriate action to mitigate the phenomenon.  This is a process of informing and educating people, and everybody knows how slow and painstaking it is to educate people, especially when they refuse to be educated.

Challenge No. 3:  Reframing climate change as communication message.  Framing is a concept focusing on building a storyline that sets “specific stream of thought in motion, communicating why an issue might be a problem, who or what might be responsible for it, and what should be done about it” (Nisbet, 2009).  Framing is a technique of focusing the message, and audiences usually rely on frames of messages to make sense of an issue.  Journalists use frames to create interesting stories and reports.  Framing also means making systematic and critical choices of the nature of information to be communicated giving greater weight to certain considerations and other elements over others.

In the last two decades, research in political communication and sociology has added more knowledge about the communication phenomenon of framing.  Research has helped explain how media portrayals of events and issues interact with cultural forces to shape public views of complex policy debates on significant topics like climate change.

With proper framing, climate change could be made highly relevant to public needs and concerns than it otherwise could be under normal situations.  For example, there was great opportunity during the Metro-Manila flash floods that accompanied Typhoon Ondoy on September 26, 2009 to explain that there was flood because the rainfall that normally would have fallen in 30 days was poured in six hours.  This was a result of global warming, of climate change.  Of course, explaining this situation in more understandable ways would mean we need more information to include in our explanation.

According to Nisbet (2009), it should be pointed out that not every individual cares about the environment or would defer to the authority of science.   However, if the message about climate change is framed according to certain beliefs without necessarily changing its scientific foundations, then perhaps the public might have another view of it. 

Nisbet (2009) suggests that we look at possible frames for the subject matter “climate change.”   These frames could include the “economic development frame” which would essentially mean recasting climate change as an opportunity to grow economically.  Hence, we could use phrases like “innovative energy technology” or “sustainable economic prosperity.”  We could talk about conditions where our agricultural production system was devastated by the typhoon and all rice fields were flattened by wind and water, and all the grains buried under water or mud.  Destruction of property was of a magnitude we could hardly describe. 

Another frame would be the “morality and ethics” frame which was used in Al Gore’s Inconvenient Truth.    Why is it, for example, that the developing countries that contribute less than one percent of the gas emissions that cause global warming, have to suffer the brunt of climate change catastrophes?  Not only that, they are also expected to spend as much in mitigating climate change.

Another frame has recently emerged.  This is called the “public health” frame, which focuses on health implications of climate change.  This frame was very clearly present in the aftermath of Typhoon Ondoy, and all other natural catastrophes.  The other way of looking at it is that changing climatic conditions affect adversely our biological conditions and cause health disruptions that could range from mild to serious and fatal.

Through appropriate framing of the message, it is possible to create interpretive storylines that can be used to “bring diverse audiences together on common ground, shape personal behaviour, or mobilize collective action” (Nisbet, 2009).

Concluding Statement.  So, to review the challenges now, we have to do better in informing and educating our publics about a scientific phenomenon even if such publics may not be scientific in their thinking and actions.  We have to seek ways and means of explaining to people that climate change is not a one-time phenomenon that does not come back once it has happened but  a continuing phenomenon.  Also, we have to make sure that our angles of interpretation,  information, as well as education fit into the mind sets of people so that the message sinks in right away and people act immediately accordingly.

Let me conclude with a Chinese saying that has been made gender-sensitive.  It runs like this.  To be a dignified human, one has to sire an off-spring , write a book, and plant a tree.

My friends, siring an off-spring is probably not a mandatory requirement to stay alive.  Many have survived without off-springs, and the world has survived as well.  Much less write a book.  Most of us, in fact, wouldn’t bother to even think of it and the world will not perish.  Planting a tree would perhaps have the most lasting effect on this earth and on mankind.  So, isn’t it about time you started celebrating your being alive by planting a tree on your birthdays?

That’s what I told members of the Philippine Extension Network, Inc. in October 2009 which, I believe, remains applicable today, particularly in relation to the devastating effects of the rains and flooding that accompanied Storm "Sendong".  Fellow development communicators might want to take note.

###