Without the contextual introduction of the speech, titled, "Challenges in Communicating Climate Change," I'm reprinting the body of that speech here because I find it still completely relevant today.
Challenges in Communicating Climate Change
By
Felix Librero, PhD
Professor of
Devcom and Education
U.P. Open
University
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.
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 15th 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.
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.
Panellists 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 panellists 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?
Thank you.
###
References
Donner, Simon. (2009).
Communicating climate change in an unscientific world. Retrieved from http://simondonner.blogspot.com/2009/09/communicating-climate-change
Chandler, David. (2008).
News that oozes: panellists tackle challenges of communicating climate
change. Retrieved from http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2008/climate-media-tt0416.html
Climate change in Asia: perspective on the future climate
regime. Retrieved from http://www.unu.edu/unupress/2008/climateChangeinAsia.html
Carvalho, Anabela. (2008).
The challenges of communicating climate change. Retrieved from http://www.lasics.uminho.pt/ojs/index.php/climate_change
Climate change.
Retrieved from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change
Retallack, Simon.
(2006). Ankelohe and beyond:
communicating climate change. Retrieved
from http://www.opendemocracy.net
Ward, Bud.
(2009). Communicating on climate
change. Retrieved from http://www.metcalfinstitute.org/Communicating_ClimateChange.html
Nisbet, Matthew C.
(2009). Communicating climate
change: why frames matter for public engagement. Retrieved from http://www.environmentmagazine.org/Archives/Back%201Issues/March-April2009/Niwsbet-full.html
Doster, Stephanie. (2009).
Meeting the challenges of climatic change head on. Retrieved from http://www.environment.arizona.edu/news/fws_report
Fabusoro, Enjola and F
Hoi-Yee. (2009). Challenges of climatic change to pastoral
system in rainforest zone of Southwest Nigeria.
In Climate Change: Global Risks, Challenges and Decisions. IOP Conference Series: Earth and
Environmental Science 6. Tokyo: IOP
Publishing Ltd.
This is a very enlightening post Sir. How I wish I can also write blogs like this in the future - well thought of.
ReplyDelete