Top links: Home About us Contacts Jobs Links
Shop Your basket Support us

• Current Releases
• Archive

You are in: news

Search
keywords: theme: Please select a themeAssets and WealthChildren and FamiliesClimate Change and EnvironmentCrime and JusticeDemocracy, Power and CitizenshipEconomy and BusinessEducationHealth and Social CareHousingInternational, Security and Human RightsMedia, Culture and SportMigration and IntegrationPolitical IdeasTransportWelfare and PovertyRegional IssuesGovernance and Civic RenewalPublic ServicesQuality of LifeEconomic PolicyGlobal Climate Network

‘Climate porn’ turning off public from action

03 August 2006

The alarmist language used to discuss climate change is tantamount to ‘climate porn’, offering a thrilling spectacle but ultimately distancing the public from the problem,according to new research published today by the Institute for Public Policy Research (ippr).

The research analysed more than 600 articles from the UK press, as well as over 90 TV, radio and press ads, news clips and websites to find out how the media, government and green groups are communicating climate change.

The report argues that the discussion on climate change in the UK is confusing, contradictory and chaotic, and with the likely result that the public feels disempowered and uncompelled to act.

The report says that climate change communications should avoid using inflated or extreme language and placing the focus on small actions to solve the problem.

The report identifies ten different ways of talking about climate change, of which the first two are dominant:

• Alarmism (‘we’re all going to die’): this pessimistic approach refers to climate change as awesome, terrible, immense and beyond human control. It excludes the possibility of real action - ‘The problem is just too big for us to take on’. Alarmism might even become secretly thrilling – effectively a form of ‘climate porn’. It is seen in almost every form of discussion on the issue.

‘A world of climate chaos spiralling out of control’

• Small actions (‘I’m doing my bit for the planet – and maybe my pocket’): the ‘small actions’ approach is the dominant one in campaign communications from government and green groups. It asks a large number of people to do a few small things to counter climate change. The language is one of ease and domesticity with references to kettles and cars, ovens and light switches. It is often placed alongside alarmism. It is likely to beg the question: how can this really make a difference?

‘20 things you can do to save the planet from destruction’

The report suggests that communications from government and green groups should treat climate-friendly activity as a brand that can be sold, making it feel natural to the large numbers of people who are currently unengaged with the problem. It says that solutions to climate change could appeal to Britons’ sense of ‘ordinary heroism’ as exemplified in the Battle of Britain and Make Poverty History. It also says the argument on climate change should be treated as having been won.

Simon Retallack, ippr’s head of climate change, said:
“If the public is to be persuaded of the need to act we must understand how climate change is being communicated in the UK. Currently, climate communications too often terrify or thrill the reader or viewer while failing to make them feel that they can make a difference, which engenders inaction.

“Government and green groups should avoid giving the impression that ‘we are all doomed’ and spend less time convincing people that climate change is real. The focus should be on the big actions that people can take to address climate change, like switching to a hybrid car, fitting a wind turbine or installing cavity wall insulation, not just the small ones such as turning down the thermostat or switching off the lights. Climate-friendly behaviours need to be made to feel like ‘the kinds of things that people like us do’ to large groups of people.”

Ways of talking about climate change continued:

• Settlerdom (‘What’s all the fuss about?’): this approach dismisses climate change as a thing so fantastic that it cannot be true. It rejects and mocks the alarmists and invokes ‘common sense’ on behalf of ‘the sane majority’ in opposition to ‘the doom-mongers.’ It.

‘It’s not going to happen in my lifetime’

• British comic nihilism (‘Oh, bugger it and open another bottle!’): this is whimsical, unserious, blithely irresponsible – a sunny refusal to engage in the debate. It adopts a very British self-mocking and contrary tone, dealing with adversity and threat with the use of humour.

‘Global warming has a lot to answer for. According to the scare stories, by 2050 Kent’s chalky hillsides will be full of luxuriant vines, the oast houses will be turned into wineries.’

• Rhetorical scepticism (‘Its bad science, over-hyped.’): this involves an aggressive campaigning scepticism. It attacks the expert view of climate change as ‘bad science’, using terms like ‘pack of lies’ and ‘propaganda’. It characterises the green movement as irrational and naïve and treats issues such as energy efficiency as ‘something only liberals, tree-huggers and sissies believe is possible or necessary’.

‘A massive scam based on flawed computer modelling, bad science and an anti-western ideology…’

• Free market protection (‘Ah, but what you haven’t thought of is…’): the free-market protection approach is concerned with the possible negative effects of actions that may be taken to counteract climate change. It says efforts to curb emissions are the one thing that might ruin our chances of survival.

‘In the total sum of human well-being, money spent on battling climate change could be better spent elsewhere.’

• ‘Expert’ denial (‘I beg to differ…’): with this approach scientists slug the debate out on their own terms. It is characterised by a tendency to construct climate change as being predominantly caused by ‘natural’ (not man-made) factors. It includes the complaint that the language of climate change is becoming ‘religious’.

‘The Earth’s climate has always shown natural variation… There is nothing to suggest that any warming we are seeing now is not part of that natural cycle.’

• Warming is good (‘Relax, don’t worry…’): this approach displays an apparently informed optimism. While the comic position makes a joke of it, the ‘warming is good’ line of argument proposes seriously that climate change brings benefits. 

‘If you could vote for a change in climate, you would always want a warmer one.s’

• Techno-optimism (‘Technology will provide the answer’): there are two forms of this particular approach, one that technology or business will find the answers and the other that says the answer will come from inventive genius and independent interests, while business and existing interests are an obstacle to progress.

‘My vision is for green fossil fuels’

• David and Goliath (‘A small number can change the world’): this approach gives the impression of positive action. But its aggressive, oppositional style can be used all too easily by others to dismiss the advocates of action as ‘long-haired hippies out to change the world’.

‘Never doubt… that a small number of dedicated people can change the world. Indeed it is the only thing that ever has.’

Notes to editors:

Warm Words: How are we telling the climate story and can we tell it better? by Gill Ereaut and Nat Segnit is available to journalists from the ippr press office.

Gill Ereaut is principal of Linguistic Landscapes, a consultancy that combines techniques of linguistic and discourse analysis with commercial expertise to address marketing and communications and organisational problems. Nat Segnit is a freelance textual analyst, as well as a novelist, scriptwriter and journalist.

Warm Words was commissioned by the Climate Change Team at ippr as part of its project on how to stimulate climate-friendly behaviour in the UK. Further reports from this project will be published later this year.

The report analyses current UK constructions and conceptions of climate change in the public domain, using some of the tools and principles of discourse analysis and semiotics.

The research was carried out in late 2005 and early 2006. It involved reviewing some 600 articles from the UK daily and weekly press and magazines, about 40 television and radio advertisements and news clips, and 30 press ads. It also analysed around 20 websites. These included the websites of the Government’s Climate Challenge campaign (www.climatechallenge.gov.uk), the Energy Saving Trust (www.est.org.uk), Greenpeace (www.greenpeace.org ), Friends of the Earth (www.foe.co.uk), WWF (www.wwf.org), RSPB (www.rspb.org.uk ) and Stop Climate Chaos (www.stopclimatechaos.org).

Contacts: 
Matt Jackson, ippr senior media officer, 020 7339 0007 / 07753 719 289 / m.jackson@ippr.org
 
Richard Darlington, ippr media manager, 020 7470 6177 / 07738 320 645 / r.darlington@ippr.org 

 

Communications

• SIGN UP FOR IPPR NEWSLETTER
• BECOME A FRIEND OF IPPR
• IPPR PODCASTS
• RSS FEEDS