In Tuesday’s IHT, Elisabeth Rosenthal reported that doubts on climate warming have been on the rise, especially in Britain, after a data dispute and a cold winter.
Britain, until recently a world leader in its response to climate change, now suffers a global reputation as a hotbed of skepticism.
The front page of Tuesday’s IHT cites a BBC poll which suggests that belief among Britons in manmade climate change has declined dramatically.
The report is right to blame exaggerated media coverage of climate scientists’ errors, as well as the furore over leaked e-mails at the University of East Anglia. It could also have pointed to the controversy over a British public information campaign that made “misleading” claims about the certainty of climate change damage.
What all of this masks, though, is a more fundamental failure in communications on the part of numerous governments and NGOs who wish to encourage low-carbon behavior.
Every successful advertising executive understands that effective campaigns offer the promise of a better, more attractive life. Yet climate change communications remain stuck in the dark ages, attempting to scare and shock the public into action.
While minor inaccuracies have landed the British government’s campaign in trouble with the Advertising Standards Authority, its strategy of alarmism is the true cause for concern.
In the “Bedtime Story” television commercial a young girl is confronted with the “horrible consequences” of climate change as her puppy drowns in a flood. Beyond enraging skeptics, such apocalyptic scenes seem to negate any possibility that ordinary citizens might be able to prevent disaster.
Just as misguided is this month’s U.N. ad which imagines our grandchildren inheriting “one apartment, an established business and an irreversible climate catastrophe.”
Elsewhere, there have even been distasteful attempts to invoke 9/11. The Brazilian ad agency DDB used computer imaging to show a swarm of aircraft attacking Manhattan, the tagline suggesting climate disasters will make terror attacks look insignificant. A movie theater ad by the environmental group Plane Stupid, in which polar bears tumble from skyscrapers to their gruesome deaths, conjures equally uncomfortable memories of New York’s darkest hour.
The failure of these advertisements is not surprising. People understandably react badly when they are made to feel guilty. Indignant denial is a more natural response than behavior change.
Back in 2001, Professor Susan Owens of Cambridge University acknowledged the “persistent refusal of the public to have their allegedly irrational conceptions of risk ‘corrected’ by providing them with more information.”
And psychologists’ concept of the “finite pool of worry” explains why threats to our children and planet can fall on deaf ears: Put simply, life’s everyday challenges take priority over an issue which is long term, intangible and constantly disputed.
It is only in this context of flawed communications that the skeptics have been able to achieve such a remarkable volte-face in public opinion. While their campaigns have been well-orchestrated and ruthless, their task is not difficult.
People are only too happy to accept a message of denial: you do not need to change, it will all be fine. It certainly beats the unpalatable alternative currently on offer from environmentalists and governments around the world.
Tommy Stadlen, a London-based writer on climate change and sustainable business.