As debates over national and global climate and energy policy continue to drag out, there’s been an intensifying exploration of climate miscommunication among those seeking concrete actions that will make a noticeable difference in the atmosphere someday. If the science pointing to a rising risk of dangerous human interference with climate is settled, the thinking goes, then why aren’t people and the world’s nations galvanized? Maybe it’s a language problem? This reflects an ongoing exploration here.
As Seed Magazine put it last month, “Is there a better word for doom?” The magazine asked six people to weigh in on how different frames or approaches to climate communication might break through. They were the geoscientist Michael E. Mann; Ann Kinzig, an ecologist; Clark A. Miller, a political scientist; Gavin Schmidt, a climate scientist; Robert Henson, a meteorologist and science writer; and Matthew Nisbet, a communications professor.
Have a look at what they say. Then read what Randy Olson, a marine scientist turned filmmaker and now author, said after I asked him to have a look at the views laid out in Seed. He gave a modest thumbs up to Dr. Schmidt but his overall reaction was that the commentators focusing on changing how the climate issue is “framed” were far too detached from the public to have a meaningful idea of how to make an impact. (Dr. Olson’s forthcoming book, “Don’t Be Such a Scientist,” aims to help scientists communicate more effectively with the rest of society.)
Below I’ve pasted what Dr. Olson said he would have written if asked whether there is a better word, in the climate context, for doom. In sum, he said, “Focusing on ‘framing’ as a means to
solve the lack of motivation behind an issue is like searching for ‘techno-fixes’ to problems rather than addressing the source of the problem. Framing and techno-fixes may work in the short term and
are worthy of a certain amount of effort, but they should not be the highest priority in trying to solve the problems for the long term.”
We’re Talking About Humans HereEveryone associated with environmental communication needs to read The Cluetrain Mainfesto of 1999 and take it to heart. The environmental struggle is one big exercise in persuasion. What the Cluetrain folks pointed out is that humans respond to human voices. You can “frame” all you want, but if the communication is coming from robots, the only ones who will respond will be the robots. People have enormous perceptual power and instincts, the science of which is only beginning to be explored. Malcolm Gladwell’s book “Blink” provides a starting point. The bottom line is it only takes a few seconds for people to listen to a voice and decide whether they trust it or not. If that voice is devoid of human qualities, and worse if there is a clear sense that the voice is speaking with “messages” that have been “framed” and “focus grouped,” it just ain’t gonna work for the masses. And double that for the younger masses.
Obama is making enormous strides now on science and environmental issues because he’s been placed in the position of power to do so. He got there not through cold, calculated messaging, but by being an EXTREMELY likable (a crucial trait for today’s increasingly style-driven world), deeply humanized person who is able to convey the central human qualities of humor and emotion. When he addressed the Reverend Wright issue in one of the pivotal moments of his campaign, he did so with an impassioned and vibrantly human voice which succeeded in putting out a potentially lethal fire.
These are elements of style in communication which are central to our information-glutted world. Yes, language does matter, but that is primarily an element of substance (i.e. the text of what is communicated). You can come up with all the clever terms you want, but if they are spoken by environmental leaders who are perceived as cold, calculating, and manipulative, the broader audience will simply disconnect. Not because of the language, but because of their basic instincts leading them to not trust the voice they are hearing.
So what’s your view? Is the climate challenge one of communication style, of inadequate energy choices, of the hard-wired aspects of human nature?
My sense is there’s a big dose of the latter in this arena. Humans remain mainly focused on the here and now, and the worst outcomes in a warming world remain someday or somewhere. There’s still scant evidence we’re able to invest against inevitable shocks even when the danger is clear and local, as with Oregon’s risk from earthquakes.