Miscommunications: The Dissonance in Mainstream Climate Coverage
Leaving aside the vested interests of those who stand to materially benefit from the status quo, let’s assume most people do not want to bring about climate destruction. Fairly uncontroversial. Why is it, then, that we struggle to collectively reckon with its significance?
According to the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), 3.5 billion people are ‘highly vulnerable’ to climate impacts, 30% of humans are exposed to deadly heat stress every year and half of the world’s population endures water shortages. In 2018 alone, 17.2 million people were newly displaced in connection with climate disasters. Average global temperature is now outside the window within which it has fluctuated for the entirety of human history. We are, however, only at 1.1C today. Things are incontrovertibly going to get worse.
Meanwhile, following climate protests against the UK government’s plan to go back on their pledges and provide new licensing for fossil fuel energy sources, ITV’s Good Morning Britain hosted a panel discussion with a representative from XR. The first time I watched this interview I was astounded. On the one hand, the questions being asked seemed to resolutely avoid the crux of the issue: irresponsible (and dangerous?) governance. On the other, the speaker from XR somehow remained composed: exuding intelligence amongst the chauvinism and elementary-level assertions being lofted about.
‘With all due respect, I don’t think you are aware. I don’t think the government and the media are doing enough to show how serious this is.’ – XR Spokesperson
Somewhere nestled amongst these cosy opening paragraphs resides a cavernous dissonance. We care for our future, the future of generations to come and the wellbeing of ecosystems. But the situation is, by all veritable accounts very, very desperate. Nonetheless, consistently articulating these concerns in the mainstream media and constructing pragmatic public dialogue has proven, thus far, an unsurmountable challenge.
The clip from ITV stuck with me. I began to think about the less conspicuous, and possibly unconscious, motivations behind the partisan focus of the debate. How representative are these motivations of climate discourse in a broader sense? Here are my thoughts.
The ambiguity of climate change evokes uncomfortable feelings of uncertainty. This perhaps makes it more palatable to settle for reductive takes on the situation. Simultaneously, the unassailable magnitude of restructuring our global system (yes, c*pitalism might lie at the root of the problem) creates a tendency to “reflexively avert our eyes [from the problem], as we would with the sun,” as Wallace-Well puts it in his book ‘The Uninhabitable Earth.’ And the absence of the more extreme climate suffering in countries like the UK allows us to psychologically detach ourselves through the outsourcing of catastrophes to underdeveloped countries, in a sort of modern-day imperialism kind-of-way.
Complexity – ‘The “Just Stop Oil” slogan is very childish.’
One of the host’s opening arguments runs along this line: The issue is so complicated, to encapsulate it in a single slogan is essentially reductionist.
Perhaps ironically, though, shrugging your shoulders and labelling the UK’s transition to renewables as ‘complicated’ – thus incapable of being easily summarised in succinct terms – is intrinsically a self-serving simplification. A simplification, in this case, favoured over examining the complexities of the demands and motivations of climate proponents. It is more comfortable to reassure yourself, especially if you broadcast to hundreds of thousands each day, that the situation must be too ambiguous to contemplate in any intelligible terms. Greater clarity lies here in belittling an idea rather than engaging with it.
However, this cognitive persuasion has a counter-intuitive element embedded into it. If all four panellists, as claimed but sure enough to varying degrees, are truly aware of the danger of climate degradation, the possibility that uncertain outcomes arise as a result of human behaviour ought to be empowering. This suggests that we, as a species, still have the capacity to shape the planetary future. The solutions are political, meaning they are, for the time being, within our reach.
Magnitude – ‘Most people are doing their bit.’
‘Most people are doing their bit,’ contributed Lowri Turner, former journalist, before listing activities such as recycling and pondering whether electric cars or heat pumps were viable options for them. Such convictions are at best ignorant, at worst malign. Proposing micro-solutions on an individual scale to a global threat described, by national leaders, as a ‘death sentence’ for the Southern Hemisphere demonstrates the disproportionality entrenched in this pseudo-comprehension of climate change.
So, what does a commensurate response to a threat of this scale look like? From ‘green growth’ programmes, such as the one proposed by the EU, to anti-establishment, de-growth approaches, fundamental alterations to the current system and today’s reigning ideologies is needed. This means the way we move, eat, consume and interact will have to undergo transformation. It might also mean changes to the way we accumulate capital in a macro-sense. Some meanwhile suggest a necessary investment of up to $140trn in clean energy and other green sectors in order to mitigate the worst effects of climate change. For context, current global GDP is around $80trn. And this is all meant to be happening now, not at some abstract point in the future.
The purpose of pointing out the enormity of the issue is to highlight the discrepancy between the onus in mainstream media and the implicated restructuring of society, based on the peer-reviewed scientific consensus. A silver-bullet, single action solution would be neat, and comprehensible. But instead, we face a myriad of intricate, though necessary, steps to combine towards tackling a juggernaut of a problem. Overwhelming, impossibly large to consider mastering. Kind of like a global health epidemic. The only difference is climate change is an insidious threat, manoeuvring at a pace just slow enough to be perceived as governable.
Outsourcing – ‘The point isn’t about saying the facts over and over again. It’s about the protest and it’s about the disruption.’
Well, not really. Climate change impacts politics, economics, social fabrics and pretty much everything else worth reporting on. Only these impacts don’t happen to be quite so tangible for those travelling on the M4 just yet as for, say, the tens of millions belonging to coastal communities in Bangladesh.
I don’t intend this to be construed as some sort of balancing act where one pain trumps another. But my point is instead this: How are we meant to devise a just ecological solution when the sources of our information focus on fringe issues predicated on individual consumer choices rather than the damage being inflicted by global conglomerates and insidious fossil fuel companies? It is the crucial task of journalists and the media to amplify the voices of those enduring the consequences of climate degradation as well as to connect the dots between human experiences and the actions taken by populations in economically-developed regions.
‘We’re talking about crop failure by 2030. We’re talking about people in this country living in fuel poverty because of the prices of oil. And you’re talking about the clothes that I’m wearing.’ – XR Spokesperson
Presented facts lack the telegenic spice found in dogmatic spats and narrow headlines. However, as long as media coverage serves nationalistic interests, public opinion will continue to prioritise local civil disturbances over the increasingly-frequent climate disasters elsewhere in the world. What is more, accountability for government to meet their climate pledges can only be enforced if a public mood antithetical to greenwashing exists.
Smoke from hazard reduction burns in Hobart, Tasmania. Pic: Matt Palmer
Perhaps this analysis is all a bit neurotic, unfounded in hard-evidence. Maybe the primary reason the debate repeatedly reverted back to comparatively superficial topics is to do with a much simpler behavioural determinant: Overconfidence. Overconfidence in our collective comprehension of the problem, overconfidence in our anthropogenic ability to solve the problem and an overconfidence in our, in this case individual, fundamental intelligence. It certainly didn’t seem as if Madeley spared too many thoughts to consider whether he might in fact be barking up the wrong tree.
Neither time nor recent political events are on the side of climate salvation. You might disagree with their tactics, but XR have accelerated the pace of change – both in terms of policy and public awareness. The onus, however, shouldn’t lie solely with grassroots organisations to communicate environmental justice. If our collective reckoning is ever to comprehend the threat of climate change, the media is going to have to start honestly conveying the challenge before us.
In case you’re interested, here’s a sample of material I found either insightful or inspiring:
The Uninhabitable Earth, David Wallace-Wells
Less is More, Jason Hickel
Saving the Climate in a Triple Crisis, Mariana Mazzucato
On Fire, Noami Klein
This Can’t Be Happening, George Monbiot
Written by Danny Callaghan
Danny has a degree in Politics & German from the University of Leeds and is now based in Berlin. He works for a social research institute as well as teaching English with the Leeds Asylum Seeker’s Support Network. His interests range from pasta to table tennis and he’s disconcertingly proud of his ability to never fall ill.
