Controversies in Communicating Climate Change and the Environment
Environment and climate change communication has always been a critical part of the environmental justice and protection movement. Initially considered an interdisciplinary field in academia, it has transformed into a transdisciplinary study involving environmental science, sociology, communications and more. As it continues to evolve, so does its challenges. Writers and researchers are still working to develop best practices to communicate issues related to the environment in the most effective way. In a media, news, and crisis saturated world, identifying these communication strategies will imperative to the well-being of our environment down the line.
So, What Is Environmental Communication?
Researcher Alexander Flor simply defines the study as “the application of communication approaches, principles, strategies and techniques to environmental management and protection”. It characterizes the importance of disseminating information and the implementation of communication frameworks. But it also goes as far as to identify how different actors (such as individuals, nation-states, and institutions) interact with topics related to the environment, as well as the natural environment itself. These interactions include participatory decision-making, interpersonal communication, virtual communities and environmental media coverage. Climate change communication, which is a prominent subfield of the study, centers on communicating anthropogenic climate change, and is most often promulgated in digital media news coverage and general academic studies. According to Flor, there are six essentials of environmental communication: (1) knowledge of ecological laws, (2) sensitivity to the cultural dimension, (3) ability to network effectively, (4) efficiency in using media for social agenda setting, (5) appreciation and practice of environmental ethics, and (6) conflict resolution, mediation, and arbitration.
Where did Environmental Communication Emerge? Where is it Now?
To pin point the origins of environmental communication, we have to look to the beginning of the contemporary environmental movement itself. In 1962, Rachel Carson, a writer and biologist, published her revolutionary book “Silent Spring” which informed the public of the widespread misuse of organic chemical pesticides (like DDT), and challenged the state of modern science. Carson spoke out against the government and industry to not only warn about the environmental and health hazards, but also to ask questions about human domination over nature like “whether and why humans had the right to control nature; to decide who lives or dies, to poison or to destroy non-human life”. Her book utilizes both scientific fact and narratives about real American’s directly affected by pesticide misuse. Carson’s words about questioning authority and the dynamisms of biological structures was socially revolutionary and helped sparked the environmental movement we know today. As Flor mentions in his textbook, Carson was a biologist, but “she was first and foremost a writer”. The communications of environment related issues following “Silent Spring” continued to shift with the acceleration of climate change, neoliberal industrialization, and social norms. Today, it is evident that communicators are still struggling to catalyze change the way Rachel Carson did with her book. There is still debate on the effectiveness of current environmental communication. Controversies continue to arise in certain attempts to bring the issue of climate change to light.
In July 2017, a New York Magazine writer named David Wallace-Wells published an article called “The Uninhabitable Earth”, which is about the worst-case scenario of what may happen due to anthropogenic climate change. The article immediately went viral and was at one point the most read story in New York Magazine’s history. While stories about climate change traditionally get less engagement from readers, this story gained a lot of attention due to its nature. In its reception, the story received a lot of criticism (especially from environmentalists) because of its pessimistic tone and factual errors. The article starts, “it is, I promise, worse than you think. If your anxiety about global warming is dominated by fears of sea-level rise, you are barely scratching the surface of what terrors are possible, even within the lifetime of a teenager today”. Another problem is that discussion about his rhetoric diverted the public’s attention away from finding actual climate solutions. It is language like this that critics say, would only paralyze and demotivate readers from actually taking action. There is so much more to know about how the public reacts to certain media messages, but the use of inflammatory language could prove to be detrimental to the public’s understanding of climate change’s urgency. Wallace-Wells still defends his piece and claims the point of journalism is to discuss factual things that might happen. But there is still pushback on the delivery. According to the non-profit research group Climate Access, “climate narratives focused primarily on catastrophic impacts are almost guaranteed to alienate the audiences across the political spectrum, as individuals become desensitized and fatalistic about the future, worry more often leads to resignation and hopelessness”. Unlike Carson’s masterful use of ethos, pathos and logos, Wallace-Wells’ alarmist expression failed to connect with the general public. The where is important too. Now, most environmental communication (outside the classroom) occurs online through digital media. Media coverage of global warming has done an important job of converging the publics opinion on the existence of human-induced climate change (there’s a majority agreement). It has made environmental information far more accessible and allowed people to connect and mobilize around the topic. But it has its challenges. With so much information and news online and the ability to algorithmically customize the content we interact with; people can choose to avoid topics related to the environment. People can also attack and counter the information shared online with content of their own. It is important to note that alarmist rhetoric isn’t the only failure of environmental communication, not everyone aims for sustainability. Different groups use communications according to their interests.
What are the Groups Involved?
There are many groups with conflicting interests surrounding sustainability, who use communications in different ways. It is the interests of the groups involved that shape who benefits or experience harm. They will make claims about the environment that would reinforce their interests and use different forms of communication to do so. Some of the major groups include the public, the government, scientists, media news outlets, environmentalists/environmental groups, and industry polluters. Each of these groups have their own interests concerning the environment. There are many variations in how they may interact with each other according to their desired outcomes. For example, environmentalists and industry polluters often times work against each other, news outlets can inform public opinion, the government may use scientists research or even industry interests to inform decisions, etc. These groups interests have shaped the environmental communication landscape for better and for worse. Here is some insight into their differences:
The public is the most complex group. They have individual interests in their well-being, and interest to promote the ideologies they believe in. They have political interests in decisions that impact their everyday life, and they have an economic interest in selling and consuming. But the public often times act in the interest of the whole. However, divisiveness makes it hard for everyone to fully achieve their goals. This is evident is the structural inequalities we see every day.
There are four general main purposes of the government: “to [1] establish laws, [2] maintain order and provide security, [3] protect citizens from external threats, and [4] promote the general welfare by providing public services”. Communication is necessary in understanding the needs and wants of the public. They have to think about the interests of everyone. Conflicting interests make change at the federal level harder to implement, especially concerning the environment.
Scientists have an interest in discovering and evolving factual information for the advancement of society. They want to have their work seen, but they often times fall short in making the information accessible. Scientists may lack the ability to convey the significance of a scientific finding. Because of this, they can be at the mercy of news and media, which in many cases distort the researcher’s findings according to their own interest.
Media news outlets have an interest in disseminating information to the public. Within that, they have a personal interest in appeal to their audience (e.g. conservative, liberal, academic, pop-culture). They also have an economic interest in gaining and maintain as much engagement as possible from readers. Wallace-Wells’ story helps us understand the implications of these interests.
Environmentalists and environmental groups have a direct interest in sustaining or conserving the environment as well as mitigating and adapting to climate change. They work by assisting in social, political, financial, conservation, and emergency services. Environmental groups — which are usually non-profit- also have an interest in mobilizing people to take action for their cause. Communication is an important part of building their network and in influencing change.
Industry polluters have an economic interest in maintaining their unsustainable practices. They also have political interest in maintaining their power in order to control policies that may affect them. Industry polluters are also big communicators. For example, in a Washington Post article, Westervelt exposes tactics used by fossil fuel companies such as enlisting media companies to report more on “uncertainties” in climate science, arranging industry-backed contrarian scientists to serve as experts sources in media content, targeting conservatives with ‘liberal hoax’ messaging, and discrediting actual experts. In contrast, other parts of the economic sector may advocate for a more green economy in order to promote long-term sustainable development.
To some degree, each group finds success in achieving their goal, but this conflict of interest is still at the detriment of the environment. It is also at the expense of a cohesive environmental communication ecosystem. Without consistency, we can expect communication controversies to continue to arise.
Conceptual Analysis
Environmental sociologists have developed many conceptual frameworks to better understand how societies interact with their environments. When it comes controversies in environmental communication, we can use these concepts to better understand how interests play a role in a group’s interaction with the environment. In Bell and Ashwood’s “An Invitation to Environmental Sociology”, they explore the idea of interests, which they describe as the motivation to achieve self-regarding ends. For example, individual members of the public who make decisions that will help their own welfare. But groups, and some individuals, do act in the interest of their community, their field, an issue, or a society as a whole. Like how news outlets act in the interest of the general public or an environmental group work in the interests of a particular species. Yet, understanding interests as the sole motivation for human behavior is still too limiting. Bell and Ashwood also suggest sentiment, “the desire to achieve other-regarding ends revolving around our norms and social ties”, as a motivation as well. This idea of sentiment helps us recognize the motivations for groups like scientists, environmentalists/environmental groups, and media news outlets. These groups may be motivated by what they think their role in society is. It doesn’t stop there. Groups like the government and industry polluters, may subscribe to the motivations of rational choice. Rational choice is the idea that we act on what we best understand to be our interests, and what we consider to be the best possibility of achieving the desires that stem from those interests. The government acts on what they believe is the most effective and feasible way to achieve what they believe they should be doing, and industry polluters act in a way they think is best for their interest- which is the economy.
Okay so we are motivated by our interests, sentiment and rational choice. What does motivation have to do with environmental communications?
Well, if our motivations are inspired by cultural norms and social ties, and communications help shape cultural norms and social ties, that makes environmental communications ever so important to addressing climate change. Let’s think about the conceptual hierarchy that creates behavior. Attitudes — our disposition towards specific circumstances — help us make decisions that result in behavior. These attitudes are formed by our values, which are the standards we follow to make choices and order our lives. Values are strong and long held beliefs. Beliefs are ideas we hold as being true, and come from our experiences, cultural and social norms, and interpersonal communication.
If factual and strategic environmental communication is properly employed, it can be used to inform those beliefs, values, attitudes, and behaviors. Cultures and norms are created, shaped and transmitted by communication. They are a natural by-product of how we interact with each other. But the same is true for the reverse, communication is influenced by culture. This is why it is important to disrupt, and challenge culture and communications. Societies can get stuck in beliefs that may not be true but are consistently reinforced. Bell and Ashwood also address this through the concept of resonance. Resonance is where “we tend to favor patterns of understanding that work well across- that resonate with- the range of our experience”. This is identified in communications theory as information or confirmation bias. Groups and their audiences will work to reinforce their own ideologies and beliefs, which is why we face these controversies in environmental communication.
Environmental issues like climate change have increasingly become politically, socially, and economically polarized topics. Our personal beliefs have become embedded in our environmental perspective, instead of factual information. Throughout the environmental movement’s history, we’ve seen instances where communication has worked and where it has failed. We can learn from these cases to better create an environmental communication strategy effective in our current world. Although we have a long way to go, we can hope that as more factual information and strategic communication is properly disseminated, our cultural behaviors will also change for the benefit of sustainability.
