Originally published on the CGS blog on July 16, 2014.
Climate change, and the campaign surrounding it, has evolved significantly over the last decade. Just look at its name: it went from “global warming” to “climate change” and now there are suggestions to call it “global weirding,” “pollution death,” or (my personal favorite) “atmosphere cancer.” The way in which it has been framed has evolved as well. It has gone from an environmental issue to a public health issue to a political issue, a representation of a deep-seated ideological divide between Democrats and Republicans.
And yet, despite all these changes, only 40% of Americans view climate change as a major threat. Clearly, the way in which climate change is being framed is not working to convince the general public. The climate is changing, and so should its messaging.
What may be hurting the climate change campaign the most is the lack of real-world examples. While we are seeing the effects of climate change everywhere in the US – extreme heat or cold, torrential rainfall, drought, etc. – these are not apocalyptic enough to sway the average member of the country. And when the consequences of climate change do verge on apocalyptic – devastation and conflict due to drought, natural disasters, and public health concerns – they are in the third world, too “geographically (and psychologically) distant from the audience being communicated to.” Even if these events occurred in our backyard, fear is often ineffective in inspiring actual change. Focusing on “social norms” that promote sustainable behavior, or providing interactive simulations on the future effects of climate change have both been suggested as ways to generate real concern among Americans.
What the current framing of climate change lacks is a personal touch. Climate change is not just an environmental, economic, or political issue. Climate change predominately affects women – why aren’t more female politicians and feminist organizations pushing this agenda? Low-income residents are more affected by pollution and natural disasters than higher-income groups – why aren’t more news articles connecting this to the ever-popular subject of income inequality? Sports rely on fresh air and healthy, able bodies to fill their massive stadiums – why isn’t ESPN or Sports Illustrated featuring stories about this? Kendrick Lamar gained widespread popularity with his album good kid, m.A.A.d city, on which he raps openly about his experiences growing up in Compton, an area well known for pollution. Why can’t he, or some other influential artist, make a Top-40 hit about climate change?
But the truth is, much of this has been done. Women, low-income people, sports figures, and celebrities have all spoken out against climate change, attempting to appeal to a wider audience. NASA even put out its own rap video. So why isn’t this working? First, there is a lack of mainstream cable network coverage surrounding climate change; with TV still being the dominant way people receive their news, this means many messages just aren’t reaching the people they are meant to sway. And if the usual environmental or political messages aren’t being broadcast, how can we expect these more personal and direct messages to be? Moreover, when climate change is presented in the media, it is often framed as a political issue, a battle of opposing sides. In an age where the news is dominated by sensational stories of conflict, and where bipartisanship is the needle in the proverbial haystack, there doesn’t seem to be room to relate to the average voter across partisan lines.
Second, and more importantly, people are framing the issue in these ways, they just aren’t calling it climate change. They are referring to it by the issues that surround it: pollution, health, job creation, extreme weather, human rights, women’s rights, etc. These issues are relevant, direct concerns of many, and understandable regardless of your stance on climate change. Even conservatives have been motivated to protect the environment when shown that something is a threat “to the ‘purity’ and ‘sanctity’ of [the] Earth and our bodies,” an appeal that goes beyond the climate change debate to a strictly moral ground.
But the fact that we aren’t constantly relating these things back to climate change may be exactly why so many Americans do not consider climate change to be a major threat. Does climate change trump pollution? Your child’s health? Your brother’s career options? In the mind of the average American, probably not.
With this in mind, maybe it’s not the framing that needs to change, but the policy. Crafting policies that address the personal issues of Americans, but also help the environment in the process, may be the key to gaining widespread support, or at least deterring widespread opposition.
Or maybe we should just start calling climate change what it really is: atmosphere cancer.
