Ways of overcoming the psychological distance of climate change
By Hannah Cohen, a Monash School of Journalism student
“ In order to reform the psychological distance between lay people and climate change, mainstream media outlets need to set better standards for scientific reporting as an integral part of their journalistic practice.”
With global efforts to mitigate climate change taking a backseat amid the pandemic, it is more important than ever that we overcome the psychological distance associated with climate change through the way the issue is communicated to lay people.
The speed at which the country has adapted to the coronavirus has highlighted the ingrained ignorance that we as a society maintain when it comes to the importance of climate action.
Even the nearly unanimous conclusion among climate scientists that climate change is contributed greatly to by human activity still doesn’t seem to convince 56% of Australians; the uncertain, the doubtful and the dismissive, that climate change requires an immediate response.
There is no hope of reversing the jarring lashings our climate system has endured, but the pandemic has demonstrated if we wait until we see impact, it will be too late to stop the cascading effects of climate change.
In the midst of a pandemic sweeping our earth, when the UN Climate Change is postponing crucial meetings, we can no longer rely solely on the momentum from climate summits.
Typically, when an outcome seems far removed, it is likely that the elements of risk seem isolated and irrelevant enough to ignore.
But our proactive response to the pandemic has illuminated that effective communication of key information is imperative to inciting appropriate action, even when such action may seem disproportionate to the current situation.
Let's use this as motivation to crack down on psychological distance from climate change and act with the same immediacy we demonstrate when trying to flatten the curve, because the way climate change is communicated is seminal.
While scientists tend to stay out of the press’s spotlight and are wary of advocacy, it is important to note that one of the root causes of psychological distance from climate change stems from a lack of understanding and then as a result, failure to take action.
The first, essential step to overcoming psychological distance through the development of more comprehensive delivery of information requires the recruitment and collaboration of climate scientists, decision scientists, and social scientists with the help of a designer.
Together, these experts respectively fact check, identify which of these facts are most important for decision making and analyse the perceived notions surrounding such facts to map out how this communicated information is likely to be interpreted amongst the public, highlighting any areas for improvement.
Through this process, what’s created is scientifically sound, non-persuasive communication that lets the science speak for itself,
While non-persuasive communication is imperative in the process of having scientists maintain their status as the most credible source amongst the public in relation to climate change, the agenda-setting theory tells us that the more attention an issue receives in the media, the more likely it is to seem important to audiences.
Currently however, journalists are among the least trusted sources of information surrounding climate change and are currently not using the power they possess to shape how laypeople resonate and respond to climate change.
Media influence does present an optimistic opportunity for the effects of climate change to be effectively communicated through messages delivered in articles, video packages and the kinds of questions asked at press conferences.
But the pervasiveness of false balance in the media contributes to a pseudo climate debate which only distracts and pushes people further and further away from the key information, stunting the implementation of any productive changes.
While some outlets like The Guardian and The Conversation commit to not publishing anything that contradicts the weight of evidence, when commercial and public media outlets platform representatives of the climate denialist industry in the name of ‘balanced reporting,’ it becomes politicised.
Such politicisation presents climate change as a topic up for debate like any other political issue, despite 97% of scientists agreeing that the accelerated warming of the earth is due to human activity.
Even more dangerous is the increased likelihood that lay people will potentially side with climate sceptics due to this continued attempt at media centrism and impartiality.
In order to reform the psychological distance between lay people and climate change, mainstream media outlets need to set better standards for scientific reporting as an integral part of their journalistic practice.
Training journalists in accurate climate change reporting and partnering with trusted sources to deliver the information is desperately needed to combat the binary stances associated with climate change and to mend the gaping psychological distance that this pseudo debate in the media reinforces.
The Australian Academy of Science has noted that the nature of the climate system means long term climate change is irreversible, meaning the only way to bring human induced climate change to halt is by reducing our greenhouse emissions as quickly as possible.
So let’s utilise the voices who can shape our understanding to advance climate action rather than dampening our progress by fore fronting climate deniers in the highly impressionable public eye.
Another factor contributing to the psychological distance from climate change that must be addressed is the perception gap; the notion that many more people are willing to talk and learn and about climate change than we think.
The taboos surrounding climate change inhibit us from taking essential climate action and leads to a pluralistic ignorance, underpinned by the statistic that 78% of Victorians are concerned about climate change but believe that just 48% feel the same way.
Removing the stigmatised nature of climate change within conversations amongst peers is yet another crucial step to eliminating psychological distance.
Again, there is room for the media to step in here.
A study has shown 87.8% of TV audiences were interested in learning about the impacts of climate change as featured in a weather bulletin. A localised weather bulletin is an effective means of encouraging laypeople to resonate personally with the impacts of climate change, casually reinforcing the notion that their livelihoods are not immune to various feedback.
We have seen how individuals and communities have united to do the right thing in regards to COVID-19 when the pandemic is as much a part of our daily chit chat as the weather.
The Victorian healthcare system would have been overwhelmed beyond capacity if not for taking immediate precautionary action.
Similarly, our planet does not possess enough biocapacity to neutralize the concentration of carbon dioxide we emit whilst catering to the many demands of human activity.
With psychological distance from the irrefutable impacts of climate change, comes complacency which is only pushing our earth beyond its means.
It’s time to mobilise key industries to practice better climate change communication so we can start acting accordingly, together.
Does reporting on climate change need to be balanced?
BY EMILIO LANERA, Monash School of Journalism Student
For too long, journalists have been prioritising impartiality which has compromised the accuracy of climate change coverage
To the delight of climate scientists, some news organisations like the BBC are coming to the realisation they have not been reporting on climate change very well.
In 2018 the BBC sent a briefing note to staff admitting they have been doing a poor job of covering climate change and provided guidance to journalists on how to improve.
BBC’s new policy towards climate change is “Man-made climate change exists: If the science proves it we should report it.”
A recent Instagram post on climate change and its effects on hurricanes suggest they are staying true to their word.
Instead of framing human induced climate change as an uncertainty, they have framed how drastic the consequences will be as uncertain but reaffirm the occurrence of extreme weather patterns will be more likely if we continue not to take action.
The BBC have also been making more of an effort to reference science reports and experts when reporting on climate change and avoid giving a platform to climate deniers.
This new way of reporting can be seen as a return to accurate coverage on climate change because as American environmentalist and former New Yorker staff writer Bill McKibben said prior to fossil fuel companies interfering and turning climate change into a political issue, journalists use to only report on the science.
This influence by the fossil fuel industry has tricked journalists into treating climate change as a debate where climate sceptics with no scientific background have an equal say on the issue as climate scientists for many years.
The undue emphasis on climate deniers creates a false balance, which gives the impression the science behind climate change is uncertain despite 97% of scientists agreeing the earth is warming at an accelerated rate due to human activities.
While the BBC have altered their reporting on climate change to ensure only the most qualified people speak about the issue, some news organisations are still treating climate deniers as legitimate sources.
In fact, one study from the University of California Merced found that climate deniers receive more media attention than climate scientists.
Given the influence of the coal industry in Australia it is no surprise that Australian media is a common offender of providing climate deniers a platform to challenge the science behind climate change.
One study found that between 2011 and 2012 21% of articles published in Australian newspapers suggested doubt about the science behind climate change and 11% outright rejected it.
Thankfully, this debate about the existence of climate change is starting to lose momentum in Australia, due to more citizens believing the science.
One survey found that only 11% of Australians believe recent global warming is natural, and 4% don’t believe climate change exists at all.
Furthermore, Australians are expressing more concern over what consequences climate change will have on them.
The Australia Institute found 81% of Australians are concerned that climate change will result in more droughts and flooding while 78% are concerned climate change will lead to water shortages.
The 2018 State of Climate report by the CSIRO and The Bureau of Meteorology justifies these people’s concerns as it found rainfall patterns are expected to be impacted in Australia which will lead to drier conditions in some areas and flooding in others.
Yet, instead of accepting the science and the large public concern around Australia’s changing climate, some media outlets are still finding ways to treat climate change as a debate and give sceptics with no scientific background a platform.
Most of this scepticism is coming from NewsCorp outlets, but due to NewsCorp’s stranglehold on Australian media which includes 70% of newspaper circulation, their coverage on climate change is giving a false impression to a wide audience.
Former radio shock jock and Sky News presenter, Alan Jones used a bowl of rice to explain Australia’s carbon emissions in comparison to the rest of the world and justify why Australia should not invest in tackling climate change.
Meanwhile, after the Bureau of Meteorology declared that 17 December 2019 had been Australia’s hottest day on record, Dr Jennifer Marohasy, who works at the Institute of Public Affairs, a Melbourne thinktank financed by the mining billionaire Gina Rinehart went on Sky News and wrote a piece for The Australian insisting the Bureau’s methodology was questionable.
Given Mr Jones lack of qualifications and Dr Marohasy’s ties with the coal industry, who are staunch adversaries to climate action, these are probably not the people who should be regularly speaking on the matter.
What they both fail to understand is just because there are unpredictable elements to climate change does not mean we should delay action.
The Australian Academy of Science highlights that taking steps to reduce carbon emissions now will help reduce the likelihood of state's implementing more expensive measures later on.
The academy also suggests that governments should listen to scientific experts on the best strategies to implement to address climate change, and it might be time journalists in Australia do the same.
For too long, journalists have been prioritising impartiality which has compromised the accuracy of climate change coverage.
By continually giving sceptics a platform to sprout their unhelpful and unscientific opinions, it undermines the seriousness and urgency of climate change and justifies not taking any action now.
Climate change is a scientific issue which requires journalists giving scientists a platform to communicate the science and explain what measures need to be implemented now to reduce the amount of uncertainties in the future.
It does not require giving Alan Jones a TV segment where he uses a bowl of rice to show an inaccurate visual of Australian’s carbon emissions.
COVID may be the kick the Federal Government needs to invest in Renewable Energy
The views and opinions posted here are of the author and not the Monash Energy Club
BY EMILIO LANERA, student of Monash’s School of Journalism
When it comes to taking action on climate change the Australian Federal Government has often been hesitant. Due to their reliance on non-renewable energy sources as major export items, governments past and present have argued that transitioning from conventional to renewable energy sources would be an economic catastrophe. Even after the seven months of bushfires the nation endured between 2019 and 2020 Prime Minister Scott Morrison still downplays the impacts of climate change and continues to invest in coal and natural gas.
Australia’s 2020 bushfire season was a stark and horrifying reminder as to climate change’s impacts now, and in the future. Source: BBC News
However, the short term economical benefits fossil fuels provide to the Australian economy may no longer be a valid argument as the Reserve Bank of Australia warns that there will be long term economic consequences of climate change not being addressed (NGFS, 2020, p.3)
Alongside 60 other central banks, the Reserve Bank of Australia reported that global GDP could fall by 25% by 2100 if the world does not act to reduce global greenhouse gas emissions (Morton, 2020). The report also found a failure to address climate change will see an increase in unemployment and decrease in wages. An increase in the frequency and severity of natural disasters will also make it difficult for people to start or maintain their businesses as physical assets are at more risk of destruction and damage causing them to decline in value and become uninsurable.
With the future looking so grim from a financial perspective many economists, bankers and investors are encouraging governments around the world, including Australia to further address climate change and restructure the economy to be less reliant on conventional energy sources to avoid economic hardship later on. On June 8 the Network for Greening the Financial System released a statement saying;
“Under these challenging circumstances we should not lose sight of the fact that climate change and environmental issues remain as urgent and vital as ever. The systemic risk posed by climate change to our economies and the financial system has not reduced.” (NGFS, 2020).
Currently, the Australian government is making drastic changes to revitalise the economy due to the outbreak of COVID-19. So far they have announced plans to create more jobs by establishing industry-specific support packages for arts, entertainment, and tourism, investing more in infrastructure and Education Minister Dan Tehan has announced plans to restructure university courses to create “job-ready graduates” (Hutchens, 2020).
However, something else the Australian Government could consider is investing more in renewable energy sources. The University of NSW’s Centre for Energy and Environmental Markets found that Australia has extraordinary renewable energy potential especially in regards to wind and solar power ( Riesz et al., 2016, p.i). However, the report also acknowledged that the transition from fossil fuels to renewable energy will take many years, therefore it is best to start this transition sooner rather than later (Riesz et al., 2016, p.9).
So far 835,000 people have lost their jobs since the pandemic in March and the youth unemployment rate is currently 16.1%, more than double the national rate. While it is devastating so many Australians are out of work, it also provides the government with an opportunity to begin transitioning from a fossil fuel-based economy to a renewable energy source based economy.
The Australian National University identified 22,000 potential sites across Australia for pumped hydro energy storage with 100 percent renewable energy (Blakers et al., 2017, p.1), and according to the University of Technology of Sydney (Teske, Dominish, Ison, 2016, p.31) transitioning from petrol to electric vehicles could save Australians $400 billion. Based on these findings alone the Australian Government could invest in an electric vehicle manufacturing sector and invest in the creation of hydro energy storage sites which would create jobs for thousands of Australians. Furthermore, instead of cutting certain education programs or increasing the fees of certain degrees, the government could be creating more educational programs related to renewable energy so people can create new technologies or come up with new plans to help Australia develop a sustainable economy.
Although establishing a renewable energy source based economy is probably not at the forefront of the Government's agenda, it should be something they ought to consider as it may not only help us get out of the current economic deficit the country is facing, but may also prevent another from occurring later on.
Reference list
Blakers, A., Stocks, M., Lu, B., Anderson, K., and Nadolny, A., 2017, ‘An atlas of pumped hydro energy storage’, The Australian National University, p.1-27
Hutchens, G., 2020, ‘University fee changes announced by Dan Tehan combine market-based economics with social engineering’, ABC News, June 22, available at: https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-06-22/university-fee-changes-dan-tehan-capitalist-economics-analysis/12377498
Morton, A., 2020, ‘Reserve Bank warns of 25% GDP loss by 2100 unless action taken on climate change’, The Guardian, June 26, available at: https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2020/jun/26/reserve-bank-warns-of-25-gdp-loss-by-2100-unless-action-taken-on-climate-change
NGFS Secretariat, 2020, ‘Climate Change and Monetary Policy Initial takeaways’, Network for Greening the Financial System, p.1-17
NGFS, 2020, ‘Statement on the need for a green recovery out of the Covid-19 crisis’, Network for Greening the Financial System, June 8, available at: https://www.ngfs.net/sites/default/files/medias/documents/green_recovery_statement_-_june_2020.pdf
Riesz, J., Elliston, B., Vithayasrichareon, P., MacGill, I., 2016, ‘100% Renewables in Australia: A Research Summary’, Centre for Energy and Environmental Markets University of NSW, p.1-35
Teske, S., Dominish, E., Ison, N. and Maras, K., 2016, ‘100% Renewable Energy for Australia – Decarbonising Australia’s Energy Sector within one Generation’. Report prepared by ISF for GetUp! and Solar Citizens, p.1-42