Climate Change Group

Hi everyone,

I listened with great interest to your podcast on which media form would be most effective for activists to use to motivate action on climate change. Clearly there are good points to be made on both sides of the question, many of which were made by the participants. There is a good history of research on this topic by those in the field of communication, especially risk communication and the like. Interestingly, it turns out, advertising and media outreach often has little effect on people’s opinion by itself. In some cases, it even serves to reinforce existing beliefs rather than change behavior. This is because only a small fraction of people are usually influenced by an ad. Other influences such as viewpoints of neighbors and family and policies to reinforce certain behaviors can be more important. Several speakers mentioned credibility.

Credibility is certainly important, but mostly in the sense of trust. The source of information must be trusted for it to have an impact on the audiences’ behavior. Scientists tend to be fairly well trusted, but certainly not in all circumstances and in all communities. The same goes for both traditional media and the internet. This is why studies show that friends, neighbors and community leaders often have more influence on changing behavior than an advertisment or even an outside expert coming in trying to help.

One issue not mentioned by the speakers in the debate is the practices of traditional media reporters and the way that has influenced the perception of climate change knowledge among the public. The media tends to have a practice of “balancing” opinions, which in the case of climate change, has meant in the past that the opinion of a scientist shared by the vast majority of the current field’s experts has been given equal page space with a scientist who’s views are shared by only a handful of others. The public doesn’t know this imbalance, and assumes that the issue is still highly contentious. This practice has gradually stopped in the past few years with respect to climate change science, and the debate has shifted to what your moderator mentioned– what do we do about the challenge? That is certainly a valid question and one is which there are many legitimate points of view.

Something that is not often recognized is discussions about communicating about climate change is the fact that over 90% (of Americans) and likely similar percentages in Europe believe that climate change is real. Thus the battle to try to convince “the public” over the reality of climate change is not really necessary. The question of motivating action is really a different question– how important is this issue versus other issues that the public cares about? How is climate change be linked to those issues? What do people feel empowered to try to change about their behavior? What motivates them? Once trying to tackle these types of questions, it it my opinion that any single strategy is not enough. Multiple strategies at multiple levels must be followed.

In closing, I echo Dr. Moser’s advice to read some of the literature on the topic of communication. We often assume that ad campaigns, or flyers in the mail are going to be what is needed for a new topic. But we don’t need to only go by assumptions here–scholars have studied these issues and have research based on experiences in the field on what has worked and what hasn’t. Learning from that knowledge is a good “next step” in trying to decide what might be most effective in terms of a media campaign for climate change.

Thanks for an interesting debate!

Lisa Dilling

468 Comments »

On Friday, July 21, 2006, the climate group of the Ben Franklin Transatlantic Fellows Initiative taped its podcast performance at Wake Forest University - click on this link to listen to the podcast.

During their week of study, students in the climate group focused on a particular aspect of the global warming debate - the relative value of “old” (e.g. television and radio) versus “new” (e.g. Internet Weblogs) media for communicating about the issue. Their podcast performance takes the form of a roundtable discussion, with each student providing a different view on the question.

The students hope that their performance stimulates informative and engaging dialogue on the issue of immigration discourse with the invited expert guest commenters, each of whom have generously agreed to listen to the podcast and provide their feedback here on this Weblog. In the coming days and weeks, check back often to follow discussion stimulated by the feedback from the expert commenters: Dr. Patrick J. Michaels, professor of environmental sciences at the University of Virginia; Dr. Lisa Dilling, visiting fellow, Center for Science and Technology Policy Research, University of Colorado; and possibly (tentative commitment) Dr. Susan Moser, research scientist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research.

28 Comments »

Welcome!

Benjamin Franklin Transatlantic Fellows Initiative gives 35 students from Europe and Eurasia and 10 students from different parts of United States of America the chance to come together at the campus of Wake Forest University in North Carolina for a three-weekly camp to improve international relationships in heated debates, political as well as cultural exchanges and common projects. One result of these out worked projects you find here:

Tijana Bascarevic (Serbia), Sanja Bulatovic (Montenegro), Sara Ceyhan (Germany), Tamar Gogichaishvili (Georgia), Ines Kavgic (Slovenia) and Gabriel Schonfeld (USA) discussed with supporting help of John Patten the controversial issue of global warming in the context of media-platforms. Which media, traditional media like newspaper or television or rather new media like internet-blogs, offer the most attractive platform to discuss about the development of global warming?

-Sara Ceyhan, Germany

Announcement

We are proud to announce that in the following week a pod cast performance will be available in which members of our group will discuss different aspects of the issue “Global warming in media”.
In addition we are very glad that Dr. Patrick J. Michaels (professor of environmental sciences, University of Virginia and senior fellow in environmental studies at Cato Institute), Dr. Lisa Dilling (Center for Science and Technology Policy Research, University of Colorado) and Dr. Susan Moser (reasearch scientist in the Institute for the Study of Society and Environment at the National Center for Atmospheric Research) will contribute to this discussion in form of a comment and perhaps she will bring new aspects in this discussion.
Of course everybody who wants to participate in this discussion about a topic which concerns each of us is heartily invited to contribute!

-Sara Ceyhan, Germany

It Becomes Hot And Hotter Here…Why?

Tsunamis, floods, erosions, hurricanes and other effects of our out-of-control being climate are unfortunately no more any curiosities of which medias in nowadays give an account of.No: ‘It’s gettin’ hot in here’ is obviously today more serious and realistic than we perhaps have appreciated yet. Horror scenarios like in Roland Emmerich’s movie “The day after tomorrow” are no more part of the movie world but can become intimidating scenes in our real world if we do not act immediately.

Who causes these changes of climate? Which processes are at the bottom of global warming? How can we end global warming? Which medium is the best one for discussing all these aspects of the issue global warming?

The answer is simple and terrifying: We, the people, are the reason for this hot and dangerous development.Driving with cars instead of walking or riding a bike, producing as cheap products as possible in factories, farmers having masses of cows or burning of fossil fuels for winning energy threaten our blue planet. Why that, you are asking yourself? Produced greenhouse gases are released and these inconsiderable gases which bear names like CO2, N2O or CH4 do more damage than we have expected years ago. They destroy the atmosphere; make a hole in the ozone layer. The aftermaths are devastating: Unhampered the sun shines on our earth, the ‘sunglasses’ of our planet is broken and no protection can safe us of these dangerous sunbeams. The follows do not just concern our environment but also the human beings: Cancer means for a huge number of people a dolorous dead and one factor for this serious disease is the high solarization.

If these were the only results of increasing pollutions and emissions we could be lucky but the list is not finished: These gases absorb heat radiation of the earth. The heat is reflected through ozone layer. Our earth becomes like a glasshouse, becomes hotter, hotter and hotter and you can not escape.Hotter? Poles starting to melt, the sea level rises and the natural aftermaths are unstoppable: Floods which turn green grassland in blue lakes or set cities under water are one of these horror scenarios.Temperature turns in extremes, very hot air and very cold air meet, clash and cause hurricanes. Nothing but destroyed landscapes and ruins of a once inhabited city these storms leave behind.

People in warm areas like in Africa who even now have huge problems to grow plants and harvest for their daily food today have to face new challenges and burdens: temperate zone move, it becomes hotter and this means less harvest in an area with a limited water resource.You see, the danger of global warming is higher than ever and it is now our turn, the turn of the whole humankind, to avoid that horror scenarios, like Emmerich showed them in cinemas, become real.
It becomes clear that we have to talk about this issue and should not keep it silent. But what medium is the best platform or way to start a discussion about global warming?

-Sara Ceyhan, Germany

Balanced Media Distorts Scientific Facts

The mainstream mass media discussion of global warming has followed all of the traditional patterns of “crisis coverage” in the media. There have been alarmist headlines, headlines urging caution, headlines offereing explanations, and headlines trumpeting possible solutions. In addition, all of the articles published have been scrupulously unbiased and have always shown “both sides of the argument.” It is with the last feature of mass media global warming coverage that we must be concerned.

This need to always show clash and give time to both sides of an issue gives dangerous legitimacy to views simply not supported by the huge body of scientific study of the subject and must be reviewed in the case of global warming.The ostensible purpose of the “impartial” or “balanced” approach to journalism is to lay out all of the relevant facts of the “controversy” in order to allow the public to make a well informed decision based on the facts. However, when discussing issues of clear, testable science, especially one as complex as global warming, the use of this aproach is in fact misleading to the general public.The nature of the information presented by the popular mass media is short and shiny. Any given TV segment will only hit about the 10 minute mark (divided between two sides), an article in a popular magazine or newspaper can only be about 4 or 5 pages, counting title pages and large pictures and “infographics”.

Add to this the tendency of the popular media to generalize into soundbites, and the opportunity for the presentation of hard data and methodology, the meat of what peer reviewed scientific papers consist of, turns out to be rather limited. The impact of the situation is abundantly clear. The media presents two sides of a debate, one substantiated by the overwhelming body of evidence, one advocated by a fringe group operating off of continually debunked theorys. However, the need for balance prevents the media from noting this, and the lack of hard evidence presented by the media denies the public all the relevant facts by which to evaluate the discourse. These circumstances reduce the dialogue to a purely rhetorical argument between two individuals with Phd. after their names, with no reference to the actual data involved in the study. This of course, to the layman, makes each position seem equally relevant and valid, even when this is clearly not actually the case.So what is the larger impact of this?

It could be argued that this media “balance” deals a blow to an emerging political consensus on taking proactive action against global warming. Any real effort would of course cost an enormous amount of money, a politically difficult endeavor to convince the public of. If there is a “valid” alternative theory that doesn’t demand the same action, there is reason to slow the urgency of the response for “further study”. This state action of course further legitimizes the stance of the global warming skeptics, further reinforcing the whole cycle. The cumulative effect of all this will likely be a continuous fragmentation of any emergent consensus on the need to reduce human contribution to global warming. For this simple reason it is necessary to dramatically reevaluate the fashion in which we present global warming and other scientific topics in the media for public consumption.

-Gabe Schonfeld, USA

Benefits Of Traditional Media

More than any world issue, the climate and global warming are affecting lives of the whole planet. The climate is like a gear which moves all the bits and pieces, and its functionality is essential for the whole apparatus. Not only does it affect economy and dictates the standard of living in a country , but also the news on climate change assess the steps that have to be taken to prevent other unexpected problems. The price of petrol in Montenegro depends in an enormous level on the weather conditions in US, especially hurricanes, tsunamis and floods. It may seem odd, but it’s gospel-truth.Therefore, issues regarding climate require more media representation, and not any representation. In order to keep citizens well informed, the best type of media must be chosen, because that’s the goal of us all: to work together and solve big problems in the best way possible.

Despite the growing popularity of new age media such as Internet surfing and blogging, there are some values of traditional way of communication that cannot be replaced or neglected. It’s the old things that build trust among citizens; it’s the familiar face on the TV news every night. When you know who is speaking to you, you find it easier to accept the information provided. That’s why people feel far more comfortable with their TV transistors rather than the Internet searching.Why should the traditional media be in advantage of new forms?

The first reason is that it’s easy accessible. Unlike Internet, listening to radio program or watching TV news is fairly cheap. In that way a poor farmer in the middle US or of the north of India can be informed at any time. It may seem irrelevant, but the government lies upon the work of the poor farmers and small industries.Second reason is that TV schedules make finding the information you are interested in a lot easier. Finding information on the Internet is sometimes like finding a needle in a haystack. It can be really frustrating, especially when the first web pages on the search page are forums in which teenagers have no idea what they are talking about.Another thing is definitely accuracy. The documentaries and broadcasts made about climate are usually scientific, therefore trustworthy, a lot more than thousands and thousands of amateur blogs. If we are going to talk about a serious topic such as global warming, gossip and assumption are not what counts, scientific knowledge is.How can the traditional media be used in order to convince the citizens to act in one or another way, regarding the climate? Having in mind that most people believe in what they hear in the news, in my opinion, TV shows and advertisements are very powerful in a way that can make people change their mind.Let us take the Competitive Enterprise Institute as an example. The advertisement CEI made about CO2 “They call it pollution. We call it life.” is so cute that can make anyone think that anthropogenic CO2 in fact repairs the environment, not destroys it. When the advertisement has an emotional note, it has enormous power on consumer society. A small 60-second clip is seen by millions and millions of people a day. However, most of the blogs, despite being good, end up not being read at all. The reason is simple. There are thousands of new blogs created each day, and it’s impossible to read every and each of them which talks about climate.Another way of waking up people from the new age sleep is the movie. Al Gore ’s presentation over global warming called “An Inconvenient Truth” is as powerful as the 60-second advertisements. Do you have to pay for it, you do; but it attracted a big audience and opened a new issue which evolved in many comments and open discussions. It has a good scientific background, and actual topics. That is only one example of the many advantages traditional media has over the new age media.

-Sanja Bulatovic, Montenegro

Drawbacks Of Traditional Medias

Global warming will bring more snow - Due to the global warming, more than a million species of animals and plants will be extinct – Arctic in the year 2100 – Global warming brings a lot of rain and floods… This is the kind of headlights you see in the newspaper, when you read about global warming.

On the other hand, we have commercials and ads, which claim that global warming is a part of life; that if we tried to change it, we would also change the way we live, moreover they claim that by reducing the amount of gasses released in the atmosphere, it would change life as we know it. But did you ever think, that by continuing our work (polluting the atmosphere), we might end life in general?Scientists have a lot of theories of what could happen, one of which is the explosion of the Earth (Worried? Scared? Frightened? – read more). Seems a bit extreme, but is it really more extreme, than thinking that we can go on living like this and nothing will happen?Today’s traditional media, poses a real treat. By commercializing ads, which say (but do not prove!) that global warming is not happening. Despite all the evidence and scientific research, which PROVE the existence of global warming, many people believe these ads. Why? Maybe because they hold everything they see on TV (or any other media) to be self-evident, because they are not well informed about that issue, and don’t understand every aspect of a certain matter.

SO PEOPLE GET INFORMED, EDUCATED - SO YOU WON’T LOOK LIKE FOOLS!

-Ines Kavgic, Slovenia

What Are Advantages Blogs As Platforms For Climate Discussions Offer?

Global warming is a catastrophically development. Our big challenge is to fight against this process before it will be to late. But which medium should be the platform to discuss about this issue and form a solution?

Global warming is a world wide problem and so it is just a natural conclusion to discuss this international topic in a world wide medium like for example platforms in the internet: so-called blogs.In blogs totally different people from diverse social, cultural or even educational background have the chance to express themselves: Well informed scientists as well as private persons with a low knowledge about this specific topic but the personal interest to learn through other’s contributions and the will to take part in a discussion which concerns them!

Why are blogs so attractive and even motivating to discuss public issues?

Everybody unhampered by any conditions except having access to internet can participate and express his or her personal opinion about global warming. No longer any lobbies or governments have the privilege to show their opinion towards the public but also geoverned people can interfere in political discussions: At least they are living in the same polluted world and have the same right to be involved in this discussion about their world. Blogs present the whole world in all its facets and not just a selection of sophisticated or classy opinions.

Different points of views are reflected, meet and of course even clash. One side wants to reduce emissions while the other side fears that this will threaten the world’s economy. Collusions in blogs mean exchange, discussion and interaction. Different winds of opinions and views, comparable with cold and hot air, meet and now cause a hurricane of discussion. After this storm silence returns, a solution can be found.

Blogs are a possibility to show your personal opinion towards a political issue and even help to create a proposal for a following change, improvement or even solution for this problem of global warming. If anyone intents to publish a blog about global warming the first step this person as a blogger has to make is informing and find your personal attitude concerning this certain topic.

What is global warming? Why do we have a global warming? How does my government react? Am I satisfies with this reaction?

Blogs support your personal education and furthermore even help you to formulate your own personal opinion towards the public.Blogs are megaphones which give you a possibility to show your government if you are satisfied with their actions concerning global warming to make them listening to your personal opinion. It is a parameter for the government:

Do the people agree that just reducing the emissions can save our mother earth? Or the other way around: Accoring to the people’s opinion, am I sure that reducing emissions will bring our economy out of balance?

Blogs have the democratical power to reflect the people’s opinion for making political desicions and not just consider sophisticated opinions of any politicians.

-Sara Ceyhan, Germany

Which Negative Aspects Do Blogs Have In This Climate Discussion?

Climate changing and global warming are one of the most actual topics. So- called blogs are often used as platforms for discussions. These internet platforms are very popular and actual nowadays. Blogs can be written by everybody- by scientist, who are informed and skilled person as well as by persons whose knowledge in this discussion of global warming is limited.

The biggest disadvantage is that blogs can be inaccurate, false and this wrong information can influence reader’s opinion; give him or her false information. One more drawback of internet in general and blogs is that internet isn’t access- able in every countries because of infrastructural situations or financial problems but also these people should have the chance to be informed about a topic like global warming which concerns everybody- also people in the developing world.

-Tamar Gogichaishvili, Georgia

New media and global warming
Global warming became one of the biggest problems now days. It became more serious and serius. Rising global temperatures are expected to raise sea level and change preticipation and other local climate conditions. Changing regional climate could alter forests, crop yields and water supplies. It could also affect human health, animals and many types of ecosystems. Temperatures in the biggest Europian cities grew up for two degrees Celzius. If we don’t find the solution, one day our continent will look like African desert. There is no feedom without free media and do you agree that Internet is the most free among them? I can have and you can have, just sitting at home, a crowd of information, mutual information considering global worming. The same moment of having information about very important action that happened- you can get it. And if you are interested in this global heating problem you have the opportunity to input it on your weblog. Internet is very liberal so we are are able to be better and better connected in international communications net - without dependance on someone’s power or will. Internet doesn’t belong to anyone any more. If we have consciens, if we care for Mother Earth we can use that power of 40 million of users(at the end of ‘95). This is a giant army in permanent contact.Isn’t it the real power? You have sound, you have text and you have picture earlier than some politicians might want to have it. Internet is information highway. You can reach the information about the temperature in spite of some government dissagreement. For how many times we were witnesses of hiding very high temreratures of publicity? If you have attractive blog, refreshened frequently(on this topic,for example) comments could be very useful. What moves public onion? Action at the very right moment. This new medium, Internet, allows us to post messages that are uncontrolled. A stress is on capacity- we can discuss the things as long as we want. For less time than by other media- you can all issues I wanted to send you. Quickly. Some investigave stories will never be published but you can use internet. Its impact, influence on mobilizing public opinion is very powerful. Messages sent on B-92 site-for example. If you are targeting traffic pollution in Belgrade, be sure that there will be no person responsible for this in City Hall not paying attention . I assure you that if we protest using our potentials and this medium net, who among policy makers will dare to ignore our demands? At least, focusing on higher penalties, repeating, making pressure using this tool- can give results. We can make topic the most focused- stop this, do that, demanding all the time. Presenting this specific as very danger and- policymakers must act. Throught interim to final solution. Integrated, we must navigate couse to governmental response. We appoint over 24-hours demanding and criticizing. High-level staff members are obligated to take some action. To show that they responsive and responsible as we are but THEY have power.

-Tijana Bascarevic, Serbia

97 Comments »