Fear and Loathing on Climate Change

There certainly seems to be a lot of “shock and awe” when it comes to climate change.  Images used by many of the proponents of the movement are meant to incite support from the viewer, hopefully bringing them to action.  But does it work, or is it just another form of sensationalism that runs off the back of the oiled duck?

Check out the image below.  Independent of the source of this image, we’ve all heard that rising global temperatures may indeed rise to a change of +4C over the coming years, give or take a few.  And what will that mean?  Well, according to this image – HELL ON EARTH!

From: http://grist.org/climate-change/climate-change-is-simple-we-do-something-or-were-screwed/

Perhaps most impactful from this statement was that it was made through a TEDx talk, which is deemed to be provoking and informative medium to raise awareness in incite discussion and free thought.  Yikes – people will actually watch this!

Fear is not what is going to drive humans to make change.  Rather, it will result into a sense of hopelessness and despair, disenabling from doing anything but let our planet die.  But – are we ready to put our world into a hospice? 

Climate change is increasingly becoming an accepted fact.  Mobilization to action and awareness is another matter though.  Using imagery and media that employ fear though may not in fact be the answer.  It seems that recent research exists that supports the idea that an overabundance of fear mongering may actually deter people from acting effectively in mitigating and adapting to climate change.  If we are going to make strides in reducing the amount of GHGs in the atmosphere, we are going to need all peoples and governments on board.  So the question arises – how do we engage people to come action?  It has been shown that many already at least recognize the language of climate changes and its risk, but this has to date been ineffectual and superficial.   How does one make a greater impact?

Much of the information disseminated is through news outlets and mass media.  Perhaps using more shocking and compelling stories and imagery can have a greater effect?

From http://www.boston.com/bigpicture/2010/05/disaster_unfolds_slowly_in_the.html

From: http://www.clevelandleader.com/node/3572

 An oil slick on a body of water has a lesser impact on the viewer than the lowly duck that has been suffocated by the spill.  But why does this work so well?  Well, it seems that sensationalism is to blame here.  The more interesting, alarming, and dramatic the story, the apt people are to read it and gasp.  As O’Neill and Nicholson-Cole pointed out, the greater the sensationalism and impact, the greater chance an image or story will have to break through the everyday mundane and catch the viewers attention.

In my courses, I invite learners to bring forth media pieces that they find intriguing and provoking.  Occasionally, a piece will arise that does indeed have this shock and fear factor embedded.  Reactions from the audience are typically ones of revulsion, not of interest.  It seems as if they are indeed aware of these issues (they are environmental students after all) but have compartmentalized much of the data they have in order to make it through the day.  But perhaps they are not the ones these pieces are targeting. 

The problem is that you cannot be fearful for too long a time, as this leads to feeling of hopelessness and depression.  Most people are able to come out of these states, and in so doing push back against the fear-focused piece.  Additionally, most global climate change pieces are not ones that fall on the doorstep of most people – the issues are distant and impersonal.  As such, it is often forgot of beyond the immediate – “if its not going to affect us for a number years, I will worry about it then.  Or, maybe it will fix itself, or someone with power will fix it ‘cause I certainly can’t”

I know on a personal level that I have become desensitized to hearing of the latest environmental disaster.  I have opened the eyes of those around me to the implication of these (sometimes) isolated events, and are often brought to the table when a new situation comes forth.  However, I tend to easily brush it off, or add it to the list of occurrences that I have already processed.  This certainly is not the way to bring for action!  Even worse than apathy, fear messages may have the wrong response of denial and apathy, bringing up additional and powerful barriers to engagement of the audience.  Wow – the complete opposite effect the piece may have been conceived to portray.  Seems as if Fear really isn’t a very good motivating tool after all. 

So – should fear be used to communicate environmental climate change? 

Using fear will invoke feelings of fear, depression, being scared, distress – not exactly the emotions you would want in people you hope to call to action.  Perhaps the one set of images that would affect most people is the suffering of other humans or animals.  If it is going to affect people directly… that may be something to pay attention to.  Alternately, it may be the feeling that they could do something about the situation, bringing it closer to home, that allowed them to internalize the image and it importance.  The further removed from the situation, the lesser of an impact. 

So what does this all mean?  Well, shocking, sensational, fearful images grabs the viewers attention, but can often leave them just as quickly, leaving them with an empty feeling often filled with dread, fear, and despair.  Fear imagery can cause the individuals to distance themselves as my students have demonstrated, in the form of revulsion and disgust.  If you cannot empathize with a vision, you will not engage in it. 

I like the imagery.  I need the imagery.  I need to know the plight of the world.  But I need to know that there is hope, and that I will have a positive impact.  I need to know that I will be that agent, and change will be seen in my time.  Give me that message.  But listen - Don't tell me to act because the world is collapsing.  Tell me to act in order to make things better, and that my act will be felt.  Make the act my own, and I will find ways to make even more effectual.