Hurricane Sandy & Marblehead - Picture by Brian Birke at Flickr.com
Something is probably happening in the climate change communication domain, that is an important shift from the language of disaster and uncertainty to the language of risks. What are the implications for climate change perception and engagement? Understanding the concepts of risk and uncertainty – and how to communicate them – remain a hotly debated issue.
In his book Climate Change in the Media: Reporting Risk and Uncertainty, James Painter, analyses how the international media present these and other narratives surrounding climate change while focusing on the coverage of reports by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and of the melting ice of the Arctic Sea, especially including six countries: Australia, France, India, Norway, the UK and the USA.
“There is plenty of evidence” Painter says “showing that in many countries, the general public finds scientific uncertainty difficult to understand and confuse it with ignorance. We also know that disaster messages can be a turnoff, so for some people risk might be a more helpful language to use in this debate. For policy makers, this should shift the debate towards a more helpful analysis of the comparative costs and risks of following different policy options.”
Moreover, some researchers have argued that stressing the risks posed by climate change rather than the uncertainties can create a more helpful context for policy makers and a stronger response from the public.
James Painter, who is Head of the Journalism Fellowship Programme at the Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism at Oxford University, answers to questions by Laura Caciagli, and discusses these topics while exploring current narratives and trends in climate change communication.
Clisp – In your book, Climate Change in the Media: Reporting Risk and Uncertainty, you argue that scientists and politicians are increasingly turning from the language of uncertainty to the language of risk in their descriptions of likely future climate change impacts. How do you evaluate this language shift?
James Painter - No studies have been carried out to map the shift, but it is clearly happening. For example, in its dissemination of the WGII report on impacts, adaptation and vulnerability the IPCC used the specific concept of risk management to describe the climate change challenge. Professor Chris Field, a co-chair of the WGII, explained why thinking of climate change in this way makes it easier for many to deal with: “Climate change is really a challenge in managing risks. And it’s not that we’re talking about identifying particular things that are going to happen in a particular place, at a particular time. It is understanding how to be prepared in two critical ways: one is decreasing the amount of climate change that occurs, and the other is finding a way to cope as effectively as we can with the climate changes that can’t be avoided”. The IPCC press release picked up on the same language. It explained the two reasons why the characterization of climate change as risk management is helpful:
- It considers the full range of possible outcomes, including not only high-probability outcomes. It also considers outcomes with much lower probabilities but much, much larger consequences.
- Characterising climate change as a challenge in managing risks opens doors to a wide range of options for solutions.
Another clear example of using risk language is to be found in the Risky Business Report published in the USA in June 2014. It was a clear example of using risk language to appeal to the business sector in the USA, and politically conservative groups, who understand the concept of risk. Henry Paulson, the Republican former Treasury secretary, said:
“With that experience indelibly affecting my perspective, viewing climate change in terms of risk assessment and risk management makes clear to me that taking a cautiously conservative stance – that is, waiting for more information before acting – is actually taking a very radical risk. We’ll never know enough to resolve all of the uncertainties. But we know enough to recognize that we must act now”.
A final, simple example can be found in a quote from the UK prime minister, David Cameron, who recently said in response to the IPCC WGI report: “It’s worth looking at what this report this week says – that [there is a] 95 per cent certainty that human activity is altering the climate. I think I said this almost 10 years ago: if someone came to you and said there is a 95 per cent chance that your house might burn down, even if you are in the 5 per cent that doesn’t agree with it, you still take out the insurance, just in case”.
Clisp – How is climate risk usually framed in newspaper reports?
J. P. - Our 2013 study on the reporting of climate change showed that the “explicit risk” frame is not popular with journalists. Of the four frames the study looked at (disaster, uncertainty, opportunity, and explicit risk) it was the least present in all the articles in the press coverage of climate change in the six countries we examined. It was only present in about a quarter of the articles, compared to the disaster frame that was present in more than 80% of the articles, and the uncertainty frame that was present in nearly the same number. This could be for a whole series of reasons, including that journalists and their readership finds the concept difficult. The IPCC assigns probabilities or likelihoods to some of its findings, which if included in an article would qualify it as an explicit risk frame. But journalists often find numbers difficult too.
A study which we have just published, that is Disaster Averted? Television Coverage of the 2013/14 IPCC’s Climate Change Reports of coverage in six countries (Australia, Brazil, China, Germany, India and the UK) found similar results. Again, the explicit risk frame was hardly present despite the promotion of the risk management idea used in the WGII report described above. The four times it was present, it was due to the inclusion of the word “risk”, probably the weakest indicator of the risk frame. It would have been more present if the IPCC concepts of likelihood levels had been explained more. However, print journalists rarely include explanations of them, so it is hardly surprising that television journalists, who have much less space to fill, follow the same practice. The two words “risk management” were never present.
But risk is a difficult way of framing the climate change story for television, which deals in pictures and strong narratives, not concepts or issues. So it is not surprising that television involves a lot of the disaster type of approach (sea level rises, drought, weather extremes, melting ice and so), but little of the risk management idea.
Clisp – Which frames are best suited for providing the incentive for behavior change and action?
J.P. - Lots of research shows that there is no one frame that is “best”. Multiple frames for multiple audiences are needed, depending on the purpose of the communication (information, engagement, or behaviour change). Doom-laden depictions of climate change are ubiquitous in the media and are good for grabbing people’s attentions, but such disaster narratives are not regarded as helpful to long-lasting, genuine personal engagement. Emphasizing more hopeful messages, such as the opportunities of low carbon development as a way of reducing greenhouse gas emissions (but many others too), is seen by some scholars as more “helpful” for personal engagement from some sectors than a narrative of catastrophe or disaster, particularly when this is not accompanied by messages on effective actions individuals can take.
Several studies have shown that uncertainty messages about climate science are often an obstacle to public understanding, engagement or action. The evidence that policy-makers and the public struggle with uncertainty has fed into an active debate as to whether in some cases, framing climate change as one of risk (particularly for policy makers or decision-makers) is more helpful than framing it as uncertainty. Many business sectors, such as the insurance and investment sectors, the military, and many politicians are used to the concept of risk. Risk language can be appropriate for some members of the general public too, as they are used to the language of betting and taking out an insurance or pension policy. But this needs to be tested more.
Clisp - How do journalistic norms (in particular, the “fair and balanced” approach in journalism) affect and influence the media coverage of climate change?
J.P. - The research by the US scholar Max Boykoff shows that this journalistic approach is one important driver of media outcomes. He has questioned parts of the media’s tendency to give undue weight to the various forms of scepticism – a process he ascribed mainly to the journalistic norm of seeking balance, which he critiques as “balance as bias”. But there are a wide range of other variables which can affect media treatments of climate change including country-specific political, economic and cultural contexts, issue attention cycles in the media, the presence of organised scepticism or a fossil fuel industry, and factors internal to a media organisation such as journalistic culture, editorial principles and ownership.
Clisp – To what extent does political orientation influence the media coverage of climate change in the US and Europe?
J. P. - In our 2011 study Poles Apart, we found that there was a correlation between the political orientation of a newspaper and the way the climate change story was reported, particularly in the USA and the UK where the issue is heavily polarised along political lines. This was particularly true of the opinion pages and editorials, and not so much of the news reporting. So these opinion articles would include a lot more sceptical voices and discourses in the right-leaning press than the left-leaning press.
Other studies have looked at media representations of scientific knowledge on climate change in the Guardian, Independent and the Times between 1985 and 2003, and concluded that the newspapers’ treatments did reflect their ideological positions. Crudely summarised, the Guardian portrayed climate change as a scientific uncertainty and stressed the risks, the Independent exhibited roughly the same tendency, whereas the Times often emphasised the uncertainties, and gave space to sceptics. As regards policy options, the Guardian and Independent favoured more state intervention, whereas the Times adopted a more liberal, market-oriented view of potential solutions.
Another study has shown that the tone different newspapers use is in part a reflection of a newspaper’s ideology. Again, in crude terms, the left-wing press used a more dramatic tone to illustrate the risks, whereas the right-wing press showed a lower degree of dramatization, a lower representation of the risks and a questioning of doomsday scenarios.
A study of the French and Dutch press tested the link between a newspaper’s ideological leanings and i) treatments of scientific uncertainty, ii) the tone of an article (”dramatization”) and iii) mitigation policies. They found that in the Netherlands newspaper ideology was not related to climate change coverage, while in France it was related to some key aspects, namely the presentation of the necessity of taking action against climate change and the tone of climate change coverage.
It is of relevance here that the coverage of the IPCC’s 2013/4 reports was markedly different between right and left-leaning media in the UK and the USA in the treatment not just of the policy options to deal with climate change, but of the underlying science too (and particularly, the climate “pause”).
Clisp – How strong is public perception of climate change impacts and risks in the public opinion in the US and in the UK?
J.P. - Public perceptions of climate change impacts have been measured by various metrics, including the degree of seriousness of concern people express over time, and their willingness to take action. There is considerable evidence that since 2007, the general public in some countries has become less concerned about climate change and, in some countries, more sceptical about some aspects of the science. For example, in the UK, the proportion of British people who doubt that the world’s climate is changing has increased from 4% in 2005 to 15% in 2010 to 19% in 2013. The proportion that say they are concerned about climate change dropped from 82% in 2005 to 60% in 2013. There has been a not dissimilar trend in the USA.
However, opinion surveys do not tend to use the language of risk so it is difficult to know whether, or how much, the public sees climate change and its impacts as a risk.
Clisp – What role should science journalists play in political debates? How should they present climate research in newspapers?
J.P. - Science journalists now come in different forms, ranging from environment reporters and analysts, to journalists who write opinion pieces in their columns in newspapers. So it is difficult to generalise about what they should do or not do.
As regards the presentation of research, they should consult the original academic paper, and if possible, interview the authors. One problem is that in some countries like the USA environment correspondents are losing their jobs, which has left a gap in the level of expertise. Another is that many journalists are now under pressure to produce more output on different platforms so they have to rely on press releases. These can be misleading, as often they do not place the research in context or hype some aspect of the results.
Clisp – In the end, what should be the role of climate scientists in the public debate on climate change? How should they present their research?
J.P. - In his book The Honest Broker: Making Sense of Science in Policy and Politics Roger Pielke Jr helpfully identified several idealized roles that climate scientists may adopt.
Chris Rapley has recently drawn on these roles on Nature Climate Change arguing that climate scientists should be clear about the role they take on in different contexts. It’s worth quoting his words in full, as each scientist needs to think about what role he/she wants to adopt:
“The ‘pure scientist’ focuses on generating ‘facts’ to advance knowledge with no consideration for their use and no direct connection with decision-makers. The ‘science arbiter’ answers questions posed by decision-makers, but does not delve into policy considerations, taking care to limit responses to the positive (factual) rather than the normative (value-laden) domain. Then there is the ‘science communicator’ who engages with society to present the scientific results, to offer expert interpretation and to draw attention to the implications. The ‘honest broker of policy alternatives’ contributes scientific expertise to climate-related decision-making, along with other stakeholders, to ensure that available choices are fully explored and evaluated. Finally, there is the ‘issue advocate’ who engages with decision-makers and the public to promote a particular course of action, justified on the basis of their expert knowledge and understanding”.
Many climate scientists do not like the “issue advocate” role, as it is too prescriptive, whereas others believe that a climate scientist’s specialist knowledge, acquired at the taxpayers’ expense, constitutes an obligation to speak out. I agree with Professor Rapley’s observation that “the decision to do so lies with the individual, as does the responsibility to make clear when they are acting as an informed citizen rather than a professional scientist”.
As regards the second part of the question on how they should present their research, they should get as much media training as possible to be able to communicate clearly in a language the relevant audiences (usually a general one) understand. It’s a difficult skill to move out of the comfort zone of other like-minded scientists in your discipline, and find the right language, narratives and metaphors to get the science across in an engaging way.
(Interview by Laura Caciagli)
References
- The book Climate Change in the Media: Reporting Risk and Uncertainty (2013) by James Painter
- James Painter’s study Disaster Averted? Television Coverage of the 2013/14 IPCC’s Climate Change Reports (2014)
- James Painter’s study Poles Apart (2011)
- James Painter’s personal page on the Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism – Oxford University website
- The interview to Max Boykoff on Climate Science and Policy “Who speaks for the climate? Trying to make sense of media reporting on climate change”
- The book The Honest Broker: Making Sense of Science in Policy and Politics (2007) by Roger Pielke Jr
- C. Rapley and K. De Meyer, Climate Science reconsidered, Nature Climate Change, 4, 745–746 (2014), doi:10.1038/nclimate2352
- Explore the report Risky Business: The Economic risks of Climate Change in the United States (2014) and find out the contribution of CMCC models
- The IPCC Fifth Assessment Report (AR5)