[GreenYes Archives] -
[Thread Index] -
[Date Index]
[Date Prev] - [Date Next] - [Thread Prev] - [Thread Next]
|
There is a training opposrtunity available (mostly on-line) here in Minnesota: http://cgee.hamline.edu/GlobalWarmingColloquium/index.html Curt These on-line courses enable designers to use their visual/design skills to communicate sustainability: http://www.mcad.edu/showPage.php?status=1&pageID=1304 Gary Liss wrote: > Apologies for Cross-Postings > > The FrameWorks Institute drew several conclusions for communicating on > climate change in the United States: > > * It recommended placing the issue in the context of higher-level > values, such as responsibility, stewardship, competence, vision > and ingenuity. > * It proposed that action to prevent climate change should be > characterised as being about new thinking, new technologies, > planning ahead, smartness, forward-thinking, balanced > alternatives, efficiency, prudence and caring. > * Conversely, it proposed that opponents of action be charged with > the reverse of these values - irresponsibility, old thinking and > inefficiency. > > The need to evoke the existence and effectiveness of solutions > upfront, the FrameWorks research stressed, was paramount. > > See full story below. > >> To: ZERI Practitioners Yahoo Group <ZERI_Practitioners@no.address> >> From: Michael O'Hara <mohara@no.address> >> Date: Mon, 22 May 2006 15:07:56 -0400 >> Subject: [ZERI_Practitioners] Communicating Climate Change >> / >> Excerpts: >> An opinion poll survey of thirty countries (including the United >> States) published in April 2006 found that a large majority of people >> believe that climate change is a serious problem. But any change in >> attitudes is having little impact on behaviour./ >> >> /[A recent study of effective communication on climate change] found >> that the more people are bombarded with words or images of >> devastating, quasi-Biblical effects of global warming, the more >> likely they are to tune out and switch instead into "adaptationist" >> mode, focusing on protecting themselves and their families, such as >> by buying large vehicles to secure their safety./ >> ************************ >> *Communicating Climate Change* >> By Simon Retallack >> Open Democracy >> >> Wednesday 17 May 2006 >> >> A new way of framing the climate change issue that makes sense in >> people's daily lives is needed in order to translate passive >> awareness into active concern, says Simon Retallack. >> >> More newsprint, broadcast time and web space is being devoted to >> the issue of climate change than ever before, so it would not be a >> surprise if journalists were to pat themselves on the back for their >> efforts. Far from it. On 18-21 May 2006 at a country retreat in >> northern Germany, journalists and writers from Britain, Germany and >> the United States will be meeting to discuss where they are going >> wrong and how they can do better. >> >> Writers taking part in the "Ankelohe Conversations" on the twin >> problems of climate change and the oil endgame will be asking >> themselves why - despite all the coverage they are now giving these >> issues - the public is doing so little to take action. >> >> It would be unfair to say that the higher profile climate and >> energy issues are receiving has had no impact. An opinion poll survey >> of thirty countries (including the United States) published in April >> 2006 found that a large majority of people believe that climate >> change is a serious problem. But any change in attitudes is having >> little impact on behaviour. >> >> In Britain, for example, the statistics are sobering: >> >> * Less than 1% of the population has switched to an energy >> company supplying renewably-sourced electricity. >> * Under 0.3% has installed a form of renewable micro-generation >> such as solar PV or thermal panels. >> * Many people admit to not even trying to use their cars less. >> * Purchases of highly-efficient cars represent less than 0.2% of >> new cars sold. >> * Just 2% of people claim to offset their emissions from flying. >> >> >> That situation will need to be reversed. Using fossil fuels more >> efficiently and deploying alternative sources of energy is essential >> if we are to avoid the worst impacts of climate change and rising oil >> prices. Some of the changes necessary may in theory be achieved >> entirely by governments through regulation. But others will require >> individuals to choose to behave differently and allow or encourage >> politicians to introduce policies to reduce our carbon emissions >> rather than punish them for trying at the polls. >> >> The role of the public is clearly critical and the adoption of >> effective policies for removing barriers and creating incentives for >> people to change their behaviour is imperative. So too, however, is >> the deployment of effective communications. And here we may be >> getting it wrong. >> >> *A New Script* >> >> Research conducted in the United States as part of the Climate >> Message Project led by the FrameWorks Institute discovered that some >> of the ways in which climate change is commonly being reported is >> actually having a counterproductive effect - by immobilizing people. >> >> The FrameWorks Institute conducted a linguistic analysis of elite >> discourse on climate change in media coverage as well as of >> environmental groups' own communications on the issue, followed by >> one-on-one interviews and focus groups with members of the public and >> a national poll. >> >> What the FrameWorks Institute found was startling. It found that >> the more people are bombarded with words or images of devastating, >> quasi-Biblical effects of global warming, the more likely they are to >> tune out and switch instead into "adaptationist" mode, focusing on >> protecting themselves and their families, such as by buying large >> vehicles to secure their safety. >> >> FrameWorks found that depicting global warming as being about >> "scary weather" evokes the weather "frame" which sets up a highly >> pernicious set of reactions, as weather is something we react to and >> is outside human control. We do not prevent or change it, we prepare >> for it, adjust to it or move away from it. Also, focusing on the long >> timelines and scale of global warming further encourages people to >> adapt, encouraging people to think "it won't happen in my lifetime" >> and "there's nothing an individual can do". >> >> As importantly, the FrameWorks Institute found that stressing the >> large scale of global warming and then telling people they can solve >> it through small actions like changing a light-bulb evokes a >> disconnect that undermines credibility and encourages people to think >> that action is meaningless. The common practice of throwing solutions >> in at the end of a discussion fails to signal to people that this is >> a problem that could be solved at all. >> >> These findings were significant because they applied to modes of >> communication that represented the norm in terms of US news coverage >> and environmental groups' own communications on the issue. They >> showed that a typical global warming news story - outlining the >> scientific proof, stressing the severe consequences of inaction and >> urging immediate steps - was causing people to think that preventive >> action was futile. >> >> Developing more effective ways of communicating on these issues >> is a huge challenge. Every country is different and will require its >> own approach. The FrameWorks institute developed proposals for use by >> US climate communicators in the first few years of the Bush-Cheney >> administration using a distinctive approach - the strategic frame >> analysis. >> >> According to this approach, how an issue is "framed" - what >> words, metaphors, stories and images are used to communicate about it >> - will determine what frames are triggered, which deeply held >> worldviews, widely held assumptions or cultural models it will be >> judged against, and accepted or rejected accordingly. If the facts >> don't fit the frames that are triggered, it's the facts that are >> rejected not the frame. >> >> Based on that understanding, it can be decided whether a cause is >> best served by repeating or breaking dominant frames of discourse, or >> reframing an issue using different concepts, language and images, to >> evoke a different way of thinking, facilitating alternative choices. >> >> Applying this approach to communications on climate change in the >> United States, the FrameWorks Institute drew several conclusions: >> >> * It recommended placing the issue in the context of higher-level >> values, such as responsibility, stewardship, competence, vision >> and ingenuity. >> * It proposed that action to prevent climate change should be >> characterised as being about new thinking, new technologies, >> planning ahead, smartness, forward-thinking, balanced >> alternatives, efficiency, prudence and caring. >> * Conversely, it proposed that opponents of action be charged >> with the reverse of these values - irresponsibility, old >> thinking and inefficiency. >> >> FrameWorks also recommended using a simplifying model, analogy or >> metaphor to help the public understand how global warming works - a >> "conceptual hook" to make sense of information about the issue. >> Instead of the "greenhouse-gas effect", which was found did not >> perform for most people, FrameWorks recommended talking about the >> "CO2 blanket" or "heat-trap" to set up appropriate reasoning. This >> would help, it argued, to refocus communications towards establishing >> the man-made causes of the problem and the solutions that already >> exist to address it, suggesting that humans can and should act to >> prevent the problem now. >> >> The need to evoke the existence and effectiveness of solutions >> upfront, the FrameWorks research stressed, was paramount. And if the >> consequences of climate change are cited, the analysis concluded they >> should not appear extreme in size or scale, should put humans at the >> centre, made to fit with personal experience and involve shorter >> timelines - twenty years not 200. >> >> Research will be published later in 2006 by the Institute for >> Public Policy Research on how climate change can better be >> communicated in Britain. Initial findings confirm many aspects of the >> FrameWorks Institute's analysis of the problem, if not all their >> recommended solutions. >> >> Wherever we are in the world, the way we communicate about >> climate change deserves far greater attention and care. As levels of >> public concern about our climate and energy problems rise, it is >> urgent that we communicate about them in a way that helps people feel >> motivated and empowered to act. >> >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "GreenYes" group. To post to this group, send email to GreenYes@no.address To unsubscribe from this group, send email to GreenYes-unsubscribe@no.address For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/GreenYes -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~--- |
[GreenYes Archives] -
[Date Index] -
[Thread Index]
[Date Prev] - [Date Next] - [Thread Prev] - [Thread Next]