Research Paper- The Climate Change Debate in Public Relations
- Mahak Dutta
- Jun 29, 2019
- 10 min read
Updated: Jan 27, 2024
The public will continue to protest, ocean waves will continue to become extreme, more hurricanes can hit coastlines, but we may never stop blaming or even ignoring climate change.
Above are the recent news headlines about climate change and global warming. The topic has undoubtedly gained intensive media coverage and is the most challenging global issue, but what is missing is an intensive course of action. Even though everyone is aware, the steps taken to fight climate change do not seem to suffice. So what is lacking? Why is the collective action against global warming not as strong? Is it the way we communicate climate change or the way we interpret it?
Through this research paper, I will try to answer a few questions about the climate change debate in communications by discussing how communicators have failed to persuade about climate change, in a time when they are supposedly the masters at the art of persuasion.
This Google Trends graph illustrates the fluctuating interest of people to research about climate change and global warming. Clearly, there is a lack of interest and active engagement, both of which are necessary in order to have an open conversation about this issue. The problem is that we are not able to perceive the environmental changes because we have difficulty in imagining them. Everyone knows that it is real and that it is happening but if Bob Pickard is to be quoted, (The Holmes Report- The Climate Change PR Disaster, 2013)“unless or until those things all happen constantly in an unprecedented way, there will be a ‘wishful thinking’ tendency to hope that these are normal climate fluctuations.”
If we try to dig into the reasons for this, multiple factors come into play. As a matter of fact, this problem can only be addressed if it is thought to be urgent enough. People can think or act differently about it only when it is communicated differently. However, while we may think that it can be tackled, it may get difficult because we live in times where it is impossible to control our constant demand for economic growth.
To exemplify, The Guardian had once published a report where PR firms representing multinational corporations and large-scale oil companies chose to remain neutral and refused to comment on whether they support or deny climate change. The report also stated that there were a few who chose not to represent clients who deny man-made climate change, but “Ogilvy Public Relations told CIC (Climate Investigations Centre) that it recognised the risks associated, and that it had worked on campaigns for WWF and Greenpeace. However, it declined to comment on whether it would represent clients who deny climate change. Qorvis, a Washington DC-based PR company, and its parent company MSL Group, also declined to answer that question. Only 10 of the 25 firms responded to multiple emails, phone calls and certified letters from the CIC, either directly or through a parent company,” the report states further.
This situation appears dicey on these organizations’ part because the PR firms representing them have an influential role to play in shaping the public’s opinion about what the firm thinks about climate change. PR people are trusted insiders and are supposed to deliver a clear statement depicting the view of the company they represent.
On the other hand, according to the Forbes report, if the news media outlets are to be looked at; a large number of them are owned and operated by business groups. Some of them include Bloomberg, The Boston Globe, The New York Times, The Washington Post and Tribune Media Co. This gives businesses an edge to exert a stronger influence over what is being published and in this way they can partially control the media. As climate change is a crucial topic, this form of media ownership can also be regarded as the manipulation of climate change communication.
Certain corporations have also denied findings about climate change and can be seen dealing with it astutely. This Forbes article states that “Powerful funders are supporting the campaign to deny scientific findings about global warming and raise public doubts about the roots and remedies of this massive global threat.” It further elaborates that fossil fuel companies such as Exxon and Peabody Energy have collaborated with conservative corporate groups such as the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the political advocacy group, Americans for Prosperity to raise doubts about climate change as a scientific reality. This message is then augmented by conservative think tanks such as the Cato Institute and the American Enterprise Institute. Later it is picked up by media outlets on the internet and television. “The results of these campaigns by the “pro-business” crowd have been to block laws that would require them to modify their facilities or to pay additional taxes on pollution, while promoting a sense of doubt in the public’s mind.”
The report also talks about organizations such as Deutsche Bank and Shell who are strategically earning profits in the name of climate change. For instance, Shell’s business depends upon how actively it responds to the rapid shifts in the energy market. The company has now appointed a team of futurists and planners to build the organization’s own point of view regarding climate change. This depicts nothing but underestimating the most challenging topic of the modern world.
Furthermore, “Deutsche Bank now offers a climate change mutual fund and has installed a Doomsday Clock near Madison Square Garden in New York that is known as the first “real-time carbon emissions counter” that adds about 800 tons per second to the tally,” as stated in the report.
Yes, business organizations and conglomerates can have a major impact on shaping our opinion about climate change. So, let’s say that the people who are familiar with such manipulations by corporates can probably rely on a bigger authority- supposedly the government- to take action against climate change. Can they?
Well, according to this video post at Breitbart.com, the US federal government’s study had scientifically proven that “the climate is now changing faster than at any point in the history of modern civilization due to man-made activities.” However, the President of The United States of America, Donald Trump just didn’t seem to agree. In front of 13 agencies within the Trump administration comprising of thousands of people including 300 scientists, he denied climate change and claimed that global warming is a hoax. He also released this report strategically, a day after Thanksgiving during 2018 when most of the people are out enjoying the festive time with their families and friends.
While we leave Donald Trump with his conjectures, the last hope of beneficial action against climate change is the climate summits and conferences. According to The Guardian report, representatives hope to get international agreements signed between countries which are also major carbon dioxide emitters- the U.S., Europe, China and India- but there is none yet. Major emitters refuse to commit or take a pledge. No productive action has been taken in all these years. Every year the threat posed by climate change becomes more definitive while the interest of participating countries depreciates. Whether it is The Kyoto Protocol adopted in 1997, the climate summit in Copenhagen during 2009, or the Paris Climate Agreement of 2015; leaders have only decided to offer talks and no formal agreement has been arrived at.
That being said, it seems that procrastination and ignorance are governing everybody. The big multinational organizations are playing their own game, the government of the strongest nation is yet to realize and the summits are not arriving at the desired results. Then where does this leave the common man? After all, it is for him that these measures are supposed to be taken. Let’s take the conventional routine life for example. Our existence is primarily dependent on natural resources. Everybody is well aware of this fact and has adopted simple ways to minimize overexploitation of the resources as well. However this is not the only solution to the problem because there are many things that have kept us from caring about the real problems of the world.
According to The Holmes Report:
Today, we are so engrossed in digital technology that we hardly notice the environment around us. The digital world is anyway infamous for making human beings feel more isolated, and spending more time in front of the screen is a key factor that can make us resistant to communicate about climate change. Moreover, the channel of activism has evolved with the advent of the digital medium. If one desires to get involved in climate change combat, they can simply get associated with a social networking community online. A mere ‘like’ or ‘follow’ is also considered a big action these days; which brings out the third point- Humans have psychologically distanced themselves from the real-life concerns because of their patterns of consuming media forms. This can make them more lazy and negligent. Consequently, people hesitate more when they have to talk about climate change or let’s say share a related post on social media. They behave over consciously in such situations and care too much about what people may think.
“People also seem to have a pronounced tendency to overestimate how much they know. Climate change has now become a debate between two ‘sides’, the denialist opinion gains more credence than it otherwise deserves.”
Moreover, the efforts to improve climate change communications are lacking at an organizational level. There have been misperceptions about the issue which have led to missed opportunities to spread more awareness. A number of tools and mediums can be used to make people more aware, but there is a reason why one should rely more on public relations than advertising. PR is a much more elaborate and reliable medium for this topic. Given its social media aspect and cost-effective nature, it can be a more powerful channel for climate change communication.
However, on the other hand, if the important people in this industry are to be observed, “opinion leaders on climate change think and speak in a woolly way about how the cause needs better communication.” The Holmes Report also elaborates on how the essence of public relations as a profession can be applied for efficient climate change communication. It elaborates on the point about how PR can be used to influence public opinion in order to make wise decisions. “It can help transcend traditional audience boundaries through relationship brokerage, social networking and community building. If the capability of this profession is applied to the challenge of climate change, we could have ‘public relations in public interest.’ ”
So what can we do?
By using ‘public relations in public interest', we can definitely help communicate climate change in a better manner but it is also a fact that it cannot be tackled by a single entity alone- whether it is an individual or a country. Probably it is time for us to promote sustainability more than spreading the word about climate change.
People already know what has to be done regarding climate change, they just don’t want to. That is why we need more persuasive communication. In this follow-up piece written by Bob Pickard, he outlines a few measures that need to be kept in mind while communicating climate change. Some of them are as follows:
- There is growing awareness and interest in creating an impact on an international level:
Given that it is the most serious long-term problem faced on a global level, there have been many media articles written and broadcast news shows telecast just to talk about what steps we can take collectively. Moreover, every country is facing a different kind of climate issue and likewise, communication campaigns have been developed accordingly in different places to invoke more action. To add to that, international organizations such as The United Nations taking appropriate measures is definitely a step in the right direction.
- There should be a practical application of theoretical research papers through an efficient campaign design:
Climate change has been published in a number of research papers written by scientists and field experts. However, there seems to be a disconnect between what the intellectuals observe and how it is actually implemented by the outside world. Therefore, in order to make their findings useful, the flow needs to be ‘organized, simplified and embedded into programs that are expressly designed to be purpose-built for persuasive communication.’
- The key to making the communication better is by listening and methods such as crowdsourcing and storytelling can prove to help in fighting the challenge-
If it is possible to create a process where we know what people think and hear and how they really implement the same in their daily lives, it could majorly help us with designing a communication strategy. Implying social technologies such as crowdsourcing on an international level can inform us a great deal about the diversity in people’s opinions. On the other hand, storytelling can play a vital role to unlock unconscious minds and tell a compelling story in order to influence opinions and behaviours.
- Make people ‘see’ climate change:
It is a proven fact that visual information can be processed 60,000 times faster than text and is easier to remember. If storytelling is done through visual channels then it can have the maximum impact. For instance, one narrative which can be formed is to make humans imagine their future selves in this scenario. In fact, there are several short movies and TV shows which already depict the same and have been chartbusters.
More so, metaphors can be a more efficient way to communicate. According to Pickard, “Metaphors force us to form mental pictures that affix to our memories and mainline directly to understanding. By grooming metaphors into climate communication content, the cause of change can have the ability to stand for something that deeply resonates with people and is much more meaningful to them.”
- PR people need to form a narrative:
Framing a story can make people ‘think and act differently’ and this will be crucial. PR people are professionals at framing a clear position so that the audiences can instinctively grasp the point of the story. This is also an effective strategy for audience priming; wherein you tell them exactly what can invoke the desired reaction from them. Besides, it is equally necessary to repeatedly communicate in order to have a lasting impression on the public’s mind.
- At last, be positive:
There have been enough talk points about the life-threatening impact of global warming. However, if we convince people ‘by giving them credible reasons to believe that their attitudes and choices could actually matter, then could help increase the efficacy of communication.’ More so, if an individual is given a clear and simple reason to help personally with this global fight, then we can be hopeful of seeing a positive change.
The bottom line being, communication is the single most powerful method which can help us solve the toughest problems, climate change being just one of them.
Comments