Climate Porn
August 3rd, 2006Posted by: Roger Pielke, Jr.
The BBC has an article today about a new report from the U.K. based Institute for Public Policy Research (IPPR), which the BBC characterizes as a “Labour-leaning” think tank.
The alarmist language used to discuss climate change is tantamount to “climate porn”, offering a thrilling spectacle but ultimately distancing the public from the problem . . .
Simon Retallick, IPPR’s head of climate change, has this to say:
If the public is to be persuaded of the need to act we must understand how climate change is being communicated in the UK. Currently, climate communications too often terrify or thrill the reader or viewer while failing to make them feel that they can make a difference, which engenders inaction.
Government and green groups should avoid giving the impression that ‘we are all doomed’ and spend less time convincing people that climate change is real. . .
I very much agree with these views, but I do have two quibbles with the overview of the report. First, missing here is a discussion of the role of the climate science community, within which many have taken on as a personal mission the task of convincing people not only that climate change is real, but that anyone who deviates from the “consensus” should be vilified or silenced. Yes, there is a scientific consensus on climate change as described by the IPCC, but it offers little prospect of compelling a political consensus. Consequently, efforts to use science to force political action are in my view one of the driving factors behind “climate porn.”
Second, Retallick suggests a focus on “large actions” like hybrid cars or insulation instead of “small actions” like turning down the thermostat. From where I sit hybrid cars and wall insulation are “small actions” when compared to the challenge of stabilizing atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations. The report does not go far enough in discussing the complete transformation of the global energy infrastructure needed to stabilize greenhouse gas concentrations at anything close to today’s levels. Where is the discussion of nuclear energy, vast investments in energy R&D, or even air capture? The report does not apparently acknowledge that solutions will unlikely to be motivated by climate concerns alone (as I discussed in my recent testimony before the U.S. Congress, PDF), which further underscores the pathological role played by climate porn.
Here is a longer excerpt from the IPPR website which describes the report:
The research analysed more than 600 articles from the UK press, as well as over 90 TV, radio and press ads, news clips and websites to find out how the media, government and green groups are communicating climate change.
The report argues that the discussion on climate change in the UK is confusing, contradictory and chaotic, and with the likely result that the public feels disempowered and uncompelled to act.
The report says that climate change communications should avoid using inflated or extreme language and placing the focus on small actions to solve the problem.
The report identifies ten different ways of talking about climate change, of which the first two are dominant:
*Alarmism (“we’re all going to die”): this pessimistic approach refers to climate change as awesome, terrible, immense and beyond human control. It excludes the possibility of real action – “The problem is just too big for us to take on”. Alarmism might even become secretly thrilling – effectively a form of “climate porn”. It is seen in almost every form of discussion on the issue.
“A world of climate chaos spiralling out of control”
* Small actions (“I’m doing my bit for the planet – and maybe my pocket”): the “small actions” approach is the dominant one in campaign communications from government and green groups. It asks a large number of people to do a few small things to counter climate change. The language is one of ease and domesticity with references to kettles and cars, ovens and light switches. It is often placed alongside alarmism. It is likely to beg the question: how can this really make a difference?
“20 things you can do to save the planet from destruction”
August 3rd, 2006 at 8:13 am
Forgot link to full text:
http://www.ippr.org.uk/ecomm/files/warm_words.pdf
August 3rd, 2006 at 9:16 am
Bob Herbert’s column today in the NYT is “climate porn”:
http://select.nytimes.com/2006/08/03/opinion/03herbert.html
“As I’m writing this, the lights have been dimmed in much of The New York Times Building . . .”
His solution? Elect Al Gore.
Al Gore was on a Boulder radio station yesterday, asked what people can do about global warming, he replied, “See my movie, buy my book . . .”
OK, then what?
August 3rd, 2006 at 10:57 am
“If our readers thought we put climate change on our front pages for the same reason that porn mags put naked women on their front pages, they would stop reading us.”
Sort of like readers have stopped buying Sports Illustrated’s “Swimsuit” edition?
August 3rd, 2006 at 11:06 am
Mark- They said “reading” not “buying”
August 3rd, 2006 at 2:55 pm
Roger, you said:
[The report does not go far enough in discussing the complete transformation of the global energy infrastructure needed to stabilize greenhouse gas concentrations at anything close to today’s levels. Where is the discussion of nuclear energy, vast investments in energy R&D, or even air capture?]
Frankly, Roger, nothing I read on blogs or web pages comes close to discussing the [complete transformation of the global energy infrastructure to stabilize greenhouse gas concetnrations].
The ongoing N.A heat wave is being measured by more than tragic deaths attributed to excessive heat or the previous temperature records being broken in the past 10 days.
Someting more ominous is being recorded by the electric utility industry in its reporting electric peak demand exceeding demand projected earlier this year.
For those who understand the funtion and importance of independent system operator (ISO)s,
let me share their performance of late:
I derived the data from the ISO-RTO Council at the following link:
http://tinyurl.com/enyu9
This week: (mid July)
- The California Independent System Operator (CAISO) experienced a new record peak of 46,561 MW on July 17, surpassing the previous record of 45,431 MW set July 20, 2005. (The CAISO service area is part of the Western Interconnection.)
- The Electric Reliability Council of Texas (ERCOT) marked a peak of 62,396 MW on July 17, exceeding the previous all-time peak of 60,274 MW set on Aug. 23, 2005. (The ERCOT region is a stand-alone interconnection serving approximately 85% of the load in Texas.)
- ISO New England, Inc., (ISO-NE) which operates the bulk power grid serving the six state New England region, reached an all-time preliminary peak demand of 27,395 MW on July 18, 2006, surpassing the previous record of 26,885 MW set on July 27, 2005.
- The Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc. (Midwest ISO), which manages the power grid for all or parts of 15 states and the Canadian province of Manitoba, successfully met a demand of 132,658 MW within its reliability footprint on July 17, topping the previous peak of 131,434 MW set on Aug. 3, 2005.
- The New York Independent System Operator (NYISO), which serves nearly 20 million people, successfully met a record peak load of 32,624 MW on July 17 without enacting emergency procedures, breaking the record of 32,075 MW set on July 26, 2005.
- PJM Interconnection, which operates the power grid for all or parts of 13 states and the District of Columbia, successfully met a peak demand of 139,746 MW on July 17, surpassing PJM’s previous record peak demand
of 133,763 MW, reached on July 26, 2005.
- Southwest Power Pool, Inc. (SPP), which manages the power grid in all or part of seven southwestern states, successfully met the demand for three new peaks: 41,324 MW on Monday, July 17; 41,874 MW on Tuesday, July 18; and 42,227 MW on Wednesday, July 19. The previous peak was 40,081 MW, set in 2005.
Each new peak demand record pushes the reserve margin down for each of these ISOs and new generating capacity will have to be added to the inventory of generators able to provide power to the grid next summer and for the next decade. Wind and solar (aside from the selective niche they will serve) are not on the list.
It is to our benefit the electic utility industry does not use ice cores or paleo-data to determine next day or next summer’s peak demand. They can only reply upon economic growth, new customers, etc. to estimate projected demand in their service territories.
At the end of the day, new demand, (to comply with required reserve margins) will translate into additional fossil-fired capacity being added to their mix of capacity and increased carbon emissions being added to our atmosphere (at our request, I must add, because consumers demand power ON DEMAND.
Roger, increasing demand for air cooling in a warming world and expanding use of electricity to meet daily needs of communication, transporatation (commerce) will overpower of individualefforts to conserve electricity or politicians to diminish increasing CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere. You know that. And I implore you to open your page to discussions of adapting to and geoengineering a warming climate on a trgectory to get warmer.