This blog post is a reaction to the following discussion prompts:

Are apocalyptic warnings about global warming effective, or do such warnings create problems of credibility or paralyze action? How can scientists raise awareness of future, serious effects from climate changes—rising sea levels, deaths from prolonged droughts, and so on—without relying on some vision of catastrophic events?

Some climate scientists and journalists have complained that the public cannot “see” global warming. How would you solve this problem? Which medium do you think can most compellingly express the impacts of prolonged drought, rising sea levels, disease, and so forth?

The general American public is understandably isolated from an accurate understanding of the true effects of climate change on our planet. As a result of much of the discourse surrounding this topic being confined to the academic sphere, not to mention the difficulty of interpreting the occasional statistic, most people find it almost impossible to imagine an environment drastically altered from the current one and the impact it will have on their lives.

The issue, as Cox insists, is all about framing. An accurate portrayal of the consequences of humans’ actions is limitedly broadcast unto the pages of scientific journals such as Science and Nature. Yet, the audience of these and similar publications is one that already has a heightened consciousness of the state of environmental affairs.

To generate massive action, it is the masses that have to be reached. The channel must be carefully selected, and the message must be even more carefully determined so that it is encoded and eventually decoded properly to spur action. There have been many attempts to achieve both general public interest and awareness, but we can undoubtedly do better.

A favorite channel has been visual media, such as television and cinema. Directors and producers have worked together to bring the public fascinating scenes of what our lives might be like in 50, 100, or even 1000 years. However, these futuristic visions truly are overly apocalyptic and go so far into the future that it cannot be comprehended.

The solution is double-sided. The government must work to eliminate the biggest threats to the environment through tax incentives and penalties. At the same time, the education system has to double-down on its efforts to spread climate awareness to children, and hopefully the future will be brighter and cleaner as a result.

Works Cited:

Cox, Robert, and Phaedra C. Pezullo. “Symbolic Constructions of Environment, The Environment In/of Visual and Popular Culture.” Environmental Communication and the Public Sphere. Los Angeles: SAGE, 2016. N. pag. Print.