How do you convince individuals to alter their behaviour? What’s the best way to engage people on an issue they probably don’t care about, but definitely should? Why does public support for several important global events only ever amount to a flash in the pan?
These questions are at the root of an interesting environmental article in The Guardian. Its basic premise is that the climate movement’s approach to climate change risks alienating the average X Factor fan, annoyed by “the yearly cycle of petitions and celebrity endorsements” among other things. Here’s an extract:
“In the months since then, I've become convinced that the movement for a cleaner, fairer future needs to change if it's going to succeed. Whilst the fiasco in Copenhagen wasn't catastrophic and the slanders hurled at climate scientists proved groundless, these events did expose a worryingly shallow level of support for action on climate change. It revealed a public opinion which was fed up with being preached at and frustrated at not listened to enough by campaigners. The movement itself hasn't done nearly enough to reach out beyond the "usual suspects" and to connect with the concerns and aspirations of ordinary people.”
This article is objectionable for a number of reasons. Not only is it full of unhelpful and dull truisms (“It’s time for us to change direction, rather than meandering down same tired path”), it is incredibly disingenuous to the environmental lobby (the climate movement has to have the courage to connect, reach out and build for the long-term, not just the next big media event). This presents the climate movement as if it were some whiny, attention seeking, drama-queen on The Hills, concerned only to enhance its profile at carefully choreographed photo ops. This is ridiculous and unfair. The method of communicating the environmental message is not the problem. Environmental groups have been overwhelmingly clear about what needs to be done to tackle climate change – in a nutshell, people need to drastically alter their way of living, from the cars they buy to the food they eat to the hobbies they enjoy.
Another factor which has halted progress is the fact that carrying out meaningful change requires political leadership, rather than pandering to focus groups. It means taking on powerful special interests and upsetting the status quo. Very few leaders are willing to rock the boat at a national level, let alone make waves on the global scene. That is the reason for piecemeal environmental reform, rather than the author’s flimsy suggestion that the problem lies with the climate movement’s message.
A parallel can be drawn with Africa and poverty relief. This time our focus is Live 8. Anti-poverty wrist bands were the rage, some of the biggest names in music performed (Sting even sang ‘we’ll be watching you’ with extra gusto) and politicians agreed ‘something must be done’. Five years on and little has changed. The disparity between the rhetoric of 2005 and subsequent efforts to tackle poverty highlights how ephemeral these concerts truly were. Disheartening as this is, the fault lies with Joe the plumber for not choosing to pursue or pressurise politicians. Messages advocating poverty relief and campaigns for environmental reform are ubiquitous and convincing. The call to arms is regularly made, but it is apathy that is preventing a reply.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2010/sep/15/green-movement-approach
No comments:
Post a Comment