“Critically
review the insights of research into public attitudes and perceptions of global
warming and their value for climate change communications”.
Anthropogenic climate change is a global issue around the world, to the extent that a culture of consumption – induced from a carbon-based economy – has contributed towards an average increase in temperatures for both developed and underdeveloped countries (Schmidt et al. 2013). The true scale of human influence on climate change has created different attitudes, perceptions and values towards the issue (Chakrabarty 2017). At an international level, the main problem is trying to mitigate climate change, but discrepancies in public attitudes from countries (e.g. USA) will have a global impact on the level of adaptation and mitigation that can take place (Schmidt et al. 2013). The media however, are sources of information for climate change, and can help develop social representations that are communicated to an audience. Depending on how the information can be perceived or expressed, it can promote mitigation in a positive manner; but different types of media will not have the same effect (Schmidt et al. 2013, Jaspal et al. 2014).  Therefore, this essay will research into the insights of public attitudes from numerous different mediators, while assessing the impact on how climate change communications from the media can help mitigate the impacts that are created from climate change.
Figure 1.0 The Information-motivation-behavioral skills model (IMB) is based on an individual’s own behaviour and motivation (WHO 2003). With an information deficit (from the IDT), it prevents the individual from being motivated to change their behaivour. In relation to climate change, a lack of information will prevent a person from taking steps to reduce their impact, because they don’t believe or are skeptic about the concept (Olson 2011).
It is understood that how climate change is
perceived is more likely to be considered in countries that are affected by the
negative consequences (Schmidt et al. 2013). These perceptions are dependent on
a country’s geographical location; for example, Australia is a developed
country that is very exposed to impacts created by climate change (Chakrabarty
2017). However, despite the geographical location having an influence,
scientists will still face challenges when trying to communicate the risks and
consequences of climate change to a wider audience (Yale Forum 2014). The
reason for this is that there is great uncertainty about the full complexities
of the climate change concept, thus the audience that is being targeted needs
to be educated more effectively (Yale Forum 2014, Kirilenko et al. 2015). As a
consequence, knowledge that has been discussed from findings that have been
ineffectively communicated to the public can be interpreted in different ways
(Yale Forum 2014). This failure of communication results in part of the
population rejecting or misunderstanding the scientific concept that is
proposed, which is known as Information deficit theory (IDT) (Figure 1.0).  (Yale Forum 2014, Olson 2011).
When governments go
to Global conferences (like the Paris 2015 agreement), they are not as equally
as resourced with public discussions in their own nation due the degree of
uncertainty (Chakrabarty 2017). The debates remain primarily focused on the
experience, values and desires of developed nations in relation to climate
change, particularly with the USA.
Addressing climate change in the USA is dependent on the mitigation
and adaptation policies at all levels, whether this is at a local, state or a
national scale (Howe et al. 2015). The public perceptions and attitudes in the
USA have large variations, with only 47% of the respondents from national
surveys believing that climate change is human caused, which is reinforced by
Figure 1.1 (Howe et al. 2015, Lee et al. 2015). The American efforts to
initiate climate change policies at a national level have been weakened, due to
the rise of the Tea Party Movement from 2009-2010 and the election of presidential
electorate Donald Trump, allowing a new Republican majority in the US House of
Representatives (Maibach 2012). The extreme weather events that act as an
indicator for climate change are geographically detached from most Americans,
which reinforces the skepticism of climate change for the majority of parties
involved in its discussion (Weber and Stern 2011). Clearly, sociodemographic and
ideological characteristics will also divide opinions and perceptions of how
climate change is perceived amongst the uncertainty (Smith and Leiserowitz 2013).  In theory, when there are high levels of
uncertainty around a subject, individuals will look towards other groups to
understand the appropriate context of what is discussed (Spartz et al. 2015).
In order to understand complex scientific issues like Climate change, some Americans
will rely more on the media to understand the norms and values of pro-environmental
mitigation as well as the exchange of environmental information (Spartz et al.
2015).
Figure 1.1 The diagram shows the geographical patterns from the climate change opinion polls at an international level during 2007 to 2008. The results were based on the level of awareness (a) and risk perception (b). Despite the awareness of the American majority being well over 75%, there is a smaller majority in comparison that believe Climate Change was not a serious threat. (Lee et al. 2015)
Originally,
anthropogenic climate change became a public issue during the 1980s, the
scientific findings founded by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
(IPPC) was focused by the media (Moser 2010). This nonstop coverage was central
for the discussion and legitimation of climate change (Schmidt et al. 2013),
but it also caused problems due to perceptions and awareness of audiences fluctuating
in relation to media attention cycles (Moser 2010). At the current day, climate
change is beyond what it used to be, as information is communicated through a
number of different forms that includes social media (Moser 2010, Whitmarsh et
al. 2013). Social media is becoming furtherly integrated into how stories are
covered and represented, which is important to understand as different media
types can socially represent climate change to specific contexts (Jaspal et al.
2014, Olteanu et al. 2015). For example, Leonardo DiCaprio’s 2016 Oscar Speech quoting
climate change had increased coverage from the traditional mainstream media,
but tweets including the terms: ‘global warming’ or ‘climate change’ had
reached new records to a much greater audience (Leas et al. 2016). This is
evidence to suggest that the way the information is expressed, can also
determine an individual’s motivation and how they can help to mitigate towards
climate change in a positive manner.
However, despite
these successes from the media, ideological factors and demographical factors
will still remain the same for some individuals. Therefore, climate change will
always be represented as a false concept in some way, which means that the
potential for mitigation to take place won’t be as successful as it should
(Jaspal et al. 2014). In order to facilitate changes, Leiserowitz (2007) argued
that the local and regional impact of climate change needs to be expressed, as
highlighting impacts may help to increase the level of public engagement with
issues related to climate change mitigation and adaptation (Taylor et al.
2014). Climate change is evidently a well-known issue, but the level of how it
is communicated effectively across from mediators worldwide cannot be known
(Schmidt et al. 2013).
References
Chakrabarty, D. (2017). The politics of climate change is more than
the politics of capitalism. Theory, Culture & Society,
p.0263276417690236.Howe et al. (2015). Geographic variation in opinions on climate
change at state and local scales in the USA. Nature Climate Change, 5(6),
pp.596-603. Available from: http://escholarship.org/uc/item/2bz0416w
[Accessed 03/03/2017]Jaspal et al. (2014). Human responses to climate change: Social
representation, identity and socio-psychological action. Environmental
Communication, 8 (1), pp.110-130. Available from: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/17524032.2013.846270
[Accessed 28/02/2017].Kirilenko et al. (2015). People as sensors: Mass media and local
temperature influence climate change discussion on Twitter. Global
Environmental Change, 30, pp.92-100. Available from: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0959378014001952
[Accessed 28/02/2017]Leas et al. (2016) . Big data
sensors of organic advocacy: The case of Leonardo DiCaprio and climate change.
PloS one, 11(8), p.e0159885. Available from: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0159885
[Accessed 03/03/2017]Lee et al. (2015). Predictors of public climate change
awareness and risk perception around the world. Nature climate change,
5(11), pp.1014-1020. Available from: http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v5/n11/full/nclimate2728.html
[Accessed 03/03/2017]Leiserowitz, A. (2007). Communicating the risks of global warming:
American risk perceptions, affective images and interpretive communities.
In S.C. Moser & L. Dilling (eds.), Creating a climate for change (pp.
44-63). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Maibach et al. (2012). The legacy of climategate: undermining or
revitalizing climate science and policy?. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews:
Climate Change, 3(3), pp.289-295.Moser, S. (2010). Communicating climate change: history,
challenges, process and future directions. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews:
Climate Change, 1 (1), pp.31-53.Olson, D. (2011). What is “Information deficit theory?”. Available
from: https://www.quora.com/What-is-Information-deficit-theory
[Accessed 01/03/2017]Olteanu et al. (2015). Comparing Events Coverage in Online News and
Social Media: The Case of Climate Change. ICWSM, 15, pp.288-297. Available
from: http://www.aaai.org/ocs/index.php/ICWSM/ICWSM15/paper/download/10583/10512/
[Accessed 28/02/2017]Schmidt et al. (2013). Media attention for climate change around
the world: A comparative analysis of newspaper coverage in 27 countries.
Global Environmental Change, 23 (5), pp.1233-1248. Available from: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S095937801300126X
[Accessed 28/02/2017]Smith, N. & Leiserowitz, A.
(2013). American evangelicals and global
warming. Global Environmental Change, 23(5), pp.1009-1017. Available from: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0959378013000599
[Accessed 03/03/2017]Spartz et al. (2015). YouTube, social norms and perceived salience
of climate change in the American mind. Environmental Communication,
pp.1-16. Available from: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/17524032.2015.1047887
[Accessed 28/02/2017]Taylor et al. (2014). Climate change beliefs and perceptions of
weather‐related changes in the United Kingdom. Risk Analysis, 34(11),
pp.1995-2004. Available from: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/risa.12234/full
[Accessed 03/03/2017].Weber, E.U. & Stern, P.C. (2011).
Public understanding of climate change in the United States. American
Psychologist, 66(4), p.315. Available from: http://psycnet.apa.org/journals/amp/66/4/315/
[Accessed 01/03/2017]Whitmarsh et al. (2013). Public engagement with climate change: What
do we know and where do we go from here?. International Journal of Media
& Cultural Politics, 9(1), pp.7-25. Available from: http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/intellect/mcp/2013/00000009/00000001/art00002
[Accessed 03/03/2017].WHO (2003). Adherence to Long-Term Therapies – Evidence
for Action. Available from: http://apps.who.int/medicinedocs/en/d/Js4883e/9.1.4.html#Js4883e.9.1.4
[Accessed 03/03/2017].Yale Forum (2014). The Challenges of Climate Change
Communication Webinar [VIDEO]. Available from: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l44s0jWHBdU
[Accessed 28/02/2017].