Blog post

The IPCC provides the vocabulary — now its time to weave the prose

Oct 22, 2013 by | 1 Comment

The latest report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was pub­lished last month, sum­mar­ising the state of the art in our under­standing of cli­mate change.

It is an incred­ible under­taking – thou­sands of sci­entific papers reviewed, painstak­ingly syn­thes­ised and then presented to the world’s policy makers. Although there are many critics within the sci­entific com­munity who argue that the pro­cess could be much improved, most recog­nise the phe­nom­enal achieve­ment of cor­ralling so much evid­ence into one document.

As expected, the report emphas­ised the unam­biguous link between human activity and the rapid cli­matic changes that have occurred over the past cen­tury. It under­scored the pressing urgency of redu­cing our carbon emis­sions. The IPCC has once again spoken. So what hap­pens next?

Anyone who has been fol­lowing the cli­mate change debate over the last decade will likely be exper­i­en­cing a degree of ennui in the after­math of the release of the report. For policy makers, it is a clear and unam­biguous signal – but it is a signal that they have received many times before. For the media, it offers a rare chance to put cli­mate change on the front page – but as ana­lyses by Carbon Brief show, the upturn in interest was short lived. And for the public, buf­feted by eco­nomic wor­ries and dis­in­clined to con­cern them­selves with an abstract future risk, the IPCC’s report is simply another ana­lysis of a problem that long ago stopped being a sub­ject on most people’s lips.

The problem is that the facts do not speak for them­selves. Watertight sci­entific and eco­nomic cases have been made in favour of taking strong action now to tackle cli­mate change, but public interest and ambi­tious polit­ical action has not fol­lowed. Until com­mu­nic­ators can figure out a way of trans­lating the dry, face­less facts of the IPCC reports into living, breathing reasons to care about cli­mate change, mean­ingful public engage­ment will remain out of sight.

Never mind whether sci­ent­ists are 90% or 95% cer­tain that human carbon emis­sions are causing cli­mate change. These kinds of tech­nic­al­ities, as important as they are, do not fire the hearts and minds of the gen­eral public. What does the IPCC report mean for the dozens of dif­ferent sec­tors of the eco­nomy who will be affected by cli­mate impacts? How should the tourism industry, the con­struc­tion trade, or health ser­vice pro­viders respond to a chan­ging cli­mate? These are prac­tical ques­tions that people might have a genuine stake in. But they are not being asked.

The IPCC reports are like a dic­tionary. The facts they con­tain provide the basic vocab­u­lary, but the real chal­lenge is in weaving poetry and prose to inspire people to care about the problem, to con­sider what it might mean to them, or to engage in the deep, reflective forward-planning and dreaming that cli­mate change demands of us.

There is an incred­ible oppor­tunity to use the IPCC report to start a new con­ver­sa­tion about cli­mate change. Like the IPCC pro­cess itself, this would have to be an ini­ti­ative that was ambi­tious, co-ordinated and backed at the highest polit­ical level.

Imagine an inter­na­tional pro­gramme of cli­mate change debates and con­ver­sa­tions – events designed not to make an eco­nomic case, put for­ward sci­entific facts or win an argu­ment, but to allow people to express and dis­cuss their con­cerns, fears, dreams and hopes for the future. What could be a more useful demo­cratic func­tion than providing the fora and sup­port for the world’s cit­izens to talk to each other about how cli­mate change will impact on their future, and how they want to respond to it?

Isolated examples of these kinds of ini­ti­at­ives have taken place before. When they have occurred, a striking pat­tern has been observed: people move from dis­in­terest to a pos­i­tion of engaged con­cern. It is dif­fi­cult to believe that anyone – given the time and oppor­tunity to reflect on what cli­mate change means for their family, their friends, and their future – would dis­miss the issue out of hand, as so many cur­rently do. But what cur­rently passes for public engage­ment on cli­mate change – cor­porate gre­en­wash, half-hearted gov­ern­ment ini­ti­at­ives and the wrong-headed belief that people can only tol­erate fluffy and upbeat mes­sages – pro­motes a super­fi­cial treat­ment of such a pro­found subject.

So as crit­ical as the IPCC’s reports are, they are only one piece of a com­plex puzzle that involves reframing the idea of cli­mate change away from an abstract topic of sci­entific study to a soci­etal fron­tier that everyone has a direct and per­sonal stake in shaping. If we can assess the state of sci­entific know­ledge every five years on some­thing as com­plex as cli­mate change, shouldn’t we be able to do a better job at trans­lating it into some­thing that people beyond the sci­ent­ists and the policy wonks can engage with?

Originally pub­lished by The Guardian on 21.10.13

1 Comment + Add Comment

  • but the real chal­lenge is in weaving poetry and prose to inspire people to care about the problem”

    Try pointing them to the Harry_read_me file. That puts a human face on cli­mate sci­ence. You really get to care for poor Harry, by the end of it.

Make a comment

Creative Commons 2011 - 2015, Talking Climate
A project by COIN & PIRC.
This website is a project of Climate Outreach

This website, a project of Climate Outreach (COIN), has been integrated into the new Climate Outreach website. Any updates since 21 October 2015 have been made to the new website only, not here, and this website will soon be deleted. Please bookmark our new website – we look forward to continuing to share the latest in climate communication research with you. We are now tweeting from @climateoutreach so please follow us there.