For the Narrative unit in English, we were tasked with finding a topic that we were passionate about and writing a research paper that looked at the topic with a critical eye. My paper focuses on the environment and why some people struggle with coming to terms with climate change.
Illogical Denial
The explosive growth of the world economy during the Industrial Revolution has improved the quality of life of people are around the globe. Energy that was once locked up in natural resources is now readily available in forms such as gas and electricity. This has led to an incredible increase in how much energy humans consume. Unfortunately, this bottomless supply of energy comes at the cost of long term environmental damage; the exploitation of natural resources has led to the release of dangerous byproducts into our atmosphere. Over time, these byproducts have accumulated and their effects have become known as climate change. Climate change is defined as “the gradual increase in the planet’s temperature due to greenhouse gasses that have been released from human activities” (Wygant), and has become an increasingly daunting problem. Larger storms, deadly floods, and other natural disasters are all consequences of global warming that we have already seen, but despite these consequences, coverage by the media, and the 98.4% consensus among scientists (Boykoff), many people still deny the existence of human-caused climate change.
Why do people reject climate change science? Are humans simply afraid to let go of their energy use or are there many factors at work? While humans have certainly gotten used to the abundance of energy available, denial is not simply based in patterns of consumption people have formed. It can be difficult for people to believe in climate change because of mental conflict rooted within our own brains, a skewed approach to climate change in global media, and a mis- or under representation of climate change as an issue in both political and media spheres. In order to reduce climate change denial, both government and the media must change their approach to addressing this issue.
Climate change denial can first be examined through the way people get their information on the issue and the way this affects how humans view the future. Since the early 19th century, global temperatures have risen nearly 1.7 degrees Fahrenheit, which has contributed to Greenland ice caps losing 281 billion tons of ice per year (NASA). At the same time, ocean levels have risen almost 8 inches and ocean acidification has led to the death of hundreds of coral reefs (NASA). All of this information is real and pressing. But, is it really helpful to read sentence after sentence of doom and gloom? Is overwhelming viewers with apocalyptic information really helpful in the effort to curb climate change? A survey asked people to list what sources they got climate change information from along with a date of when they believe climate change will be serious. Out of 84% of respondents that believed climate change was human caused, only 20% from that group believed climate change’s effect were imminent or already here.Those that were more pessimistic got information from an average of 1.3 sources and those who were more optimistic having roughly 2.7 sources (Peterson). An interesting trend is that those that were more pessimistic about climate change tended to read less about climate change than those who believed the effects were far off. For some reason, the more information people are faced with, the less pessimistic they tend to be about our future. Why is this?
The answer to the difficulties we face when thinking about climate change may lay in the inner workings of our brain. Despite how advanced some say our brains are, the truth is human brains are bad at thinking about climate change. When presented with viewpoints that are so grand and in such opposition to our own daily lives, humans find it difficult to manage these beliefs. Everything we do potentially damages the environment.
The way our brains cope with this conflict is through cognitive dissonance. Social psychologist Gruman defines cognitive dissonance as “a theory [that] suggests that when people encounter a situation where they become psychologically discomforted by an opposing cognition that is not consistent with their current belief, it is this discomfort felt from the dissonance that causes a drive in the person to resolve the dissonance” (Gruman). More simply, cognitive dissonance is the idea that, when people have to face an overwhelming issue, some address that issue by simply denying it exists. Instead of feeling guilty of destroying the planet everytime they drive, people can instead take solace in the fact that what they are doing has no impact.
This may explain the trend that, the more climate scientists warn about the consequences of our actions, the more climate change denial seems to appear. Publisher VOX takes note of this, writing “‘Incredibly enough, it shows that the more certain the science becomes, the less concern we find in richer Western democracies. How can it be that with increasing level of urgency and certainty in the science, people get less concerned?”(Murdock). While at first some may see this trend as unexplainable, it is actually a natural occurrence of many minds struggling to come to terms with the idea of global warming. A seemingly illogical increase in denial can be explained when cognitive dissonance is taken into account.
The question then arises, does the way people get information on the climate affect how strongly their brains turn to cognitive dissonance? The media is a tycoon when it comes to presenting information to the public, with 88% of respondents to a survey getting their information on climate change from an online, physical, or television outlet (Peterson). While some may say the media is simply a vessel for information, news outlets also have their own biases that can skew information, and sometimes simply present ideas that are wrong. One of the most obvious ways the media can create climate bias is by misrepresenting facts and figures. One popular example of this is the global cooling scare in the 1980’s in which the media created a false panic about a “global cooling event.” Scientists repeatedly denied this, unsuccessfully so. (cite book source)Belief in climate science was potentially set back decades by misinformation being spread that was not only wildly exaggerated, but in direct conflict with the actual issue. By giving the public false hope that global warming is not an issue, the media only aggravates cognitive dissonance by giving people an outlet for their denial of climate change.
Another danger to belief in climate change stems from media simply lacking coverage of global warming trends. Media Matters, a nonprofit that monitors disinformation in the media, notes the absence of climate change coverage, writing, “Over a two-week period from late June to early July, ABC, CBS, and NBC aired a combined 127 segments or weathercasts that discussed [a] recent heat wave, but only one segment, on CBS This Morning, mentioned climate change” (MacDonald). Despite its role in exacerbating the heat wave, climate change was addressed in .7% of coverage on the topic. Without coverage, fewer Americans get information, and the issue cannot be addressed. Even worse, however, is the compounding effect this ignorance has. The less people hear about climate change the less serious of an issue they believe it is, and so when global warming actually is addressed it must stand alone in the media – its impact is lessened by the fact there is little information to support it.
Not only does the lack of coverage affect how people view the issue, it also hurts those that choose to cover it. Notable journalist Chris Hayes mentions how dangerous climate change can be for ratings:, saying “Every single time we’ve covered [climate change] it’s been a palpable ratings killer. so the incentives are not great.” (Hayes). Decreased interest in climate change leads to fewer people believing it is an issue worth their attention. People view the issue as less serious as it actually is and are less likely to click on an article discussing it. Traffic declines, ruining incentives. Ignorance of climate change makes it more difficult to bring the issue back into the public eye.
While there are more obvious dangers that media poses to climate change belief, there are also more subtle ones. Misinformation and lack of coverage is dangerous, but what if the few sources that do consistently cover climate change are presenting the topic in a way that is unproductive, or even promotesincreases denial in climate change? Climate science is endangered when the media covers it in ways that are ineffective to spreading the idea of climate change as a present danger.
One of the most prevalent challenges facing climate change belief is addressing of the issue as a political one and not a scientific one. Sarah Ladouceur, a graduate from Williams College for Environmental Studies, puts it this way: “Although it is difficult to establish cause and effect, it seems highly likely that the position of right and left-leaning media is one of the key influences on public perceptions and media-generated controversy is also often cited as a reason for skepticism about climate change.” (Ladouceur). Media only worsens climate change denial when they cover it as a debate between political parties. As a daily consumer of media, we are constantly faced by information that tells us we can choose to believe in climate change or not depending on our political alignment.
Even though some right wing news agencies tend to focus on the opposition to climate change, the actual scientific consensus is clear. 98.4% of scientists agree climate change is human caused (Boykoff), and those that don’t are often not peer reviewed or are have their studies funded directly by big oil (Wygant). While numerous arguments exist that try to disprove human caused climate change, they are not based in real, peer reviewed, research. By portraying climate change as an issue that needs to be discussed and not the scientific consensus it is, the chance for action is bogged down in political debate.
While ignoring the issue or portraying it incorrectly is damaging, what may be even worse is aggravating people’s cognitive dissonance by over-covering a story. Readers who see fact after fact about how many polar bears have died and how many ice caps have melted are more likely to retreat from the issue rather than address it. By only focusing on the overwhelming statistics of climate change, news outlets or publications are actually making the issue of climate change denial worse by increasing cognitive dissonance among viewers. Psychologist and economist Per Eknes Stokes describes the ineffectiveness of this “doom and gloom”: “This fear, this guilt, it’s not conducive to engagement. It’s rather the opposite. It makes people passive” (Stokes). While some argue these facts are necessary for the public to understand the severity of an issue, Stokes states that this over abundance of facts actually discourages people. By finding more hope for the future instead of focusing on the apocalyptic results of global warming the media can prevent cognitive dissonance among its viewers.
While it makes sense logically that presenting an abundance of facts is overwhelming, are there any observed instances of data being too much for the public to comprehend? In the controversial 2001 documentary An Inconvenient Truth, Al Gore asserts a harsh critique of human, carbon-producing activities, emphasizing the broad, apocalyptic sounding statistics of climate change. The lost species, the decrease of biomass, the destruction of habitats, and the approaching runaway global warming were all featured heavily. This, combined with the speaking series, published book, and vice presidential race Al Gore participated in, brought climate change into the center of the US media stage. The facts brought up by Al Gore were circulated heavily through the media. Many Americans were suddenly confronted with a grim future if we didn’t act fast. And yet, even as climate change became one of the most talked about issues in the country, belief that it was not even real started rising. In 2008, 41% of people viewed climate change as a serious issue, and yet by 2011 that number fell to only 25% (Staad).
While there are more obvious flaws in the media portrayal of climate change, such as misinformation, what can be even more damaging is presenting the information in an intimidating way such as the approach An Inconvenient Truth took in addressing climate change as an impending apocalypse. Effective climate reporting can be undermined by cognitive dissonance.
Now, addressing the problems with climate change coverage by the media without presenting a solution would be hypocritical. Doing this would create its own cognitive dissonance. There are ways, however, that we as an audience and the media industry can change how we produce and consume media. By addressing climate change more effectively, denial will decline and active steps can be taken in preventing further damage before it’s too late.
One of the more obvious ways to change how media addresses climate change is to leave behind the traditional approach of overwhelming statistics in favor of a more human angle. Prof. Johnny Goloyugo offrom the Asian Institute of Journalism and Communication discussed this at a climate change summit, being summarized as saying, “[Goloyugo] emphasized that tapping into the human angle adds relevance to a climate change story. For instance, people tend to be more interested in the resilience and struggles of their fellow human beings, than in an abstract concept manifested through natural disasters” (qtd. in Celeridad). For millennia humans have been designed to think about themselves and those directly around them. Presenting information on a global scale is frightening, but gives little personal incentive to change. The problem seems too big to address alone. Instead, media can present the human impacts of global warming. For example, how rising sea levels hurt farmers. By focusing on how our neighbor’s or our own lives will be affected by climate change, the issue seems less overwhelming and provides more incentive to act.
Another relatively simple solution is having information presented in a more action-oriented way. Currently, “Traditional scientific education relies on an educational model that fails to emphasize critical thinking and and is aligned with a deficit perspective. An effective strategy for scientists and science educators involves a shift towards approaches that enables trust, [and] emphasizes empowerment” (Cooper). A deficit perspective is where the teacher believes the student has a deficit of information that has to be filled by someone simply telling them what to believe. One of the issues with the traditional approach is it does not provide a solution to climate change nor does it give any trust to the existing knowledge of viewers. In order to more effectively present this information, media outlets should provide a solution along with providing more of a two way discourse by acknowledging the information that many Americans already know. By creating a two-way relationship, providing information and reciprocating action, media can help stimulate the public to act. For those on the fence about the issue, presenting information along with practical ways to act provides a more effective incentive than raw data.
On a wider scale, media and government must partner together to fully address climate change. In a summit on the relationship between the government, media outlets, and climate change in 2013, it was proposed that the general apathy towards climate change by both the public and journalists can be solved by “mainstreaming” the topic, or making it a deciding factor in any decision made on personal or governmental levels (Jallow). By journalists bringing climate change consistently into the public eye and the government focusing decision-making on climate change, global warming denial will become much more niche and can be effectively addressed. While ambitious, this two-point approach addresses both public denial and government inaction when it comes to climate change.
In Honors English, we also worked to produce an essay that looked at an essay we chose to read and responded to the different stylistic techniques used in the book. The memoir I chose to read was “Born a Crime” by Trevor Noah.
Born a Crime Response
Whether it’s being thrown from moving cars, impersonating famous rappers in front of thousands, or accidentally praising Hitler at a Jewish school, Trevor Noah lived out his childhood through a series of highs and lows brought about by living as the son of a white man and black woman in South Africa. Trevor Noah was born during apartheid, and while it ended when Trevor was still a child, he was, as the title suggests, born a crime. His existence was illegal and his mom had to hide him when he was young, but even after Nelson Mandela reformed the country, NoahTrevor lived a life that was half black and half white. This led to him experiencing two different versions of life, both seemingly exclusive of each other but rudely combined in hisTrevor’s everyday experience. From a combination of his unique upbringing and his mixed race status, Trevor has developed his own view ofon right and wrong, an appreciation for life, a penchant for autonomy, and a sense for justice and where it can fall short. He communicates theseThese values are communicated by Trevor giving a brutally honest look at his own life and insight into the, and these values have helped Trevor to be the unique advocate for social justice he is today.
By living in such a harsh environment and having to adapt to lifve in a world that he did not fit into, Trevor grew up independent and resourceful. When describing his life as a child during apartheid, he writes, “To this day you can leave me alone for hours and I’m perfectly happy entertaining myself. I have to remember to be with people.” Trevor was not able to live with many other children as a kid due to apartheid and so he learned to be self sufficient. While it was a forced seclusion, he grew to be able to live without a lot of social interaction. This autonomy continued later as he grew up and had to move out of his house due to his abusive stepdad (use this as a point for vulnerability)
We can see this same self- sufficiency continue when Trevor grows up when he writes, “Every day in the hood was the same. I’d wake up early. Bongani would meet me at my flat and we’d catch a minibus to Alex with my computer, carrying the giant tower and the giant, heavy monitor the whole way” (213). Even after Trevor grew up, he had little capital and little education to go out and get a job. Instead he worked his hardest just to get by on hustling, loaning, and selling CD’s. The independence he learned growing up developed into self sufficiency as he got older.
While he was forced to learn how to survive on his own, Trevor had the unique opportunity to grow up as someone who could be seen as either black or white. Due to this fact, he was able to see the racial injustice against his friends while also experiencing some of the benefits. This dual perspective both from within and without the ghetto, gave Trevor a sense of right and wrong, and how those definitions can change based on your race and gender. Trevor provides insight on his perspective of crime, noting, “It’s easy to be judgemental about crime when you live in a world wealthy enough to be removed from it. But the hood taught me that everyone has different notions of right and wrong, different definitions of what constitutes crime, and what level of crime they’re willing to participate in” (212-213). By living in the hood, Trevor saw a more nuanced definition of right and wrong. Everyone “broke the law” but everyone had to. The people of the hood were so underprivileged they had no other option (add some more analysis).
Trevors unique status also allowed him to see race in a unique way, which he mentions by writing, “Growing up the way I did, I learned how easy it is or white people to get comfortable with a system that awards them all the perks.” By also growing up and being seen as white, Trevor knew how things could be forgiven more easily based on your color. From both this knowledge and his knowing that those living in the ghetto all had to commit crimes, he connects his own personal theme of being “Born a Crime” to the black population in general. Those that are born black are forced to commit crimes, and are punished more harshly for those crimes.
Finally, Trevor applies his unique perspective on fairness by writing about the attempted murder of his mom by his stepfather, “Abel pled guilty to attempted murder. He was given three years’ probation. He didn’t serve a single day in prison. He kept joint custody of his sons. He’s walking around Johannesburg today, completely free.” (283) Trevors step dad shot his mom twice, once in the leg and once in the face. Before this he had beat her and the even when she went to the police they refused to arrest him or put anything on his record. Trevor experienced male privilege first hand when his mom was shot and the shooter walked free. This, along with his experience with race, shows his experience with the differences between justice and the law.
While Trevors life was fraught with hardship, he also had the opportunity to grow up with a mom who encouraged him to appreciate life. Trevor remarks on his experience writing, “As modestly as we lived at home, I never felt poor because our lives were rich with experience” (72). While Trevor grew up half white, he was unable to live a life of privilege because he was also half black. Instead of wallowing in their poverty, however, Trevor’s mom raised him on the idea that you didn’t need a lot of money to enjoy life, just meaningful experiences. While his world was harsh, his mom encouraged Trevor to see the opportunity in any situation.
Throughout the whole memoirnovel, whether describing his struggles with independence, perspective on fairness, or appreciation for life, Trevor maintains a constant sense of vulnerability. One example is when Trevor writes on his knowledge of apartheid, “I was aware of the fact there was a thing called apartheid and it was ending and that was a big deal, but I didn’t understand the intricacies of it.” The reason this short line is so powerful is that the whole reason for this book and most of the events that occur are due to apartheid. By acknowledging that he didn’t completely understand apartheid, Trevor shows vulnerability because even the author of a book about apartheid and racial division doesn’t completely know the process. By exposing his early lack of knowledge, Noah is putting himself on the same level as many readers who also may not know that much about the apartheid system. Noah doesn’t just expose himself to the audience through this his own mind, however, he also uses personal anecdotes. Trevor also shows vulnerability by talking about sensitive events in his past, exposing himself to the reader. By talking about his abusive stepfather and his impoverished past, Trevor allows the reader to have an intimate look into his life. This combination of giving readers a look into both Noah’s life and mind makes Noah seem much more vulnerable to the audience.
Today, Trevor Noah is most known for hosting the Daily Show, a comedy/news show on Comedy Central. In it, he reports news using a combination of jokes, facts, and candid opinions. With this unique structure you are clearly able to see his defining traits shine through, with the most obvious being his advocacy for racial justice. Through reading Born a Crime, the reader is able to see not only Noah’s sense of fairness, independence, and appreciation for life, but also see the reason why he developed all of these traits. You can continue to see these defining characteristics on Noah’s show as he continues to live out a life defined by both his mixed race and his efforts to bring both groups that make him together.