How not to cover the climate change issue
While I prefer to read the IPCC reports directly, I can't help but notice the way the issue is covered in these explainers or in the media. Since a significant proportion of the public's perception and awareness is influenced by these popular explainers, it is important that they be accurate (though not necessarily deep or complete) and be considered seriously. After all, whether or not you will come across this video where 5 lead authors of this report (all Indians) explain the new findings, you will likely come across one or the other "popular" explainer.
Please don't get me wrong here 一 popular explainers are incredibly important, but only as long as they fulfill two conditions:
- They are accurate - based on facts, and NOT the explainer's opinions
- They are constructive - empowering the viewer to help find solutions to the issue
The first condition is rather easy to fulfill, considering there is a ~1300 page report with five predecessors for background. There is certainly no dearth of facts regarding climate change, for the purpose of a 30-minute YouTube video or for a full semester's advanced course. There is also voluminous discussion not just of experts' judgements but also the basis for those judgements.
The second condition is perhaps less widely appreciated. For an explainer to be constructive, it must address not just what the reader wants 一 which could be limited to conspiracy theories, or a reinforcement of their own ill-informed opinions 一 but what the reader needs. Fulfilling this condition requires that the reader be informed of the facts that are most pertinent to them and to the resolution of this critical issue. It also requires that the explainer neither misleads the reader with their own half-baked interpretations, nor distracts them with things that actually have nothing to do with climate science2.
Lest I bore you with these abstract (and arbitrary, you might say!) rules, let me provide an example.
For the IPCC report, Shekhar Gupta did not cut the clutter, he added to it
If you are unfamiliar with climate change, you might be impressed with Shekhar Gupta's explainer on it. It is unsuitably a part of his #CutTheClutter series, with the title "Understanding IPCC report on climate change & its jargon, heatwaves, floods, catastrophe". There is bare minimum talk of climate change jargon. Notably, he only explains the concept of greenhouse gases (GHGs) 一 and this is remarkably disappointing considering GHGs were introduced and explained in the first IPCC report of 1990. There is certainly no help there to understand heatwaves, floods or an impending catastrophe 一 which isn't strictly necessary, but makes one wonder about the need to insert these terms in the title of the video. While I am grateful that he finally acknowledged climate change and began the episode with an outpouring of humility, it did not make up for very poor coverage of the issue or of the report.
 |
| From: Policymakers Summary by Working Group I, for the IPCC's First Assessment Report (1990) |
In this post, I would like to show why this coverage is not just inadequate or unsatisfactory, it is misleading and harmful. I would be overjoyed if others would not repeat these mistakes, but I'm not holding my breath.
An explainer on a scientific report deserves a focus on science
The science of what causes climate change is quite clear 一 too much of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. Because this is known with such clarity (and has been known since the first IPCC report), the most effective way to distract the world from climate solutions is to distract it from the science. Thus, it is extremely important that any explainer regarding a scientific report stays focused on the science3.
This episode starts with several minutes on Shekhar ji's ignorance on this topic. It ends with the politics of the issue. There is a broad middle which focuses on science - but not the science from this IPCC report, and not even the science pertaining only to climate change. I can understand the difficulties in delving deep into climate science, but to distract the viewer with needless discussions on the Ozone Layer is simply unhelpful.
For me, this episode was a painful reminder of an entire generation's refusal to understand this issue. Unduly exaggerating how complicated and out-of-reach the science is does not acquit the explainer, especially when a simple and elegant analogy with greenhouses emerges within the same video. It raises the suspicion that the greenhouse effect was never beyond Shekhar ji's comprehension, but only beyond his interests. To have remained disinterested in climate change, and to have woken up only when the 6th report is out, is to be quite remarkably privileged.
However, perhaps most importantly, an undue emphasis on how complicated science can be discourages the viewers from even trying to understand it. Instead, the viewers should be informed of the Headline Statements: a set of simplified statements meant precisely for those who do not have the scientific background. These can be used as a simple starting point to evoke interest.
Unnecessary politicization also reinforces the us vs them narrative
The climate change issue has been politicized and there is no doubt about it. However, the science behind the issue cannot be understood through the politics, in fact it is the other way round. We know of the unfairness of the situation because we know that a CO2 molecule4 traps heat, whether it has been emitted from the United States of America or from India. We know that CO2 is a well-mixed gas in the atmosphere, thus its emissions have consequences on the Maldives even if it was emitted in Russia. We also know that every ton of CO2 will contribute to climate change, whether it is emitted by a German in the 1950s or a Pakistani in the 2030s.
A constructive conversation on climate change reinforces the need for global coordination, not conflicts along misplaced fault-lines. Surely it must be clear to Shekhar ji that not every American, Russian or Indian is made the same way in one national flavour 一 and they certainly do not all have the same carbon footprint as the average per capita emission statistic for their country. It is also important to point out that climate justice is an integral part of every constructive climate conversation. While there are some examples here and there, the importance of differentiated responsibilities is not lost on all. It is discussed in the reports of the Working Group III. Embarking on a rant about climate injustice, before understanding the issue, is unhelpful.
 |
| From: Main Findings by Working Group III, for the IPCC's First Assessment Report (1990) |
It cannot be emphasized enough: The real fault-line is between those who seek to continue profiteering from fossil fuel usage, and those who resist it. But the creation of misleading fault-lines is a way to keep confusing the public5.
The us vs them narrative is a very unhelpful and distasteful theme in the last 10 minutes of the video. The clarion calls for climate action came through scientists from all countries, including Indian scientists. Conveying climate action only as a decree by the developed nations undermines what it is more importantly for Indians 一 the need of the hour, for our own personal well-being. India has the highest social cost of carbon in the whole world. What about that? Many of us do buy into lectures by foreigners -- when they tell us about our own well-being. It is worthwhile to point out that climate solutions are not only about mitigation (reduction of carbon emissions), they are also about adaptation -- adjusting and facing climate change.
Lastly, I resent the suggestion that nothing can be achieved through an ordinary citizen's efforts, or nothing can be achieved by Indians ("hamara sab kuchh band karne se kuchh hoga bhi nahin"). This
video distracts Indian viewers from ways they can contribute to climate
solutions and hate-mongers about things Indian viewers can possibly not
do anything about. A constructive climate conversation would seek to
empower viewers through knowledge 一 whether as consumers or voters.
After all, the only place we can demand climate-policies in is our own
homeland.
To conclude
Climate coverage is the need of the hour, but it must be focused on climate solutions and based in scientific facts. If you're looking to cover this issue or this report, please be careful to not politicize the issue any further, and to focus on facts that empower your audience. Lastly, if you can't help, don't hinder.
------------------------
1 I use the word "perceived" intentionally. I think there isn't enough awareness about the fact that the IPCC also recognized this void and addresses it through its simplified but accurate Headlines Statements and Summary for Policymakers. It is truly not necessary for everyone to depend on a third-party to understand at least the gist of the IPCC reports. I write more about this here.
2 I wrote a slightly "childish" rant about this a couple of years ago. You can read it here.
3 I hope the reader will notice my emphasis on "scientific report". The report by the Working Group 1 focuses on the science, but the other two are interdisciplinary. I do not think science need be the central focus while discussing the other two reports.
4 For the sake of simplicity, I am referring only to one of the culprit GHGs, not all.
5 If you think I'm exaggerating, please watch this.
------------------------
If you like such posts, you may subscribe to them here.
------------------------
Lastly, I could not stop myself:
Comments
Post a Comment