Climate Porn
According to a British organization, the Institute of Public Policy Research, media outlets there are engaging in "Climate Porn" by discussing climate change in a sensationalist manner, by "offering a thrilling spectacle but ultimately distancing the public from the problem."
The report identifies ten different ways of talking about climate change, of which the first two are dominant:
-
Alarmism (‘we’re all going to die’): this pessimistic approach refers to climate change as awesome, terrible, immense and beyond human control. It excludes the possibility of real action - ‘The problem is just too big for us to take on’. Alarmism might even become secretly thrilling – effectively a form of ‘climate porn’. It is seen in almost every form of discussion on the issue.
‘A world of climate chaos spiralling out of control’
-
Small actions (‘I’m doing my bit for the planet – and maybe my pocket’): the ‘small actions’ approach is the dominant one in campaign communications from government and green groups. It asks a large number of people to do a few small things to counter climate change. The language is one of ease and domesticity with references to kettles and cars, ovens and light switches. It is often placed alongside alarmism. It is likely to beg the question: how can this really make a difference?
‘20 things you can do to save the planet from destruction’
It them commences to suggest a marketing approach to discussing climate change, but it is a public relations group….
I find the term interesting. Just as open expressions of human sexuality are still dogged by vestiges of eighteenth-century Puritanism, (you remember them; they burned witches for entertainment. A fun group.) so too is open expression of anxiety toward the runaway train of consequences of unhindered capitalism and its inherent excesses. What’s a soul to do: rephrase all conversation in a politically-correct manner that downplays our collective shortsightedness toward our actions? Manufacturers would like this very much, thank you. Governments would thank us as well for passing the buck onto yet another generation without taking the difficult steps toward reversal. If it is not indeed too late.
James Lovelock, who discovered depletion of ozone and controversial author of the Gaia theory, thinks it is too late. Washington Post reports on the End of Eden (redux) that we might be experiencing. Reading the article, I’m put to mind other radical thinkers whom were unafraid of announcing controversial beliefs: Socrates and Galileo come readily to mind. Dare I mention Charles Darwin? His ideas are still controversial. So, too, Mr. Lovelock, whom I predict we will treat the same as Galileo in the future.
As to the pornography charge: what’s wrong with a little alarmism? It worked so well preceding the Iraqi nightmare. It motivates people, overcomes the couch-potato inertia and gets through to otherwise thick skulls. No one knows how long humanity has before change is irreversible - we may even have passed that point - so action is needed now. Re-framing the argument will only diffuse the urgency needed. It’s just more status quo.
And that’s the last thing we need.