Clear and Present Danger

You would think that fear is the ultimate motivator.  I used to live in a relatively sketchy neighborhood in Montreal where I would go for late night runs (due to time constraints) and would spend the majority of my run under the assumption that someone was about to jump out and attack me at any given moment.  This fear fortunately never came to fruition, but my 10km night runs were usually 10 minutes faster than the same run under the protection of daylight.  The illusion of protection provided by a consumer based urban existence in the face of climate change seems to have slowed our collective response time by far more than 10 minutes.

I found it interesting that that the O’Neill and Nicholson-Cole (2009) article began by stating that 30% of the UK thinks that “crime, health, economic concerns, and education are issues government should deal with, while just 1% stating the same about climate change” (p.357), when in fact those issues are all environmental issues.  Not really the crux of the issue, but it is important to look at what we define as environmental issues and I suppose this article is really addressing the detachment felt by the general public with regard to climate change.  As this study takes place in the UK, I’m sure there are many who would welcome global warming (although I see in the study they accounted for a relatively insignificant proportion of the sample). 

The fact that a tangible experience with the natural world is virtually impossible in many of the concrete jungles found in the United Kingdom no doubt adds to the sense of indifference towards climate change.  And a threat is not really a threat until one feels threatened, and images of polar bears floating on blocks of ice through tropical arctic waters most likely fails to resonate with individuals who has spent the majority of their lives in a sprawling industrial city.  Fearful images relating to climate change seem to be such a departure from most people’s perceived reality, that it only enhances the perception that these issues are remote and distant.

There is a place for fear, it certainly makes for an effective hook, and as a teacher I love a good hook, but I have learned that a hook for the sake of a hook does not always translate into long-term engagement.  Are we to hung up on trying to get people to shift their behavior for the “right” reasons, or should we just focus on using any means necessary to achieve the desired outcome?  As Stern (2012) alludes to, if you do choose to use fear, you better provide a means “to prevent the feared outcomes.”  There is great power in a visceral reaction to something, but fear seems like a bit of a cop-out, it’s easy to scare people, not so easy to inspire them.

O’Neill, S., & Nicholson-Cole, S. (2009). Fear Won’t Do It: Promoting Positive Engagement With Climate Change Through Visual and Iconic Representations. Science Communication, 30(3), 355-379.

Stern, P. (2012). Fear and Hope in Climate Messages. Nature Climate Change.