Introduction 

Climate change is perhaps one of, if not the most pressing issue of the present. It is an issue that has implication for all life on earth, and despite consensus of the general scientific community has not reached a consensus with the public. As a result, there is continued discussions and debate about the best way we both communicate and tackle climate change.  In a February 16, 2019, op-ed for the New York Times about Climate Change titled: “Time to Panic” author David Wallace-Wells examines this. Specifically examining the relationship and, in his opinion, need for alarmism and fear when it came to climate change. In his opinion piece Wallace-Wells identified three reasons why he thought alarmism was useful and needed:

1.      Climate Change is a crisis now

2.     Alarmism provides context and conceivability

3.     Complacency as a barrier to change

He examines these three reasons in terms of why a sense of alarm/fear is needed to instill the urgency needed to make change now as well as what “we” as a collective can make an impact upon climate change.  The piece also serves as an indirect critique of the impartialness in the information deficit approach prevalent among scientists when communication climate risk. While I do agree with many of the points he raises, I would argue he takes an oversimplified approach that ignores the realities of many people. Statement’s like “But the longer we wait, the worse it will get. Which is one last argument for catastrophic thinking: What creates more sense of urgency than fear?” (Wallace-Wells, 2019) while pertinent does not reflect the multifaceted issue that climate change truly is, and as I would argue prescribes a privileged response to climate change.

Wallace-Well’s Arguments of Alarmism and Complacency

            In Wallace-Well’s op-ed piece he establishes three reasons why he thinks alarmism/fear is needed to tackle the problem that is climate change. To elaborate further on his points:

1.      Climate Change is a crisis now:  Wallace-Wells reiterates the reality that climate change is happening now. “The first is that climate change is a crisis precisely because it is a looming catastrophe that demands an aggressive global response, now. In other words, it is right to be alarmed. The emissions path we are on today is likely to take us to 1.5 degrees Celsius of warming by 2040, two degrees Celsius within decades after that and perhaps four degrees Celsius by 2100.” (Wallace-Wells, 2019).

2.     Alarmism provides context and conceivability:  The argument is that with alarmism this can provide a clearer and more realistic picture of the potential realities that we will face in regards to catastrophic climate change. As Wallace-Wells notes, the idea of a two degrees temperature increase has been used to represent a worst-case scenario, but the reality is that this is more likely to represent just the beginning, with temperatures possibly rising between two to four degrees by the end of the century. This as Wallace-Wells argues, allows us to face the realties of climate change. (Wallace-Wells, 2019).

3.     Complacency: The third and perhaps most emphasized point Wallace-Wells argues is complacency. He identifies complacency as a key barrier to public engagement with the climate crisis: “I know the science is true,” he writes, “I know the threat is all-encompassing and I know its effects, should emissions continue unabated, will be terrifying.  And yet, when I imagine my life three decades from now, or the life of my daughter five decades from now, I have to admit that I am not imagining a world on fire but one similar to the one we have now.  That is how hard it is to shake complacency.  We are all living in delusion, unable to really process the news from science that climate change amounts to an all-encompassing threat.” (Wallace-Wells, 2019).

As mentioned in the introduction, many of Wallace-Well’s arguments are pertinent to climate change communication and climate change. But I maintain they do not reflect all the realities of the world when it comes to climate change. Climate Change is a crisis now, that is something true that I have no objection to. However, I do posit that his second and third points belies other barriers to communicating climate change as well as the realities for many that prohibit them from action.  

Arguments to Alarmism

Wallace-Wells second point argues that alarmism provides context and conceivability in relation to climate change. He does not elaborate how to apply alarmism to provide this context and conceivability to the public. This is important as just as alarmism/fear can motivate people into action, they can also have to counter effect of paralyzing us with fear. In Roeser’s reading “Risk Communication, Public Engagement, and Climate Change: A Role for Emotions” she points out that “using fear messages can be problematic as they might emphasize the futility of our efforts. It depends on personal and other circumstances how we respond to fear.” (Roeser, 2012). This is also leads to the potential problem of the narrative we are establishing for Climate Change. What I mean by this is with alarmism/fear we run the risk of establishing a narrative of “Fear, Misery and Doom”, where people listening to climate communication end up believing our efforts no matter what we do will be fruitless, and therefore leading or providing an excuse for inaction. While alarmism and fear can be used to call people to action, they also need to believe their actions can make a difference. As Arnold & Fellows argues in their reading “Doom and Gloom: The Role of the Media in Public Disengagement on Climate Change” the narrative in which climate change is communicated is very important and can have huge differing effects.  In order to communicate the risk of Climate Change effectively and to create a call action they found that both impact (alarmism/fear) and efficacy (ability to make a difference) must both be present. (Arnold & Fellows, 2018). As examined in their reading; research conducted by Lauren Feldman found that hope was a stronger driver of action than fear: “Our most consistent finding is that including the efficacy or solution information increases people’s sense of hope, and of all the emotions that we study, fear, anger, hope—hope is the most consistent driver of intentions to engage politically, support for climate mitigation policies, energy conservation behavior; so hope is really important.” (Arnold & Fellows, 2018). Perhaps even more telling of this correlation is the “Six Americas” study by Anthony Leiserowitz he examined. The study which divides Americans into six groups: the dismissive, the doubtful and the disengaged, the cautious, concerned, and the alarmed, he found “Even the alarmed, the most concerned about climate change, were not likely to know how to respond.” “While it’s important that people understand the risk, the threat, they also need to understand what they can do as individuals, or collectively, “the ability to respond, the time, money, skills, technology…and more importantly that if we take these actions, it will make a difference, it will help at least reduce the risk, if not end it all together. You need both.” (Arnold & Fellows, 2018). I think the reality that even those who were most alarmed by Climate Change did not know how to respond speaks to the fact that alarmism/fear takes a far too reductionist approach to the issue of communicating Climate Change. If the alarmism and fear is too heightened, you will create the idea of inevitability. In a very macabre analogy and speaking from personal experience, when you are drowning, and death seems inevitable you simply give up and accept that fate. Likewise, I believe if the perceived future of the planet is one of doom and death, people may give up on the future and simply accept that fate.

Arguments to Complacency

            Wallace-Well’s third argument centers around complacency. He identifies complacency as a key barrier to public engagement with the climate crisis positing that in large parts, we are so focused on the present and our own lives that we can’t see and imagine the impending doom about to hit us. While I think there is merit that we are perhaps complacent in action against Climate Change, I would argue there are numerous barriers that are preventing people from engaging with Climate Change.

As we examined both the emotions of fear and hope can have a huge impact on how we perceive the information around us. One of the barriers of are preventing people from engaging with Climate Change is the prevailing approach to communicating Climate Change and Climate Risk; The Information-Deficit approach. This approach is very normalized in environmental communication as well as other areas of scientific communication and became normalized initially due to initial public skepticism towards new scientific and technological topics, such as evolution, genetically modified organisms (GMOs), vaccines, and others. As Marshall points out this approach was successful at first “for the first ten or fifteen years, people’s understanding of science was the single most powerful predictor of their willingness to change their behavior or support of government policy.” (Marshall, 2014). However, this approach has not really changed over time. Scientists and others who believe in climate change seem determined to continually cite and present evidence expecting this to change the minds of those who they see as “uninformed”. The problem with this of course that “rationality” and “objectiveness” does not inform all our decisions. Emotions such as fear, panic, alarm, sympathy, sadness all play essential roles in climate communication. This Emotional appeal is supported by Gilbert who introduced four key triggers of risk with the acronym PAIN (Marshall, 2014).

P: stands for personal, meaning we respond to things that are personal to us.

A: stands for Abrupt, meaning we notice sudden drastic change but tend to ignore slow changes

I: stands for immoral, we react to things that we that are decent, repulsive and disgusting

N: stands for now meaning we focus on now instead of the future.

As Gilbert explains the problem is that climate change often does not trigger any of these responses. The PAIN model also explains further why the prevalent information deficit approach fails in getting people’s attention or spur them into action. Information displayed as statistics often does not seem personal and does not convey a good sense of time, scale or emotional response for something immoral. Furthermore, I would argue the information deficit’s approach of continually cite and presenting information can create as sort of “White Noise” for climate communication, as people hear to same or similar thing repeatedly, they eventually tune it out. Another feature not communicated by climate communications is the effects of proximity. People inherently care about a issue more if seems close or it effects them directly.  All this leading the “complacency” Wallace-Well is positing.

Another argument against complacency is the economic and social issues that many face. According to Statistics Canada in 2018 approximately 3,983,000 Canadians were living in Poverty (Government of Canada, 2020). According to the data, 1 in 9 people in Canada live in poverty, meaning this is an individual who is in Statistics Canada’s words “deprived of the resources, means, choices and power necessary to acquire and maintain a basic level of living standards and to facilitate integration and participation in society.” (Government of Canada, 2020). I would argue that when you are not able to maintain a basic level of living such as shelter, safety, or sustenance, climate change becomes a very distant concern. This in some ways can be supported by Maslow’s hierarchy of needs.

While Climate Change undoubtably threatens and affects our physiological and safety, due to the scale and perceived time Climate Change takes place, it is often seen as a distant issue. Meaning people prioritize their more immediate needs. A 2014 UN report suggested that countries with much greater economic wealth prioritized climate change than impoverished ones (Plumer, 2014). Although this is changing as Climate Change threatens and affects the physiological and safety needs of poorer countries, disproportionally affected by climate change.

Conclusion

Throughout this essay we have examined Wallace-Well’s arguments for Alarmism and the effect of Complacency. While valid in our examination we have found his view perhaps oversimplified for the multifaceted realty that is Climate Change and approaches for communicating its risk.

As we have examined, information is not enough to communicate climate risk. And while fear and alarmism can be a call to action it can just as likely be a detriment, leading to a narrative of “Doom and Gloom” and resulting in inaction. Fear cannot be the only emotion used, instead there must be utilization of the full spectrum of emotions the in order to get people’s attention, to instil a sense of urgency in them and most importantly to drive them to action. To increase people’s capacities and want to engage with communication we must ensure the communication of Climate Risk appeals to us emotionally and personally such as things in proximity. I would argue for targeted reporting of local climate issues to give people the context and scope for climate change but also so they feel like they can make that difference. Finally issues such as poverty and social issues must be addressed in order for people to feel like their basic needs are not threatened and so we can address the issue of climate change before it truly threatens those basic physiological and safety needs. Perhaps fitting of an issue that affects us all, tackling Climate Change is an issue we have to tackle from multiple directions simultaneously. To not do so is ignoring the realities of the word, and to do so is much too big of a risk for our collective futures.

Bibliography

Arnold.E & Fellow. J.S. (2018). Shorenstein Center on Media, Politics and Public Policy. Editor & Publisher, 151(8), 51.

Canada, E. and S. D. (2021, June 15). Government of Canada. Canada.ca. https://www.canada.ca/en/employment-social-development/programs/poverty-reduction/national-advisory-council/reports/2020-annual.html#h2.03.

Marshall, G. (2014). Don't even think about it: why our brains are wired to ignore climate change. Bloomsbury.

Plumer, B. (2014, September 23). Why rich countries worry more about global warming than poor ones. Vox. https://www.vox.com/2014/9/23/6835285/why-rich-countries-worry-more-about-climate-change-than-poor-ones.

Roeser, S. (2012). Risk Communication, Public Engagement, and Climate Change: A Role for Emotions. Risk Analysis, 32(6), 1033–1040. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.2012.01812.x

Wallace-wells, D. (2019, February 16). Time to panic. The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/16/opinion/sunday/fear-panic-climate-change-warming.html.