From a Eurekalert press release, it seems the polar bears just aren’t doing the job anymore: “Communicators need to move away from the traditional images of polar bears or fear-laden imagery to find new, inspirational motifs to engage people with climate change.”
Beyond polar bears? Experts look for a new vision of climate change to combat skepticism
Climate change is about more than just polar bears. That is the message from Dr Kate Manzo whose research into climate change communication has been published in Meteorological Applications. The research, which reviews the efforts of journalists, campaigners and politicians to engage the British public with climate change, explores how new ‘visual strategies’ can communicate climate change messages against a backdrop of increased climate scepticism.
“There have been various efforts to put a face on the climate change issue,” said Dr Manzo, from Newcastle University. “Communicators need to move away from the traditional images of polar bears or fear-laden imagery to find new, inspirational motifs to engage people with climate change. My research has uncovered a variety of possibilities – such as windmills as icons of renewable energy – as well as alternatives to documentary photography as the dominant form of climate change communication. Artists and cartoonists are among the producers of inspirational alternatives.”
“A recent study of American public perception showed that fewer people are convinced of the reality of climate change, and of those that are only 36% attribute it to human activity. This shows the variance of levels of climate change knowledge and understanding, which effects how people behave in response. It also highlights the need for strategies to boost the cognitive and behavioural elements of climate change engagement without resorting to methods such as fear appeals that are, at best, a double edged sword.”
In her study Manzo analysed the traditional standard bearing symbols of climate change, especially polar bears, which (like the images of the global poor that sometimes appear in relation to climate change) are traditionally cast as being ‘helpless’ and ‘stranded’ victims as their habitat changes around them.
The most famous example of a polar bear gaining iconic status is Knut, the cub from Berlin Zoo whose image was used so successfully for political and commercial campaigns that he became the biggest cash grossing animal of all time.
“Polar bears score highly in the so called identifiable victim stakes. Findings suggest that the image of a lone polar bear, like Knut, wins hands down in the affective stakes provoking feelings of pity and concern as well as charitable giving.”
But is it time for those communicating climate change messages to find a new motif? To answer this question Manzo studied recent charity campaigns, climate change photography and the framing of climate change articles in the press.
Dr Manzo suggests that icons of extreme weather and renewable energy are the standard alternatives to faces of climate change, with images such as windmills providing an inspirational approach to a climate change message which is inherently difficult to visualise.
“Visually pleasing images have indirect value when they allow organisations that use them to raise money for climate action and science. Icons of renewable energy, such as windmills, change the frame of reference from either business as usual or visions of apocalypse to possible strategies of mitigation.”
“All of these alternatives represent efforts to move beyond polar bears as the iconic representation of climate change and the visual sign of the so called ‘age of the melt,'” concludes Manzo. “The challenge is to use visuals creatively in ways that can address all three aspects of climate change communication, i.e. cognition, affect and behaviour, without enhancing a sense of fatalism and disengagement.”
“Al Gored says:
[…]
If anyone has an update on Knut’s whereabouts that would be interesting.”
He’s still in the Berlin Zoo and likes to rip up t-shirts (no, no visitor inside):
http://www.morgenpost.de/printarchiv/berlin/article1306019/Neuer-Knut-Look.html
Windmills as an icon can be shoved back in Warmists’ faces by revealing the government subsidies required to erect just ONE!
There is a wind farm in New Zealand erected and operated without subsidies. The locals have adopted it and the rugby team for the area is now the Turbos.
I can understand not liking an uneconomic windmill. I oppose all uneconomic activity. But I don’t get the knee-jerk dislike of them in principle. Dutch windmill = cute. Modern windmill = ugly. How is that?
We need power. We have to build power stations. Do you honestly think that wind generators are uglier than coal or nuclear equivalents? Would you want a nuclear power station in your back yard?
The Kennedy example is not relevant. They would have opposed any and all power stations in the area. Coal, nuclear, hydro or wind. They were rich people protecting their playground. Their not-in-my-back-yard attitude is a disgrace, frankly, unless you are an eco-luddite. I expect more from this site.
“Ge0ld0re says:
May 29, 2010 at 9:11 am
Windmills as an icon can be shoved back in Warmists’ faces by revealing the government subsidies required to erect just ONE! Realityists should use the pictures with a dollar figure superimposed over each one, to the tune of a cool million, a figure I heard. At the overpriced cost of these things, there is no way even one would be erected without massive subsidies.”
Good point. I was thinking the same thing, only maybe a few more graphics would enchance the image you’d like to present. Show the amount of money going into construction and subsidization of windmills and ALSO into backup power systems. And show the limited open market value of what comes out (and account for what price per kilowatt-hour is legislatively/regulatorily dictated as a minimum or supplemental charge).
Also, show the amount of energy going into fabricating/installing the windmill and the amount of energy it produces on average. But also show how much electricity must be generated by backup systems to compensate for when the windmills are down. Think of the image for just the power generation graphic – a horizontal segmented line split horizontally that shows total kilowatt-hour generation, with the wind contribution shown as a “green” segment, but with the balance of that line shown in “red” for power critically needed from the “evil” fossil fuel backup systems to keep our lights on and the air conditioners working.
And let’s not forget the whole CO2 issue. Like biofuels, wind is, I believe, a net CO2 generator if you look at the life cycle contributions of all involved fuel sources.
And speaking of life cycles, what’s the REAL life cycle of a wind turbine and how does that compare to current wind cost projections? 25 years ago, my family visited and area east of SF in CA. Many hundreds of wind turbines of a huge variety of physical configurations (helicals, 2-, 3- and 4-blade models). How many are functioning today?
And what’s the proven reliability history of the new wind turbines going in today? Does anyone have the vaguest notion of system output at they approach the end of the economic life of these wind turbines? I think we have a good track record of natural gas, oil, nuclear and hydropower systems. Wind? Not so much.
Ooh, Ooh, I read about something called “quality fade” with respect to China. Which means that one of our biggest sources of alternative energy systems can’t help themselves in sticking it to their clients on products when it comes to quality of their products. It’s a game and/or a joke to the Chinese. Produce high quality products for demos, then after the production contracts are signed, let the production standards slide with time so that the buyers don’t realize they’ve been shorted on quality. I wonder when Chinese tradition translates into shattered wind turbines and blades?
And as one poster said earlier, wind turbines can also be nicknamed “avian cuisinarts”.
Can you imagine the work that will be needed in the future when this global warming hysteria and environmental nuttiness is finally disabled. All of those inefficient, ugly, mechanically faulty, bird killing machinations of idiocy will have to be torn down. What a waste of resources, mental and physical, to assuage inflated fears fed by a corrupted science establisment, enviro-wackos, and a complacent news media. Imagine if governments focused on solving real problems with realist and cost effective solutions. I can dream at least…
If your message hasn’t got the “reach” it used to, you have to change the
way the product is “pitched” to your target audience.
The folks in marketing almost never suggest the product be improved,
just repackaged.
“Mooloo says:
[…]
There is a wind farm in New Zealand erected and operated without subsidies. The locals have adopted it and the rugby team for the area is now the Turbos.[…]”
NZ can combine an intermittent source like wind power with their hydropower very well. Here’s a good page about wind power cost in NZ, probably from the local wind power association.
http://windenergy.org.nz/wind-energy/costs
Mooloo says:-
“We need power. We have to build power stations. Do you honestly think that wind generators are uglier than coal or nuclear equivalents? Would you want a nuclear power station in your back yard?”
I am surrounded by wind turbines both on and off shore and visible in every quadrant. I also can see amongst these excrescences the decommissioned remains of an early nuclear station to the north east.
The plethora of turbines which have rarely turned in anger for the past six months intrude on every aspect of my views here on the Scottish Solway.
The decommissioned nuclear station occupies a handful of acres which will be off limits for a hundred years, but, you know what, there are a huge number of handfuls of unrestricted acres in this vicinity that I have never visited and never will. If Our Scottish Government weren’t such twats we would already have replaced the old facility with a new nuclear station producing on an annualised basis more than all the stop start turbines in Scotland put together
Follow the money – who will be on the boards of the power companies when they leave office?
As far as windmills go, read the ERCOT (Electrical Resource Council of Texas) press release for last year. They are the grid manager with the largest installed wind generating capacity in the country. “For summer peak capacity, ERCOT counts 8.7 percent of wind nameplate capacity as dependable capacity at peak in accordance with ERCOT’s stakeholder-adopted methodology.” I believe that’s call wasted resources. Or a someone else said, “windpower is a faith based initiative.”
They aren’t “wind farms”. We should refer to them as “tax farms”. My back yard is too small for a nuke but I have no objection to one being built in the locality.
Are you sure there is no subsidy on the NZ wind farm, Mooloo? No government mandated renewable energy target? With a target you don’t subsidize directly, just let the power companies charge the real cost(expensive) of adding the wind farm to their network so the subsidy provider is the consumer.
PaulH says: What’s next, reeducation camps?
No need for RE-education camps, just target kids in UK schools, and they will hassle their parents instead. You’ve all heard of Minnesotans For Global Warming, well we’ve got Mothers Against Climate Change!
I despair……
http://www.cooltheworld.com/
Dr Kate Munzo had better keep up her pilates. I was reassured by a clever economist this evening that the only part of the globe still talking seriously about climate change legislation are the Europeans, and, he said laughing merrily, they are about to go broke!
Ed Murphy says:
May 29, 2010 at 9:57 am
Don’t forget the coral!
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/02/01/record-cold-in-florida-kills-reef-coral/
“Mike Borgelt says:
[…]No government mandated renewable energy target?
”
Very good, look here – NZ: 90% by 2025. (Hydro counts as renewable)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mandatory_renewable_energy_targets#Selected_Other_Countries
Power station cooling towers, complete with “smoke” billowing from them, have become more iconic than polar bears … iconic for stupidity that is.
…And because of the media’s cuddly image of the dangerous beast, in 2009 a German woman visiting the zoo decided it would be fun to enter the polar bear sanctuary and was viciously mauled. Had she not been rescued she would have been dinner. Idiot media…
Think of it as Evolution in action.
Incorrect assumption,evolution is bounded by necessity and chance,adaption and cooperation.
Say for example it is to cold and food is scarce,a hungry family to feed adaption and cooperation are a better evolutionary strategy ,and the golden rule in nature is do not bite the hand that feeds you.
http://englishrussia.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/_.jpg
http://englishrussia.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/7-1.jpg
It is a jungle out there.
Branding strategies and the drive for dominance in the green jungle have long been primary for the successful giants. See this 2004 WWF presentation: http://www.unep.fr/scp/compact/dialogue/2004/pdf/WWF.pdf
Now there are suggestions for funding be directed away from physical research to opinion changing social science research: http://seedmagazine.com/content/article/the_last_experiment/
For Michael Mann and Gavin Schmidt’s thought on the subject:
http://seedmagazine.com/content/article/is_there_a_better_word_for_doom/
” maksimovich says:
May 29, 2010 at 4:19 pm
…And because of the media’s cuddly image of the dangerous beast, in 2009 a German woman visiting the zoo decided it would be fun to enter the polar bear sanctuary and was viciously mauled. Had she not been rescued she would have been dinner. Idiot media…
Think of it as Evolution in action.
Incorrect assumption,evolution is bounded by necessity and chance,adaption and cooperation.”
No, not really. Serendipity plays as big a role. It’s all about the gene pool. If the Darwin Award candidate has bred prior to falling in the bear pit, no Award. but if not…
“Communicators need to move away from the traditional images of polar bears or fear-laden imagery to find new, inspirational motifs to engage people with climate change.”
I get what they are saying, need to change the words to be more accurate… not so scary…
“Communicators need to move away from the traditional images of polar bears or fear-laden imagery to find new, inspirational lies and deceptions to engage people with climate change.”
There, that’s better. I hate fancy words!
anyone looking for Knut may possibly find him here:
http://johny.info/uploads/knut-burger.jpg
OH, and PETA want to Knut Knut’s Knuts off:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article7048233.ece
In other words, since the data isn’t cooperating, let’s try marketing!
Chris B says: May 29, 2010 at 7:07 am
How about an image of a destitute scientist wearing a sandwich board saying “Will research for a luxury hybrid”
The sandwich board should read “Scientific results made to order”.
Schadow says:
May 29, 2010 at 7:29 am
“…..And the image of oil production as stealing Gaia’s very blood is just too good to pass up. If they should succeed in stopping oil production, at least the weekly checks from ExxonMobil to skeptics would also stop. You do get yours, don’t you? (/snark)”
___________________________________________________________________________
BUT, BUT, but, but,… what about the weekly standard oil checks (Rockefeller Foundations) to Greenpeace and WWF????
Gary Pearse says:
May 29, 2010 at 7:36 am
There is a protest near Ottawa Ontario in a village called North Gore were a “wind farm” has been approved (I didn’t find a link but it was on CFRA radio station about a week ago). I think the good doctor may have given us imagery that would be ammunition for anti AGW use….
_________________________________________________________________________
You may want to check out this book, WIND POWER FRAUD: WHY WIND WON’T WORK by Charles S. Opalek, PE for more information to use as ammunition. (I have not read it)
Also there was this comment made recently:
bubbagyro says:
“I live in New Hampshire on the coast, 50 miles or so where they projected the Cape Cod wind farms. They were shot down by Ted Kennedy and John Kerry, of course, because of the NIMBY effect.
They had some good arguments, however, based on studies. The liberals can pay for good science when it is in their interest. Here are some of the “Vineyarders” arguments, (some are plain silly, like ruining the artists’ vistas) besides the main issue that they are net energy negative :
1) Lifetime – they are touted to last 15-20 years without maintenance. Truth be told, in practice it averages out to 4-5 years.
a) Bearings – they are of high tolerance steel, but they wear out, and go out-of-round. This causes vibrations that increase as the bearings wear, more or less from the get-go. This produces efficiency loss, of course, but moreover the vibrations begin to stress the foundations. Think of billions of little earthquakes. Think of the Leaning Tower of Pisa.
b) Even when set up in concrete pads directly on top of granite strata, the vibrations enable the 1000 ton behemoth to start drilling into the strata, starting with the edges and the weak points in the subsurface. In the sea, sand is a good abrasive. The turbines go out of vertical with a time frame related to the fitness of the material it is perched upon.
2) Migrating birds – someone here said this does not happen. Untrue. Birds follow the prevailing winds when they can, just like ancient mariners used to navigate east or west, utilizing different winds at different latitudes. Where the wind farms are most feasible are thus in the migrating bird routes. Raptors, like eagles and osprey, and bats are swatted by these behemoths especially in high winds that blow them into the rotors. See the eagles cut in half near Danish rotors.
3) Noise pollution – they are noisy, especially when the bearings are in between lubrication cycles (yes, each rotor requires tons of petroleum lubricant each period) or they are worn. This could impact whales and dolphins adversely (I did not make this up – it seems like the lamest argument – but the Greenpeaceniks have tried to stop submarines from communication using this argument, also).”
Henry chance says:
“….1 tower is 850 tons. It takes 4 tons of coal in the process to make one ton of steel.
These towers are a boom for the coal business. Another un intended consequence.”
Hope that helps. (And thanks to the other three contributors I am shamelessly cribbing from)
“JER0ME says:
May 29, 2010 at 6:04 pm
OH, and PETA want to Knut Knut’s Knuts off:”
At least they don’t want to take him into their own loving hands like those dogs…