Now the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) offers us another report, but what does it tell us?
For scientists and policy makers: crucial clarifications – such as carbon capture is not a panacea. For the general population, honestly, not much. We were running into a wall and the latest IPCC report reminds us that a collision is imminent.
More precisely, here is a short summary: climate change is mainly caused by human activities; the only way to avoid the worst of climate change – which is to stay below 1.5°C – is to halve our GHGs in the next decade and, ultimately, our climate policies put in place lead us to an increase of 3 .2°C. We have Highway to Helllooks like AC/DC.
To put this into context, an increase of more than 1.5°C is (very) bad news. Thus, a global temperature increase of 2°C puts life on Earth as we know it at risk, while an increase of 3°C is almost inconceivable given the geopolitical risks that such an increase would generate.
Europe is already torn apart by a rise of the identity right in response to mass immigration. However, the evils that the Third World is suffering are only beginning. Hurricanes, floods and droughts cause famines and exacerbate tensions; 2022 is just a taste.
The rare earths that Africa possesses – combined with Sino-American tensions – do not bode well, the Middle East can attest to that.
But, in the end, does the latest IPCC report improve the knowledge of ordinary mortals? Not really.
And is popularizing the impact of climate change really the best strategy for spurring climate action? A team of researchers looked into the question1. They explored the impact of communication on adherence to climate policies. To do this, the team surveyed 40,000 individuals in 20 countries – including Canada – representing more than 70% of global CO2 emissions.2.
They found that the marginal impact of popularizing climate change does not increase adherence to climate policies. Conversely, they found that explaining climate policies more – and more specifically, how individuals can benefit from them – significantly increases adoption of climate policies.2.
Faced with this observation, realigning our communication towards the operation and benefits of the main climate policies seems to be the way to go.
Take the Horne Foundry as an example. The health damage – and therefore the benefits of tackling this problem – have been clearly communicated. The benefits were clear, concrete and tangible. Result: public opinion demanded action and the government acted.
On the other hand, the average citizen hardly understands eco-taxation and we ask him to support this approach without explaining the benefits to him? It’s not realistic.
Still, we need such mechanisms. But how do you promote them?
I propose a very radical solution: talk about it.
The media cover the climate crisis extensively, but are more discreet when it comes to solutions and more specifically, how they work. In addition, the school curriculum is deficient in this area. To such an extent that some are indignant and drop out of school to campaign3.
It is possible to graduate from college without ever having been exposed to major climate policies. This is the greatest challenge of our century; this is the challenge that we will have to resolve and we are keeping the next generation in the dark. What’s worse is that it’s also bad for the economy; the demand for green jobs is growing faster than qualified personnel, exacerbating the labor shortage problem.
In this sense, the media should invite experts in order to underline the importance of good public policies, but also their functioning.
This information should be available on all mediums in order to reach as many people as possible; newspapers, radio and television broadcasters should dedicate resources to deciphering public policies. In view of the obvious contribution to the public good that they would offer, these resources should be subsidized.
Philippe Mercure’s files published in the Context section of The Press such as “100 TWh objective”4 or “For a Quiet Climate Revolution”5 should be the norm. These records inform the public about important but complex issues.
The ground crumbles under our feet and, for fear of falling, we forget the solutions.
We must redirect the message in the media, in the workplace and at school, it is essential. The benefits of climate action must be put forward.