Page 137 - Sustainability Communication Interdisciplinary Perspectives and Theoritical Foundations

120 J. Newig

stakes involved in climate change policy are so high, scholars such as Funtowicz
and Ravetz (1993) call for new modes of science involving increased communication,
dialogue and the involvement of stakeholders to broaden the information basis, but
also to include broader societal values.
Second, while the urgency of climate change is generally acknowledged, there is
not anything like a global consensus on what goal is to be achieved. Many countries
have agreed on a goal to limit global warming to an increase of 2°C, but further
consequences such as increased variability, extreme weather events or sea level rise
affect different regions in such different ways that no agreement is in sight. Thus,
the goals as to what extent climate change should be contained remain deeply
ambiguous. Communication will play a key role in discussing possible and desir-
able emission targets as well as other normative aspects (Voß et al. 2007).
And third, the capacities to govern climate change and its causes are widely distributed
among a great variety of societal actors on multiple levels of decision-making, making
implementation of those few goals that have been agreed on all the more difficult. Once
again, communication is advocated as a means of dealing with this dimension of the
issue. In particular, network-like forms of co-ordination that enable effective argumenta-
tion, bargaining and social learning are regarded as conducive to governing climate
change in the face of distributed action capacity (Voß et al. 2007; Newig et al. 2010).
All of these dimensions of climate change as a sustainability problem call for soci-
etal communication. When speaking of ‘climate change communication’ as one par-
ticular and fast-developing aspect of sustainability communication, two different
perspectives can be taken – and are in fact taken. The first aspect regards communica-
tion about climate change. Important questions are: How and to what extent does soci-
ety – and do societal subsystems and actors – communicate about the issue, what are its
connotations, how is it framed, how is it linked to other issues? What options are dis-
cussed, e.g. mitigation or adaptation? Public discourse in the (international) public
sphere and the role of the mass media are key aspects. This scholarly perspective is an
analytical one. The second aspect regards the communication of climate change. Here,
the perspective is more instrumental or managerial, and focused on a sender-receiver
chain. Important questions are: How do those who know (or think they know) about
climate change communicate it to others? This concerns, importantly, the role of sci-
ence and of environmental groups who seek to educate others (e.g. politicians or the
broad public) about climate change or the necessity to act in favour of its containment.
Both aspects of climate change communication are of course related and share
common elements. From a normative perspective, sustainability communication
can be viewed as a process of mutual understanding (Michelsen 2007).

Communication About Climate Change:
The Societal Perspective

Climate change is a dynamic subject of communication. Different actors and social
subsystems engage in climate-related debates on various levels from the very local
to the global, and with different views and intentions. As an element of sustainability