Page 141 - Sustainability Communication Interdisciplinary Perspectives and Theoritical Foundations

124 J. Newig

The IPCC defines mitigation of climate change as “an anthropogenic intervention to
reduce the sources or enhance the sinks of greenhouse gases”, whereas “adaptation
to climate change refers to adjustment in natural or human systems in response to
actual or expected climatic stimuli or their effects, which moderates harm or exploits
beneficial opportunities” (IPCC 2001: 750).
To conclude, societal communication about climate change has reached a level
of near omnipresence, taking place in different societal spheres in a variety of forms
and highly dynamic with respect to changing connotations and framings.

Communication Of Climate Change: The Perspective
of Governance and Education

Communication about climate change is of a discursive character. Society, or subsys-
tems thereof, discuss a sustainability issue of high public relevance. Communication
of climate change is different. Here, certain senders (seek to) convey their message to
a certain receiver or audience. Climate change communication in this respect refers in
particular to the efforts of science, environmental NGOs and other actors hoping to
persuade policy-makers or the broader public of the urgency of climate change and the
need to act accordingly. Thus understood, climate change communication becomes a
part of risk communication, which can be defined as “communication intended to
supply laypeople with the information they need to make informed, independent judg-
ments about the risks to health, safety, and the environment” (Morgan et al. 2002: 4,
see also Chap. 3). Specific purposes of climate change communication are to inform
and educate individuals, to achieve some type and level of social engagement and
action, and to bring about changes in social norms and cultural values (Moser 2010).
Since communication of climate change has clear intentions about its desired
effects, it can – in contrast to communication about it – be assessed in terms of ‘suc-
cess’. Have the recipients been reached? Have they understood the message? Have
they, perhaps, changed their values and changed their behaviour? The key question
to be posed is how climate change can be communicated effectively in order to
promote mitigation and/or adaptation.
Communication of climate change takes an elitist stance, making a central
distinction between experts and laypersons in respect to their climate change related
knowledge and capacities (Read et al. 1994; Bostrom et al. 1994; Nerlich et al. 2010).
Scientists in particular “have long held and will continue to hold a privileged
position as knowledge holders, messengers, and interpreters of climate change”
(Moser 2010: 37). The perspective starts from a perceived need to educate the lay
public (or professionals who are nevertheless ‘lay’ persons with respect to climate
change). Several studies have revealed a severe lack of understanding even of basic
principles of climate change and related causes on the part of the lay public
(Bostrom et al. 1994; Sterman and Sweeney 2007).
The reasons for such a perceived lack of knowledge and understanding on the
part of the broad public are manifold. It could be suspected that early ‘climate