Resources

Hello, brave people! I propose a challenge: Do you remember what the greatest threat we faced before the COVID-19 pandemic caused by the SARS-CoV-2 virus was? Here are some clues: Do you remember that isolated polar bear, lost on an iceberg drifting due to melting ice, carried by the currents of the Arctic Ocean to latitudes where it could not survive? Do you recall the heatwaves and tropical nights of recent summers? Do you remember the recent storms Gloria and Filomena, and the increasingly numerous extreme weather events (hurricanes, torrential rains, recurring droughts) occurring all over the planet? If you think of climate change as the greatest threat we faced before the pandemic, you are correct—congratulations! Although it may seem easy, not everyone is able to recognize that after the health emergency we experienced, we must address the climate emergency.

In fact, the two are related: The risk of new pandemics caused by yet-unknown viruses increases with the destruction of ecosystems; moreover, climate change accelerates the loss of biodiversity. And “the coronavirus vaccine will not protect us from climate change” (UNCTAD). “There is no vaccine for the planet,” reminds UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres in this interview at Columbia University in New York.

In this context, the challenge of mitigating the negative effects of both emergencies and adapting to the impending changes remains. And for this, we need to be well-informed in the face of information overload and viral fake news. Let’s not be trolled!

Data analyzed by the international scientific community through the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) debunks those who claim that such change does not exist; that in any case, it is not the result of human action; that projections are unreliable, and that we can do nothing to prevent it…

Climate change is the result of increased emissions of greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), and nitrous oxide (N2O), among others. We all participate in the emission of these gases: when we heat and light our homes with electricity produced from fossil fuels; when we consume products resulting from industrial processes that use non-renewable energy sources; when we travel by plane and in combustion engine vehicles… and even when we pass gas! It is in our hands (and stomachs) to reduce emissions and refute those who deny the evidence and facts. Whether due to ignorance or vested interests (the oil and mining sectors are not going to give in easily; by the way, livestock is another source of emissions—cows also pass gas…).

Well, here are some reflections to consider regarding the rumors about climate change, in terms of media and topics, sources and information channels, and roles in the public sphere.

With the pandemic, the focus has shifted attention away from climate change, and its coverage has ceased to be a priority. The media sets the agenda for what is talked about (agenda setting) and how it is discussed (framing).

The selection of topics and their treatment influence the audience’s reception and perception of content related to the environment. Thus, climate change can be framed as a problem (catastrophism, sensationalism) or as an opportunity (green economy, the energy transition from fossil fuels to renewable energy, conversion to electric mobility), etc.

How we view the glass as half full or half empty has consequences for our behavior; it can promote environmentally responsible habits and committed actions (such as Greta Thunberg‘s presence at COP 25 in Madrid), or it can plunge us into impotence and despair. In any case, it is better to avoid extremes: neither denialism nor catastrophism are good allies when addressing scientifically based conflicts.

For example, it is preferable to avoid catastrophism. Realism, optimism, and positivity are better than fear-based messages that produce rejection in the audience. Classic dystopias like Mad Max (1979) and more recent films like The Day After Tomorrow (2004) present, in a striking cinematic format, an apocalyptic future. Other productions also use dramatization as an audiovisual resource, but the images are real, not filmed in Hollywood studios, and the scripts provide data and testimonies from people and ecosystems affected by climate change. This is the case with An Inconvenient Truth (2006) and its sequel, An Inconvenient Sequel (2017). As could be expected, both have received criticism from skeptics and denialists…

Learning to read between the lines helps form opinions about how various disputing actors (governments, companies, environmental NGOs, and social movements) handle controversies in the media and on social networks. For instance, “global warming” and “climate change” have different meanings, and some confuse them to create confusion (here are some examples of fact-checking on the subject).

Turning to reliable, verified, and up-to-date sources of information is key to combating fake news about climate change. As my grandmother used to say, “don’t trust those who give you candies at the school gate.” And I add: “Don’t trust sources that only tell you what you want to hear; cross-check, reflect, and draw your own conclusions.” Use data provided by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the World Meteorological Organization (WMO), the Sendai Framework from the United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction (UNDRR), and other international organizations to inform yourself and combat misinformation. Citing Rajoy’s cousin is not convincing; neither is Donald Trump or his followers from FOX. It’s better to rely on scientific journals, specialized publications, and mainstream media and their digital versions (websites and social networks), despite issues like false balance and greenwashing.

Here’s a tip on how to talk with others about misinformation: Don’t fall into the spiral of silence if your environment (friends, family) is denialist or skeptical, but also don’t engage in arguments with those who ignore data and evidence. It’s unlikely you will change opinions that are based on beliefs, values, and feelings. Intelligent people often lose arguments easily, as explained by Dean Burnett in his book The Idiot Brain.

We must be aware of how the media and social networks operate, including their production routines, the economic interests of their owners and shareholders, and their intentions when providing us with content for consumption in various formats (information, education, and entertainment). Beware of gaining weight from information overload. Just as we try to maintain a balanced diet and take care of our physical health through exercise and monitoring our food intake, it’s also wise to do the same with our media diet—review its ingredients and, if necessary, detox from misinformation and turn to “digital dieting to slim down Big Brother,” as Victor Sampedro puts it.

Once again, my grandmother, who cooks so well, reminds me that “you can tell where the fire is by the smoke.” Translated into 140 characters, it might go something like this: “Think carefully before retweeting incendiary content on social media; if the temperature rises 2ºC, it’ll burn more than just your fingers on your phone.” Twitter is great… until someone loses their cool. In the “global village” (McLuhan), the debate continues: Is the medium the message?

Although both are global risks, it’s much easier to find the cause-and-effect relationship in the case of the coronavirus than in that of climate change, because climate change, unlike other health and environmental risks, is a “diffuse” risk (Espluga). But be warned, as there are already climate refugees, and not far from here, some inhabitants of the Ebro delta fear they may be the first in Europe.

The other day, shortly after the state of alarm was lifted due to Covid-19, I overheard someone at the next table while having appetizers on a bar terrace say that with vaccines, “science works miracles.” Well, no; miracles are matters of faith. Does Umberto Eco ring a bell? (“The magician and the scientist”). There’s no magic here! Just as with the coronavirus and climate change, there are still those who claim the Earth is flat and deny we landed on the moon in 1969. I’m astonished! Personally, I prefer the story of the Earthrise image (NASA AS8-14-2383HR) captured by William Anders on December 24, 1968. During the Apollo 8 mission, the first color photograph of Earth from space was taken, altering our view of the planet and placing humanity before a mirror we had never looked into before.

People saw it as a scientific success, while the astronauts viewed it as a social success. More than fifty years later, we still don’t have a plan B. We are all in the same boat, on the same spaceship, Earth, so it’s time to row against the environmental fake news. No matter how much Elon Musk (SpaceX, Tesla) and Jeff Bezos (Blue Origin, Amazon) compete for commercial space conquest; no matter how the U.S. and China rival in the space race, I don’t think it’s a good idea to confine myself on the Moon or Mars, neither for the coronavirus nor for climate change.

Let’s wrap up with an exercise: Extend your arms; close your eyes; imagine: The origin of Earth is at the tip of your left middle finger. Walk down your left arm, your torso, and your right arm through the geological time of the Earth, its eons (Archean, Proterozoic, and Phanerozoic) and the eras of the latter (Paleozoic, Mesozoic, and Cenozoic). The anthropogenic origin of climate change is irrefutable. This is why we speak of a new era, the Anthropocene. You have it at the nail of your right middle finger.

Like a dirty nail, our carbon footprint mortgages future generations; we consume natural resources at a much faster rate than the planet needs to generate them. There is no sustainability possible without intergenerational, environmental, and ecological justice. Of the three dimensions of sustainability—environmental, social, and economic—our capitalist system prioritizes the latter. And the consequences are evident: inequalities along the north-south/east-west axes, depletion of natural resources, and conflicts over their distribution and the allocation of wealth.

Consider that if the fifth extinction was caused by the violent impact of a meteorite against the Earth, in the sixth (this scientific article documents that it has already begun) “we are the meteorite.” The quote is from entomologist Edward O. Wilson, who coined the concept of “biodiversity” and is also the father of Sociobiology.

More ecocentrism and less anthropocentrism. Let’s take care of our house and leave the extraterrestrials alone. I doubt that, if they are smarter than us to have made it here, they will find the life they seek on Earth, because we “are individually intelligent and collectively stupid” (Martínez Alier and Wagensberg in “We only have one planet”). We are still hominids, not yet humans (Carbonell and Agustí in “Living Matter, Thinking Life.” Look! Carbonell talks about fake news at minute 26:52 of this video).

I’ll finish as I began, with a question. This quote is attributed to Albert Einstein: “Two things are infinite: human stupidity and the universe; and I’m not sure about the latter.” True or false? Cheers!