The advertising industry is promoting and normalising excessive mass consumption, driving climate and ecological disasters and societal breakdown.

Victoria

We know that mass consumption is driving climate and ecological breakdown and undermining our mental health. Contrary to current doctrine, consuming more is not an efficient or effective way to satisfy our needs or feed our long-term wellbeing. To fuel our consumption, we currently extract 90 billion tons of biomass, fossil energy, metals and minerals from the earth per year, and that number has tripled in the last few decades. If we continue down this trajectory, driven mainly by overconsumption in the global north, we&rsquo;ll need three planets to sustain us.&nbsp;
<h2>Advertising normalises mass consumption</h2>
Why are we consuming at such a rate? One reason is the effectiveness of the advertising that we are all subjected to in our daily lives. It has an overall effect of not only makings products appealing, but also of normalising mass consumption. Ever since modern advertising started in the late 1900&rsquo;s, it&rsquo;s been an effective driver of making us all buy more stuff. Next time you pick up a newspaper or watch TV, really think about what you&rsquo;re being told/sold. New luxury watch? You deserve it. A cheap holiday deal, including flights? Why not, you work hard for it. Meal deal chicken burger for lunch? Let&rsquo;s do it. 
None of these ads are greenwashing or nefarious, but they, and the rest of the advertising we are exposed to, help to create a culture of consumption that is leading us all to wreck the climate and the ecosystems, as well as our sense of social cohesion and mental health. And so, when we start to talk about the breakdown of our environmental and social systems and still try to justify material acquisition, we hit a wall. Messages on indiscriminate consumption and perpetual growth cannot be congruent with messages on impending climate or ecological disaster. It just doesn&rsquo;t add up. The top 10% of the global north account for more emissions than the poorest 50% of the global population. We are consuming our way to destruction and taking everyone else along for the ride. So, exactly how much of this is attributed to advertising?&nbsp;
<h2>Advertising emissions</h2>
Current industry research shows that emissions from advertising are responsible for influencing around one-third of an individual&rsquo;s carbon footprint in the UK. Other research sets this amount at 50%. For all this extra consumption, we need more fossil fuels, to mine, make, ship, consume and chuck. Adverting creates the desire and need for all this stuff, which places ever-increasing demands on dwindling and finite resources and is shown to directly reduce our well-being and undermine our sense of worth.
The recent IPCC summary report in March of this year zoned in on the power of mediums like advertising: &ldquo;Many options are available for reducing emission-intensive consumption, including through behavioural and lifestyle changes.&rdquo; The key here is &lsquo;emission intensive consumption&rsquo;, which means reducing stuff like flights, fast fashion, and meat consumption, three key drivers of climate change and biodiversity loss. Given the gravity of the climate crisis, how can the advertising sector continue to use its influence to increase consumption, when what we need to do is the very opposite?
Is there still room for advertising? Yes, but only for products and services that are aligned with collective long-term well-being. We need advertising, as part of the rich array of marketing tools, to help transition people from indiscriminate excessive consumption and throw-away culture, towards buying what makes our lives better and will last much longer. We need to stop advertising carbon-neutral jeans for &pound;19.99, or thinking that flying is fine as long as the advert says it&rsquo;s offset&nbsp;but rather understand that goods should be made to last and products made circular as well as be rid of planned obsolescence. We need to seriously consider whether we should put our talents and energy into selling private jets and SUVs rather than wind turbines and solar panels. There is a way forward to promote the things that really underpin a good life and get rid of what doesn&rsquo;t.
<h2>Advertising Fossil Fuels</h2>
But there is another elephant-shaped problem in the room. Aside from advertising &lsquo;stuff&rsquo; we also need to talk about advertising fossil fuels specifically. 75% of global emissions come from burning fossil fuels and it&rsquo;s estimated that 75% of advertising agencies in the UK have at least one fossil fuel client in their portfolio. Currently, the advertising sector is, to an extent funded by fossil fuel clients. How can this continue, given the serious warning of the IPCC and impending climate doom? Change is coming. The French government has now banned fossil fuel advertising after a citizens' assembly of 150 people demanded it. Amsterdam is following suit, but also adding a ban on advertising aviation. Sydney has also banned ads for fossil fuels in their city after an open letter from 200 healthcare professionals stating the devastating issues burning fossil fuels creates. Many groups are now campaigning successfully to rid their towns and cities of billboard advertising in general.&nbsp;
Some compare the advertising of the tobacco industry to that of fossil fuels. It took 40 years to eventually ban smoking in 2007 when a US judge deemed the advertising of these products as deceptive and &lsquo;defrauding customers&rsquo;. But four decades of delay allowed revenues to flow and millions of people to die. Sound familiar? The oil and gas industry has deflected and delayed the issues of emissions for over 80 years, all while their revenues in the billions are still flowing and global temperatures are still rising. &nbsp;&nbsp;
<h2>Time for Change</h2>
It's time this stopped - and time we all made our voices loud and clear on this. Transition isn&rsquo;t good enough. We need transformation and that requires a cliff-edge moment. We need to stop fooling ourselves that a gradual transition is good enough. We need to leave ALL remaining fossil fuels in the ground even if we&rsquo;re going to keep to 2 degrees of warming. And we need to stop advertising fossil fuel companies' wares.
Can the advertising sector change? Yes, there are many good people in the sector that are pushing for change from the inside, looking at how they can use their creativity to change the narrative and educate the sector on a new version of success. Will advertising be forced to change? Potentially. The recent Climate Change Committee report from the House of Lords stated that &ldquo;if the signal is sent from government and experts that consumer behaviour change is key to achieving net zero, the advertising industry will require greater regulatory scrutiny in future&rdquo;.&nbsp;&nbsp;
More and more, investors, companies, government and society use &lsquo;ESG&rsquo; to ask businesses the question: &ldquo;What&rsquo;s the material risk of what you are doing&rdquo; &ndash; and not just what you do within your walls&hellip;? It is increasingly risky to fudge the answer in a washed-out annual report. The legislation forcing reporting, and action, to prove that they are operating within safe and ethical thresholds is mounting and litigation from all directions where this isn&rsquo;t meeting either the law or the thresholds is surging.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
What does this mean for you, reading this article? What can you do to buy and consume based on your actual well-being rather than based on what&rsquo;s being advertised to you? If you work in the advertising sector, how can you use your influence to change the advertising industry and its impact? What can we all do to push our governments to make rulings that support the systemic change in advertising that&rsquo;s needed? Each of us has the power to create change.
Let&rsquo;s finish with a quote from Dr. Katherine Hayhoe, a Canadian NASA scientist who said:
<blockquote>
"The world has changed before and, when it did, it wasn&rsquo;t because a president, a prime minister, a CEO or a celebrity decided it had to. Change didn&rsquo;t begin with the King of England deciding to end slavery or the President of the United States giving women the vote or the National Party of South Africa opting to end apartheid. It began when ordinary people, people of no particular power, wealth, or fame, decided that the world could and should be different.&rdquo;
</blockquote>
illuminem Voices is a democratic space presenting the thoughts and opinions of leading Sustainability and Energy writers, their opinions do not necessarily represent those of illuminem.
References:
<ol>
<li><a href="https://www.theworldcounts.com/challenges/planet-earth/state-of-the-planet/resources-extracted-from-earth">The World Counts</a></li>
<li><a href="https://www.unep.org/news-and-stories/press-release/worldwide-extraction-materials-triples-four-decades-intensifying">UNEP Press Release 2016</a></li>
<li><a href="https://www.oneplanetnetwork.org/programmes/sustainable-lifestyles-education/about#:~:text=Today%2C%20our%20global%20footprint%20is,sustain%20our%20ways%20of%20living.">One Planet Network 2023</a> and <a href="https://www.footprintnetwork.org/resources/data/#:~:text=National%20Footprint%20and%20Biocapacity%20Accounts,-National%20Footprint%20and&amp;text=The%20Accounts%20measure%20the%20ecological,from%201961%20to%20the%20present.">Global Footprint Network</a></li>
<li><a href="https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1475-682X.2007.00208.x">Bruille, 2007, Advertising, Individual Consumption Levels, and the Natural Environment, 1900&ndash;2000</a></li>
<li><a href="https://www.academia.edu/35849943/History_of_advertising">History of Advertising</a></li>
<li><a href="https://www.un.org/en/climatechange/science/causes-effects-climate-change#:~:text=Fossil%20fuels%20%E2%80%93%20coal%2C%20oil%20and,they%20trap%20the%20sun's%20heat.">UN, Consumption</a></li>
<li><a href="https://www.purposedisruptors.org/advertised-emissions">PD&rsquo;s Advertised Emissions Reports</a></li>
<li><a href="https://policycommons.net/artifacts/3453209/untitled/4253532/">Kasser, 2021 Badvertising, Advertising and Demand</a></li>
<li><a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mKO5m3_7hHY">Hickel, Degrowth</a></li>
<li><a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1057740814001090">Dimofte et al 2015 A social identity perspective on aspirational advertising: Implicit threats to collective self-esteem and strategies to overcome them</a></li>
<li><a href="https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/apr/09/why-eco-conscious-fashion-brands-can-continue-to-increase-emissions">Guardian &lsquo;Eco-conscious&rsquo; Brands</a></li>
<li><a href="https://www.travelandleisure.com/travel-news/british-airways-carbon-neutral-flight">BA Carbon Neutral Flight</a></li>
<li><a href="https://www.un.org/en/climatechange/science/causes-effects-climate-change#:~:text=Fossil%20fuels%20%E2%80%93%20coal%2C%20oil%20and,they%20trap%20the%20sun's%20heat.">UN, Causes of Climate Change</a></li>
<li><a href="https://www.euronews.com/green/2022/08/24/france-becomes-first-european-country-to-ban-fossil-fuel-ads-but-does-the-new-law-go-far-e">Euro News France bans Fossil Fuel Ads</a></li>
<li><a href="https://www.euronews.com/green/2021/05/20/amsterdam-becomes-first-city-in-the-world-to-ban-this-type-of-advert">Euro News Amsterdam bans FF and Aviation</a></li>
<li><a href="https://climatenewsaustralia.com/city-of-sydney-bans-fossil-fuel-ads-and-sponsorships-video/#:~:text=Sydney%20is%20now%20the%20second,on%20its%20properties%20and%20events.">Climate News Australia</a></li>
<li><a href="https://adfreecities.org.uk/">Ad Free Cities</a></li>
<li><a href="https://www.energymonitor.ai/finance/big-oil-profits-soared-to-nearly-200bn-in-2022/">Energy Monitor Big Oil Revenues</a></li>
<li><a href="https://www.theguardian.com/business/2023/jan/12/exxon-climate-change-global-warming-research">Guardian Exxon Predictions</a></li>
<li><a href="https://www.changethebrief.org/">Change the Brief</a></li>
<li><a href="https://www.politico.eu/article/global-supply-chain-sustainable-corporate-governance-illegal-practices/">Politico 2021</a></li>
<li><a href="https://www.ifrs.org/groups/international-sustainability-standards-board/">ISSB</a> </li>
<li><a href="https://www.euractiv.com/section/energy-environment/news/parliament-adds-ecocide-to-eus-draft-list-of-environmental-crimes/">Euracitv 2023 - Ecocide list of Enviro Crimes</a></li>
<li><a href="https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2023/mar/30/brazil-to-sue-volkswagen-over-claims-of-slavery-during-military-dictatorship">Guardian March 2023</a></li>
<li><a href="https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/feb/09/shell-directors-personally-sued-over-flawed-climate-strategy?">Guardian Feb 2023 Shell directors personally sued</a></li>
<li><a href="http://www.katharinehayhoe.com/">Katherine Hayhoe</a></li>
</ol>

Is advertising killing us?

It seems like humans only register the threat of climate change if they can see it or feel it. If everything around us looks normal, then the immediate threat of climate change is just too far beyond our understanding. It’s one of the reasons that big data is contributing to the problem, its invisible, intangible, we cannot see it or feel it.

Gerry

It seems like humans only register the threat of climate change if they can see it or feel it. If everything around us looks normal, then the immediate threat of climate change is just too far beyond our understanding. It’s one of the reasons that big data is contributing to the problem, it&#x27;s invisible, intangible, we cannot see it or feel it.
By 2020, 64 zettabytes of data had been created. If you were to print out one zettabyte, you’d need the paper from 20 trillion trees. There are only 3.5 trillion trees left on the planet, so it gives you an idea how vast a zettabyte is. By 2025, Statista estimates we’ll have created 180 zettabytes. Luckily, not all of this data is stored [1]. What sort of data are we creating and storing? In 2019 alone, we took 1.4 trillion photos (more than in the entire 20th century), and by 2021 we were storing about 8 trillion photos in data centres [2]. So, what happens to all these photos and other data? “After 90 days, the probability of a piece of content being reused is 5%,” says Bill Tolson VP of Global Compliance and eDiscovery [3]. Data Centres are really Data Dumps.
The accepted statistic is that data centres contribute to around 2% of global emissions and 1-1.5% of global energy use [4][5][6]. Energy use which has doubled worldwide from 2000 to 2005 [7]. Data centre growth is set to go from being worth $200 billion in 2021 to around $404 billion by 2028 [8]. Just when we’re supposed to be cutting consumption, we’re doubling down and driving data growth. We’re hoarding more data than ever, streaming more, storing more, keeping more.
So why does this often not get a mention or consideration in boardroom discussions, or appear on any of the ‘net zero’ standards such as BCorp or similar? Possibly because it’s unseen, it’s ‘in the cloud’ and as such, seems innocuous and insignificant. Probably because we’ve been slapped with so much misinformation on data centres being ‘carbon neutral’, we can’t see the carbon for the trees. And almost surely because it falls into most company’s scope 3 emissions boundary, which is not always accounted for. Personally, and professionally, we just don’t comprehend how much carbon we’re creating each day by hoarding all this data.
But its carbon neutral so that’s ok? Some data centres claim carbon neutrality and do so on the basis of using part renewable energy along with massive offsetting purchases [9]. However, the carbon neutral description only accounts for the energy use and whilst many data centres are showing improvements in this, we must realise that electricity is just a small part of the resource impact that data centres have.
“For data-center operators and cloud providers, most emissions are construction, infrastructure, and hardware manufacturing,” a Harvard University-published study stated in 2020 [10]. And let’s not forget the huge thirst for water. US data centres used 626 billion litres of water in 2014 which was projected to grow to 660 billion litres in 2020 [11]. That would fill about 264,000 Olympic-size swimming pools. It’s funny that data centres know so much about us but they are incredibly secretive about their own operations. &quot;We don&#x27;t really know how much water data centres use”, Dr. Arman Shehabi from Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory research explains [12]. &quot;I never thought it could be worse transparency than on the energy side, but we actually know less.” Much of the water used is from water stressed regions. As global droughts are brought on by climate change, the thirsty data centres, using water for cooling the equipment and electric generation, are often sucking up more than their fair share. “Collectively, data centres are among the top-ten water-consuming industries in the US” comments DCD, and much of that is coming from portable drinking water [13].
Aside from the energy, water and buildings, let’s look at the tech used in data centres. Google had around 900,000 servers in use in 2011 [14]. A study published in IEEE Xplore in 2022 estimated that to manufacture one server creates an average of 1.3 tons of CO2e. It’s thought that worldwide, data centres cycle through servers so quickly that something which should last five or six years ends up being discarded after only three. This is beginning to change in some places, but not because of climate change, rather because of the millions of dollars that can be saved in making them last a few more months [15]. At the end of their short life these servers are destroyed rather than recycled (for security). So there is no circularity built into the system. But it’s not just one copy of your data that’s being stored. Servers need to back up your data several times (to ensure against loss), so your digital footprint can be doubled or tripled depending on the plan and the provider.
The misleading information on the carbon neutrality of data centres works, it reassures people so they can feel good about putting as much data up in the cloud as they want. It drives mindless consumption without telling the truth about the real cost. The majority of the resources used in storing our data are not accounted for, nor are they ‘offset’.
So, what can we do? We need to go on a digital diet both personally and professionally. Think before you create. Most data is never used or revisited, so try to constantly clean-up and delete. Every time you go searching for something in a folder, look for something to delete. We need to really understand how to store data properly and to cut back on unnecessary hoarding of data. De-duplicate, delete, declutter. Sure, keep the really important stuff, but let’s stop using the cloud like it was free because free costs the Earth. The consumerism of the cloud is driving environmental degradation, it’s just completely hidden from view.
Energy Voices is a democratic space presenting the thoughts and opinions of leading Energy &amp; Sustainability writers, their opinions do not necessarily represent those of illuminem.
<h3>Footnotes</h3>
[1] <a href="https://www.statista.com/statistics/871513/worldwide-data-created/">https://www.statista.com/statistics/871513/worldwide-data-created/​ </a>
[2]<a href="https://focus.mylio.com/tech-today/how-many-photos-will-be-taken-in-2021"> https://focus.mylio.com/tech-today/how-many-photos-will-be-taken-in-2021</a>​ 
[3] <a href="https://www.toolbox.com/tech/big-data/guest-article/data-is-the-new-oil-and-that-makes-it-an-environmental-hazard/">https://www.toolbox.com/tech/big-data/guest-article/data-is-the-new-oil-and-that-makes-it-an-environmental-hazard/</a>​ 
[4] <a href="https://www.techerati.com/features-hub/opinions/2021-the-year-of-the-sustainable-data-centre/">https://www.techerati.com/features-hub/opinions/2021-the-year-of-the-sustainable-data-centre/</a>​ 
[5] <a href="https://www.koomey.com/post/8323374335">https://www.koomey.com/post/8323374335</a>​ 
[6] <a href="https://bit.ly/3wcTrR6">https://bit.ly/3wcTrR6</a>​ 
[7] <a href="https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/3/3/034008">https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/3/3/034008</a>​ 
[8] <a href="https://www.globenewswire.com/en/news-release/2022/04/16/2423424/0/en/Data-Center-Market-is-Forecast-to-Grow-at-the-CAGR-of-10-20-in-the-Forecast-Period-BlueWeave-Consulting.html">https://www.globenewswire.com/en/news-release/2022/04/16/2423424/0/en/Data-Center-Market-is-Forecast-to-Grow-at-the-CAGR-of-10-20-in-the-Forecast-Period-BlueWeave-Consulting.html</a>​ 
[9] <a href="https://bit.ly/3yzbT85">https://bit.ly/3yzbT85</a>​ 
[10] <a href="https://arxiv.org/pdf/2011.02839.pdf ">https://arxiv.org/pdf/2011.02839.pdf</a>​ 
[11] <a href="https://davidmytton.blog/how-much-water-do-data-centers-use/">https://davidmytton.blog/how-much-water-do-data-centers-use/</a>​ 
[12] <a href="https://www.datacenterdynamics.com/en/profile/dr-arman-shehabi/">https://www.datacenterdynamics.com/en/profile/dr-arman-shehabi/</a>​ 
[13] <a href="https://www.datacenterdynamics.com/en/analysis/data-center-water-usage-remains-hidden/">https://www.datacenterdynamics.com/en/analysis/data-center-water-usage-remains-hidden/</a>​ 
[14] <a href="https://www.datacenterknowledge.com/archives/2011/08/01/report-google-uses-about-900000-servers">https://www.datacenterknowledge.com/archives/2011/08/01/report-google-uses-about-900000-servers</a>​ 
[15] <a href="https://datacenterfrontier.com/sturdier-servers-cloud-platforms-say-servers-living-longer-saving-billions/">https://datacenterfrontier.com/sturdier-servers-cloud-platforms-say-servers-living-longer-saving-billions/</a>​

Why Our Data is Driving Climate Change

A recent BBC evening news slot at prime-time viewing covered the issues of ‘climate change’ in the UK. It reported that the main result of 4-degree level of global warming above pre-industrial levels would be that the south of the UK would be ‘around 7 degrees warmer in the summer’. It went on to sugar-coat the other ‘potential’ effects, such as adverse weather and food supply issues that ‘might’ occur. In their scenario, there was no mention of complete climate collapse, millions of climate refugees worldwide or catastrophic weather events that would render a large percentage of the globe uninhabitable.

A recent BBC evening news slot at prime-time viewing covered the issues of ‘climate change’ in the UK. It reported that the main result of 4-degree level of global warming above pre-industrial levels would be that the south of the UK would be ‘around 7 degrees warmer in the summer’. It went on to sugar-coat the other ‘potential’ effects, such as adverse weather and food supply issues that ‘might’ occur. In their scenario, there was no mention of complete climate collapse, millions of climate refugees worldwide or catastrophic weather events that would render a large percentage of the globe uninhabitable. What the average Brit would have heard from that particular news report was that their summer holidays in Torquay would be much warmer. The parallel with the recently released <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RbIxYm3mKzI">Don’t Look Up</a> film was uncanny, a slick news reporter in front of a dynamic red background, under-reporting a catastrophic issue with a slight smile and a ‘in other news’ sign off. The scale and urgency of the climate issues we face are (still) not being communicated to the wider population.
<h1>TV and Film</h1>
It’s not just news reports, when was the last time you watched a TV series or a film that covered climate change or any aspects of the climate crisis? Almost never, aside from the week that COP26 took place last November and a few <a href="https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-58882520">popular soaps</a> adopted their scripts to put this onto the average Brits radar. But that was a small token compared to the norm. Recent <a href="https://impakter.com/is-cake-more-important-than-climate-change-in-the-uk/#:~:text=The%20report%2C%20commissioned%20by%20Albert,cake%E2%80%9D%20was%20mentioned%20133%2C437%20times.">research</a>, by <a href="https://wearealbert.org/">Albert</a>, the BAFTA backed sustainability charity, found that the word “cake” was mentioned 10 times more than “climate change” on UK television in 2020. There are other worrying statistics in this report, but they summarise by saying that overall, the UK media do not take climate change reporting seriously.
<h1>Advertising</h1>
Advertising media is no better. A few weeks ago <a href="https://www.reuters.com/business/cop/scientists-target-pr-ad-firms-they-accuse-spreading-disinformation-2022-01-19/?mc_cid=43947769e2&amp;mc_eid=de6f71f00b">Reuters</a> reported that 450 scientists had called on advertising and PR firms to halt the spread of disinformation around climate change issues. Their focus was on advertising and PRs’ role in downplaying the risks of climate change specifically posed by fossil fuel clients. Not only is advertising not communicating any issues to do with climate change, but they are being accused of actively contributing to dumbing down the issue with assurances that don’t stand up. <a href="https://www.thedrum.com/news/2021/11/09/effective-ad-campaigns-are-making-uk-s-carbon-emissions-problem-worse">Recent research</a> show that the influence of the UK Advertising sector adds ‘an extra 28% to the annual carbon footprint of every single person in the UK’. With this influence and power, just think what they could achieve if really challenged their creativity to communicate the consequences of climate change and create positive behaviour shifts. What if the Advertising industry were able to reduce the carbon footprint of every single person in the UK through effective communication?
<h1>Frequency</h1>
Even David Attenborough’s Blue Planet, which everyone assumed helped change behaviours on plastic consumption actually <a href="https://www.researchgate.net/publication/344327308_Evaluating_the_impact_of_the_documentary_series_Blue_Planet_II_on_viewers&#x27;_plastic_consumption_behaviors">had little effect</a>. It was a groundbreaking series, but a one off and one of the problems with climate change communications is the frequency of how often we hear it. Without climate change being relentlessly pushed to front of mind by the media, it will simply not be successfully addressed. Squid Games, check, EastEnders, check, catastrophic climate breakdown where millions will die, er no.
<h1>Accuracy</h1>
But what about the accuracy of what is being reported? Ask your average Joe on the street to give you any facts on climate change and I bet he can’t give you one accurate answer. Why? Because, according to <a href="https://www.ofcom.org.uk/research-and-data/tv-radio-and-on-demand/news-media/news-consumption">Ofcom</a>, we mostly get our general knowledge and scientific information from media rather than studying scientific papers or reading IPCC reports. And in many cases, the media is not accurately reporting the science. In his 38 year study of climate news, <a href="https://news.berkeley.edu/2019/09/19/in-media-coverage-of-climate-change-where-are-the-facts/">David Romps</a>, a University of California professor of Earth and Planetary Science found that ‘of the 600 news articles mentioning climate change over the 38-year period, the vast majority contained none of the five basic climate facts.’ Going back to our initial BBC news report mentioned earlier, they went onto state that one way out of the climate crisis is to invest in green technologies, which the government has in hand, so it’s all ok. Misleading at best. And what about educational tools in media? Faring no better apparently. A <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/media/2021/jul/02/bbc-removes-bitesize-page-climate-change-benefits-backlash">recent highlight</a> of the BBC Bitesize educational tool showed that dumbing down on the climate crisis is being taught to our kids. It mentioned that ‘warmer temperatures could lead to ‘healthier outdoor lifestyles’ along with facts such as benefits of climate change could mean ‘easier access to oil in Alaska’. This has now been taken down.
Is this a comprehensive study of UK media? No, it’s not, but I’m not highlighting all of this for no reason. Aside from the few facts above, it’s also a general feeling and set of observations that many of my sustainability colleagues have noted and commented on over the years. There are obviously exceptions to this rule and we’re talking mainly about moving image media here, rather than papers such as <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/environment/ng-interactive/2019/oct/16/the-guardians-climate-pledge-2019">The Guardian</a> or New York Times, who at large do an excellent job on reporting climate issues.
<h1>So, what’s the point of this article, just another piece of media?</h1>
Climate scientist Dr. <a href="http://www.katharinehayhoe.com/">Katherine Hayhoe</a> has decades of incredible work on climate change under her belt. Her work informs public policy in the US and globally, however it’s interesting to note that her <a href="https://www.simonandschuster.com/books/Saving-Us/Katharine-Hayhoe/9781982143831">most recent book</a> is not about climate science, but about climate communication. She advocates regular and informed conversations, relating climate change issues to what people care about here and now, because she says, this is one of the main ways we’ll see a shift in behaviour change.
Let’s take her advice, let’s call out media when we see inaccurate reporting, let’s talk about climate change every day, in our workplace, to our friends, neighbours and family. Let’s make it commonplace and translate it into everyday actions that drive change. Let’s not wait for media to lead the charge, or we’ll be waiting a long time, and that’s one thing we don’t have.

Energy Voices is a democratic space presenting the thoughts and opinions of leading Energy &amp; Sustainability writers, their opinions do not necessarily represent those of illuminem.

You can’t miss it!

Victoria Harvey

Victoria Harvey

Is advertising killing us?

Recent publications

Readers also like

Want to know more about illuminem Voices?