Answers for Adam: Is reality TV the way to tackle climate change?
Recently there was another report from the scientists of the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) telling us that climate change (what used to be called global warming) is upon us and there are real changes happening now (I bet I’ve lost several readers already!)
The scientists are urging us to heed their warning and change our behaviours, yet we ignoring them in droves. Even though information they are giving us is dire.
The issue is that ‘information’ has rarely been a good behavioural change instrument for the masses. We’ve just lived through the ‘information age’, a time where all of the world’s information was organised for us and made available to all of our fingertips. How many of the world’s problems did all of this easily accessible information solve?
I’d like to see figures on obesity rates going down across Australia before I’d consider The Biggest Loser a success in the context you mention. The best example of ‘social marketing’ as it used to be called with regards climate change is recycle bins. Behavioural change is hard, piggybacking on current behaviours much easier to induce effect.
The other problem is the divisive nature of the debate. As per the referendum on the republic a few years ago, the best attack is to split the opposition. Right now there is general consensus amongst scientists, but those visible few naysaying scientists are doing a very effective job of throwing doubts into the argument.
Furthermore, climate change does not manifest immediately. Some things, like polluted rivers, are easily identifiable. Others, such as drought, cannot be directly linked to a human intervention cause and effect. Which just feeds into the naysayers’ argument.
So you have a large proportion of potential audience who don’t believe the premise of the show. There will be much ongoing conflict between climate change believers and implacable idiots. And the focus of the show will be diverted towards that.
LiveAid did something very well some years ago in trying to address a global problem in a highly visible, very interactive (for the time) experience. But fatigue set in relatively soon and in retrospect it seems more like a blip.
Can a TV reality show be effective here? Perhaps it can, but I think its first task is to get everybody on board.
After all, even the naysayers use their recycle bins.
Reality TV is an oxymoron. Smoke and mirrors won’t change mass behaviour or opinions. Fact-based education might work.
The ABC had a TV series about climate change in the early years of the green thing. It was called Carbon Cops. You could possibly get the ABC with its obsession with left wing causes interested in the subject again but the commercial stations realise that climate change in this country is passe and the caravan has moved on.
Get Pauly Shore in and do reality BioDome.
any proof of the below?
Reality TV has made many Australians
•Lose weight, particularly in one country town (The Biggest Loser)
•move to the beat more (So You Think You Can Dance)
•Increase their time volunteering to keep the beaches safe (Bondi Rescue)
•Cook better (Master Chef)
•…and be better handy people (The Block)
@Sharma
This is advertising, we dont deal in proof
To Aussie Austridge,
You seem to suggest that there is no problem?
The latest scientific evidence shows that climate change, far from being a “left wing cause”, is more of a threat to everyone than was previously thought.
Did you know that the Australian Bureau of Meteorology added a new colour to maps in 2013 to show record temperatures of 52-54 degrees?
Catastrophic weather events, such as hurricanes and floods, are increasing. These events affect us all, including you and your caravan.
JV
Mebbe. Dont think reality tv necessarily talks to the right folks does it?
So who are we trying to convince? Of the groups it reviewed, Essential Polling says the biggest barrier groups were 55+ Australians (42% of those surveyed don’t believe in human caused change), and Liberal Voters (51%).
I don’t know; maybe these groups are also avid Big Brother watchers… but i reckon that cognitive dissonance stuff I’ve heard you talk about Adam is the better play here.
So to cognitively dissofy these folks we need to find individuals popular with older conservatives (Say, the new Governor General) to speak out actively and regularly in support of climate science – and (importantly) with requests for small, specific achievable individual actions.
If – for instance – the G-G gets filmed doing something normal simple and human, like turning off the lights, or cycling somewhere, or sorting recycling, and bang that 10 second piece on before the news on a weekly rotation…. Then those audiences might just take those actions.
They will then also post-rationalise that if they support like the G-G / took the actions, then they must also agree that climate change is real. And Bam! Barrier groups converted, beliefs become mainstream. And really this is the critical bit – in this era of polling-driven politics, until all voters want action – we won’t see any.
And sure, there have been authoritative spokespeople talking to the public about this for years… but have we really been talking to the right people with the right people, and with clear enough requests?
That said, I’d watch the G-G on Survivor. He’d smash everyone.
If co2 levels keep on rising, which they are, catastrophe will be unavoidable.
In other words we are doomed. Nothing we do from now on will be enough to make any difference. But then again we may be wrong about CAGW. But rest assured CO2 will keep on rising.