the CLIMATE DUN B CHANGIN'

Adding a scientific theory to a public discourse contributes a whole new layer of complication to the agency of those receiving the message. Think Galileo-- he was ostracized for proving, and then advocating for, the fact that the Earth rotates around the sun. Eventually though, science prevailed and the world came around (in it’s opinion, not another orbit around the sun). Although it takes time, science can be supported and proven by other scientists, who then have an obligation to persuade the people through the spread of information. The challenge throughout history has been integrating science into the general public discourse by breaking it down into layman’s terms. Why then, despite the widely dispersed evidence that the Earth is going through climate change and the way humans are consuming resources is unsustainable, is it still rejected by large portions of the American population?

I don’t think I have the qualifications or scope to delve into why climate change became politicized in the first place. I will postulate though, that climate change advocates for a certain amount of change contrary to America’s capitalistic values, giving certain sects of the state a vested interest in its failure to disseminate throughout the population. According to Habermas, anything having to do with the state doesn’t fall under the realm of public discourse. In fact, Palczenwski says “ideally, discourse in the public sphere can critique and challenge state actions” (p. 240). However the discussion about climate change doesn’t fall under the traditional ‘public versus state.’ If the beliefs about climate change stem in part from the government, does that mean it falls outside the definition of “public discourse” that we’ve discussed in class?

Yes and no. Rhetoric in Civic Life defines a hybrid public as “publics that do not choose between civic identity and deliberative politics, but instead recognize that both can exist in a mutually reinforcing relationship” (p. 242). That definition doesn’t totally satisfy me, but I can’t think of the public discussion surrounding climate change as anything except a hybrid public, seeing as state policy is so intrinsic to the exchange. In “The Politicization of Climate Change and Polarization in the American Public’s Views of Global Warming,” researchers found a correlation between political party and beliefs about climate change. Their conclusion was something I think we’ve all realized: conservatives/Republicans are more sceptical of climate change than liberals/Democrats.

America’s beliefs on climate change became so polarized because of the “mutually reinforcing relationship” (to be fair, I don’t think I’m connoting what the author intended for that phrase, but it fits perfectly so I’m using it) that comes from strong political party affiliation. News sources such as FOX recruit rogue scientists to reaffirm their already existing belief that climate change is a hoax. “Conservative think tanks and their allied climate change contrarians successfully exploited American news media norms—especially the “balancing norm,” or the equation of “objectivity” with presenting “both sides of the story”—to achieve a level of media visibility incommensurate with the limited scientific credibility of their claims” (McCright). As talked about in Rhetoric of Civil Life, news and social media have made it easier to stay in a bubble of opinions they already agree with, making a positive feedback loop of ignorance.

The way the two public spheres imagine each other becomes so important in the discourse about climate change, as it does with most politicized issues. Asen says “participation in public discussions does not proceed only through voice and body; inclusions and exclusions also occur in the perceptions of others-- the imagining of others” (347). This imagination is important on every level--- the way climate change scientists and activists imagine the public as a whole, the way climate change sceptics imagine the proponents, and the way policy makers view the public.

The importance of both imagery and imagining is shown especially well in the use of rhetoric by Al Gore in An Inconvenient Truth. Although the Earth changes in increments, he showed the extremes that haven’t happened yet. At the end, he called on “powerful people and companies making enormous sums of money from activities they know full well will have to change dramatically to insure the planet’s liveability” to change their ways of life. For a piece of rhetoric that so dramatically changed the discussions surrounding climate change, I don’t think these tactics were well thought out. “The word image can therefore only indicate the relation of consciousness to the object; in other words, it means a certain manner in which the object makes its appearance to consciousness, or, if one prefers, a certain way in which consciousness presents an object to itself” (Asen, p. 348).  Because of their relationship with climate change, such extreme images are viewed as sensationalist by critics. The public tends to care about issues that are prevalent in their lives. Asen talked about the environmentalist counterpublic, and their misstep in making ‘nature’ seem removed from their audiences’ daily life, thus removing urgency. Al Gore’s extreme images might have the same effect. Also, by calling on “powerful people and companies,” who both generally tend to be conservative/Republican in their beliefs, he is further isolating critics. By calling those specific groups to action, he further removes urgency from the average person.

Climate change as a public discourse is an interesting phenomenon because it exists as both a weak and a strong public. It is a weak public in the sense that it’s a public “whose deliberative practice consists… in opinion formation…” (Palcezewski, p. 241). Opinion formation consists of infographics, documentaries, images of ice caps receding and animals covered in oil, and other tactics to raise awareness and mobilize the public. However, it does have an influence over decision making, as shown by President Obama’s proposed coal emission regulations. Not only does climate change hold sway over the state, it also affects industry. In response to the newfound LEED certification of buildings (which they didn’t pass), loggers started the SFI (Sustainable Forestry Initiative). It was essentially a different certification claiming to be equally as environmentally friendly as the LEED certification. Not only did such rhetoric manipulate consumers, it was also an attempt to sway policy change in their favor.

“Proponents of deliberative democracy argue that political legitimacy arises from processes of inclusive public debate” (Asen, p. 345). How can the debate around climate change become more inclusive? Is it inclusive already?

Feel free to disagree with me, but I don’t think climate change should be a debate in the first place. Whether it’s happening at the rate scientists claim, or even if it isn’t happening at all, the effects of our consumption is observable and largely negative. We have a responsibility as inhabitants of the Earth to protect it. There I go, joining the public discourse and preaching rather than being an objective essay-ist.

Works Cited

http://www.sfiprogram.org/

Fleming, Alysha and Vanclay, Frank, Challenging dominant discourses of climate change, Climactic Change, 127.3, p. 407-418, 16 October, 2014

Luke, T. W. "The Climate Change Imaginary." Current Sociology 63.2 (2014): 280-96. Web.

McCright, A. M. and Dunlap, R. E. (2011), THE POLITICIZATION OF CLIMATE CHANGE AND POLARIZATION IN THE AMERICAN PUBLIC'S VIEWS OF GLOBAL WARMING, 2001–2010. The Sociological Quarterly, 52: 155–194. doi: 10.1111/j.1533-8525.2011.01198.x