Addressing Climate Denialism Requires a Comprehensive Strategy

ECOLitAct addresses climate denialism by strengthening eco-literacy and sustainable behaviors. In the ECOLitAct podcast, experts share their insights.

Climate mis- and disinformation is spreading rapidly on social media, creating a politicized culture around climate change and driving the rise of climate denialism. This denialism has grown to be a major obstacle to global efforts in mitigating and adapting to climate change. In the ECOlitact podcast, we highlight the crucial role of media literacy in effectively tackling climate change.

?

Understanding Denialism, Mis- and Disinformation

Ramos, Rodrigues and Rodrigues (2024) define climate denialism as a spectrum ranging from outright denial to varying degrees of skepticism regarding the severity and urgency of climate change. Denialism is frequently fueled by mis- and disinformation, especially on social media, which exploits users fears and vulnerabilities, such as a lack of climate literacy and critical thinking skills. As a result, mis- and disinformation have led to public misperceptions about climate change and have shaped the public discourse surrounding the issue (Cook, 2017).

But what is the distinction between misinformation and disinformation?

Misinformation is the unintentional spread of false information due to misconceptions or lack of knowledge, whereas disinformation is the intentional dissemination of misleading information with the intent to deceive, often to protect certain interests and maintain the status quo. Identifying these differences can help people better evaluate the information they encounter (Praveenkumar, 2024).

The rapid dissemination of denialist narratives contributes to polarization and undermines trust in science, consequently slowing down the implementation of environmental policies aimed at mitigating and adapting to climate change (Ramos et al., 2024; Cook, 2017). In this context, Bretter and Schulz (2023) argue that this polarization distracts society from crucial discussions on how to address climate change. As a result, climate denialism hinders climate action (Herranen, 2023).

Complexities of Climate Change

Misconceptions regarding climate change stem from both the complexity of the issue itself and the oversimplified narratives that are frequently portrayed in media. Climate change is a multifaceted problem that can overwhelm and confuse people due to the extensive information connected to it. On the other hand, media conversations about climate change are often oversimplified and focus on narrow aspects, such as using metal straws and reducing plastic waste, instead of focusing on encouraging a deeper awareness of the interconnected systems involved (Boycoff & Roberts, 2008).

This challenge is further clarified by Allenby and Sarewitz’s framework of levels of complexity (c.f., Clark, 2015). They identify three levels of complexity which become increasingly difficult to engage with. Level 1 complexities are straightforward and often deal with direct cause-effect dynamics: A car will get me from point A to point B. Level two introduces greater complexity. If we stick to the example of cars this means that a car is not only a means of transport to move between points but that other factors such as traffic, the weather, and infrastructure may impact the travel between A and B leading to a certain extent of uncertainty (i.e., delays). Level 3 is highly complex to the extent that cause-and-effect relations become difficult if not comprehend and predict. Choosing a car as a means of transport is no longer a matter of personal choice but a question of that choice’s planetary impact over years, if not decades.

Many initiatives address climate change as if it were simply a Level 1 issue, focusing merely on carbon emissions, rather than recognizing the systemic and unpredictable effects that impact everything from societal structures to ecological cycles, which emerge at Level 3. This dual impact of complexity and oversimplification contributes to climate denialism and ineffective strategies in tackling climate change, (Boycoff & Roberts, 2008).

?

Addressing Climate Denialism

Given that climate denialism is an established concept, many experts, however, have observed that it has taken a new form. Angelos Pastras, discussing the contemporary understanding of climate change in our podcast, notes that its existence is widely recognized and accepted. Similarly, Stern et al. (2016) present the idea of neosceptisism?as a term that describes a more nuanced and refined form of scepticism. Instead of denying the existence of climate change, the discourse has shifted to?claims that climate change is ineffective or poses minimal risks to society. Neosceptisism tends to downplay the urgency of climate action by emphasizing uncertainty in climate models and projections. This shift underscores the need to enhance communication and education (Stern et al., 2016).?

Addressing climate denialism and mis- and disinformation requires a comprehensive strategy that includes improving climate literacy, encouraging critical thinking, promoting action-oriented solutions and nuanced climate information in education. In the ECOLitAct podcast, Kimberly Nicholas emphasizes the importance of identifying and debunking misinformation, highlighting the truth sandwich?technique which centres the truth rather than the misinformation. This method involves first presenting the facts, then addressing the false information, followed by reinforcing the correct information (Tulin et al, 2024). To break down politicized debates and tackle climate change effectively, legislation and policy are key – but also education which strengthens critical thinking and media literacy skills, as Alexandra Panos highlights.

If you are curious to learn more about mis- and disinformation on climate change and how to counteract them, we invite you to listen to the ECOLitAct podcast which dives into the knowledge needed to navigate the complexity of environmental and climate change-related issues. In the podcast, we are joined by Alexandra Panos, Assistant Professor of Literacy Studies at the University of South Florida, who shares her expertise on education and eco-literacy. Kimberly Nicholas, Associate Professor at the Lund University Centre for Sustainability Studies and author of the book “Under the sky we make”, offers insights into climate action. Angelos Pastras shares the knowledge he has gained as energy storage project manager and consultant.

Where can you listen to the podcast? On YouTube, using the following link:?The ECOLitAct Podcast on climate denialism and media & information literacy (youtube.com)

?

About ECOLitAct?

The ECOlitAct project tackles climate change by promoting media literacy and sustainable practices. The project’s aim is to empower VET practitioners/educators and learners to counter misinformation related to environment and climate change, and to inspire them to adopt eco-friendly behaviours and attitudes. It seeks to develop digital green education and material embracing eco-literacy. A key part of this effort is the development of a handbook. This digital resource presents a collection of six lessons, aimed at enhancing knowledge and prompting reflection on environmental and climate change-related topics, which goal is to bridge the knowledge gap and promote sustainable actions by providing accessible and easily digestible learning opportunities.

If you’ re interested and would like to learn more about the ECOlitact project, please visit our website:?https://www.swideas.se/achievments/ecolitact

?

About the authors

Celina Ullberg is a projects and communication intern at SwIdeas AB (Sweden), partner organization in the Erasmus+ Project Eco-Literacy and Green Education for Climate Action (ECOLitAct).

Merle Emrich is an analyst and programme officer at SwIdeas AB (Sweden), partner organization in the Erasmus+ Project Eco-Literacy and Green Education for Climate Action (ECOLitAct).

?

References

Boycoff, M. T. & Roberts, J. T (2008) “Media coverage of climate change: current trends strenghts, weaknesses”, Human development report office, accesible at:?https://hdr.undp.org/content/media-coverage-climate-change [last accessed: 14 October 2024].

Bretter, C., & Schulz, F (2023) “Why focusing on ‘climate change denial’ is counterproductive”, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America,?accessible at:?https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2217716120 [last accessed: 14 October 2014].?

Clark, T. (2015) “Ecocriticism on the Edge: The Anthropocene as a Threshold Concept”, Bloomsbury Publishing.

Cook, J. (2017) “Understanding and countering climate science denial”,?Journal & Proceedings of the Royal Society of New South Wale,?150 (2), pp. 207-219, accessible at: https://doi.org/10.5962/p.361798 [last accessed: 14 October 2024].

Herranen, O. (2023) “Understanding and overcoming climate obstruction”, Nature Climate Change, 13, pp. 500–501, accessible at:?https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-023-01685-6 [last accessed: 14 October 2024].

Praveenkumar, B. (2024) “Misinformation and disinformation: Unravelling the web of deceptive information”, Journal of law and legal research development, 1(1), pp. 29-33, accessible at:?https://doi.org/10.69662/jllrd.v1i1.7 [last accessed: 14 October 2024].

Ramos, R., Rodrigues, M. J., Rodrigues, I. (2024), “Climate Change Denialism: Critical Analysis of Arguments in Confrontation with Climate Science”, Climate Literacy in education, 2(1), accessible at:?https://bibliotecadigital.ipb.pt/bitstream/10198/29993/3/Climate%20Science.pdf [last accessed: 14 October 2024].

Stern, P. C., Perkins, J. H., Sparks, R. E. & Knox, R. A. (2016) “The challenge of climate-change neoskepticism”, Science, 353, pp. 653-654, accessible at: https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.aaf6675 [last accessed: 14 October 2024].

Tulin, M., Hameleers, M., de Vreese, C., Opgenhaffen, M. & Wouters, F. (2024) “Beyond Belief Correction: Effects of the Truth Sandwich on Perceptions of Fact-checkers and Verification Intentions”, Journalism Practice,?accessible at:? https://doi.org/10.1080/17512786.2024.2311311 [last accessed: 14 October 2024].

?

Disclaimer

Eco-Literacy and Green Education for Climate Action (ECOLitAct) is co-funded by the Erasmus+ programme of the European Union, and led by SwIdeas in Sweden. The project consortium includes partner organisations from Germany (Iberika Education Group gGmbH), Andragoski zavod Ljudska univerza Velenje (Slovenia), Greece (Active Citizens Partnership), and European Grants International Academy srl (Italy). (Project number: Project number: 2022-1-SE01-KA220-VET-000086868).

The content of this article represents the views of the author only and is his/her sole responsibility. The European Commission does not accept any responsibility for use that may be made of the information it contains.