Is this the way to encourage behavioural change?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w62gsctP2gc
Personally, I don't think so. Whilst the comments posted on YouTube are of the familiar sceptic variety - such as my personal favourite shown below, the real danger here is that the intended audience - individuals who may be concerned about the future impacts of climate change for both themselves and their children - are likely to be put off by the negativity inherent in the message. Dystopian visions of the future do not encourage most people to act, but instead encourages them to bury their heads in the sand and hope the problem goes away or that someone else will deal with it.
Defra's own research (amongst a list of other academic work on the subject) has shown the limited value of appealing to individuals via such information campaigns, whilst other work has also shown the limited effectiveness of using such overtly negative messaging as it does not resonate with a wide enough section of society.
My favourite YouTube sceptic quote (so far) attached to this video:
I like to think of myself as a conscious user of energy and yet I still find this advert infuriating. What a load of rubbish. Is this advert on the television? If it is then it should be pulled immediately. CO2 is NOT A POLLUTANT!!! Come on! Think about it! Humans exhale this stuff day in, day out to keep us alive!! There is literally NO (yes, that's right, ZERO, scientific proof that CO2 causes adverse affects to our atmosphere and global climates.
----------------------
Zero, sorry, ZERO scientific proof? That's a relief. We can all carry on as normal then...
But seriously, if, as the Government keeps telling us, we need to face up to the challenges of climate change, how do you engage with people such as the author of the above quote? This is where I believe the idea of 'community' can be used as an instrument of change to encourage pro-environmental behavioural change - even amongst those more reluctant members of society who remain disengaged from the issue.
'Community' as both an idea and as a place can have a powerful influence over people. The ties that bind people to community as either a physical location such as a village or suburb or as a shared sense of identity such as a company, sports club or church can be utilised to encourage people to change their behaviour without them necessarily having to engage with them on an intellectual/informational level as to why they are.
There is currently a limited (but growing) body of academic research around community engagement with sustainable development, consumption and climate change issues, however the potential to utilise 'community' as a focal point for future behavioural change campaigns has been recognised - and is in fact the focus of my own interest.
Correctly framed and presented climate change messaging aimed at individuals has its place, but to me the content of the latest Act on CO2 campaign is certainly not it...
Three years later...
-
It was about this time three years ago I wrote my last blog. Why? A number
of reasons. First, I started a new job with InCrops and, second, I fell out
of t...
11 years ago
Yep community is very important and defra are currently funding pilot projects that do engage at this level. I oftern feel that defra infomation campaigns are ofter unsed as a semi political tool, as obvious manifistations of look was are doing some thing about this.
ReplyDeleteI would arge that the video being shown is a form of social marketing rather than a purly infomation campaign and has been targeted, in a specific way probelly following marketing teory of products such as multi surface cleaners. Playing on protective parental tendancies.
The cultural narative angle is also an interesting one. Whould be good if this video was linked to a more interactive element, rather than being purly passive.
It's interesting that there is a focus on community projects at the UEA. It's important to understand their impacts.
ReplyDeleteBut, my concern is that they do not produce change quickly enough. Will they produce change more quickly than technological change?
They may produce some amazing ideas that get diffused through society and, maybe, that's the point.
I have a few questions on transition towns on my blog that you might have some pointers on...
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteInteresting points... and I havent read Richard's next post yet so I might be pre-emptively repeating him, but the point of social change for sustainable consumption is that a lot of the much-touted technological change is beset by several drawbacks, however rapid its introduction: namely, the fact that while efficiency improves linearly, overall scale of demand tends to rise exponentially. And also, that rebound effects are found in many areas, especially energy demand, where savings have apparently been made. So sorting out the tech is only a small part of the solution, we also need to sort out the people who use it, to be rather blunt.
ReplyDeleteon energy and rebound effect, I recommend:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.amazon.co.uk/Energy-Efficiency-Sustainable-Consumption-Environment/dp/0230525342/ref=sr_1_8?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1255970621&sr=1-8
Energy Efficiency and Sustainable Consumption: The Rebound Effect (Palgrave Macmillan)
by Horace Herring (Editor), Steve Sorrell (Editor)
Blogger novice...I've finally managed to add a new post in response to Ben's comments...it seemed to get lost somewhere, somehow, during the course of the afternoon...and my comments are a condensed version of Gill's...there is a series of articles appearing in the Guardian this week on our energy future - today's was a piece regarding nuclear and the hidden subsidies the Government is looking at introducing, against there much touted claims of not providing any for the nuclear industry. I think the fact that no nuclear power station has ever been built on time, or on budget, is a big enough impediment to relying on a construction campaign aimed at creating at least a dozen new ones over the next ten to twenty years. The environmental arguments are all fairly well known, so lets look at it instead from a purely economic angle - and when looked at from that perspective it doesn't make sense either...
ReplyDeleteSee http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/oct/19/nuclear-tax-on-power-bills and http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/oct/19/nuclear-power-gas-coal