The Ill Effects Of Dishonesty in Climate Change Discourse

A Response to Sarah Westrick’s : How We Frame Climate Danger Matters

By Nate Trinidad Doherty

Most people have heard the cliché saying, “with great power comes great responsibility”. However, what should citizens of a country do when those who hold great power in their society choose to abuse it? 

Climate change is an issue that grows more and more pressing with every passing day. However, due to the political influence of fossil fuel industries in many countries, and the conflict of interest that subsequently arises from such ties, it can be very difficult and even dangerous to speak out against climate change and those responsible for it. The article Remembering Murdered Environmentalists, names off many people who have been murdered in recent years for voicing their opinions on global warming; the article also offers some theories as to why these acts of violence may have increased In frequency in recent years. 

Two possibilities are listed in the article that attempt to define the reason for the rise in environmentalist murders. The first theory is that the abundance of communication technology available today allows for much more global awareness on such violent acts and people just tend to hear more about them. The second theory, and in my view the more likely of the two to be true, is that powerful industries, such as those of oil and timber, set out to silence many of those who speak out against their environmentally degrading businesses. If the later of these theories turns out to be true, this is an inexcusable violation of basic human rights.

I found that this article on injustice towards advocates of climate change relates to Sarah Westrick’s article: How We Frame Climate Danger Matters. In her article, Westrick states, “the way that we talk about environmental risks to society will shape the action that is taken to combat these dangers”. I found her position to be insightful as it insists that the less of a role corrupt agencies have in defining the discourse behind climate change, the more often we will see legislation passed that counters GHG emissions. In other words, the more political power we strip from fossil fuel companies in their ability to control public discourse and opinion on climate change, the more positive changes we will see in climate change legislation. 

Westrick also provides an example of a poorly worded piece which belittles climate change activism. She references the article “Climate protests bring gridlock to DC morning traffic”. At first glance, without yet reading the article, one can identify the tone of the article through its title. Westrick asserts that the title depicts the climate protests as a hindrance because it affected traffic circulation in DC. This subtle fact alone paints climate change activism in a negative light, which it ought not be painted in for the benefit of humanity. Fossil fuel companies, with their priorities in the wrong places, likely had at least a minor role to play in setting the tone of the DC article, as well as a major role in setting up many of the murders listed in the article above.

In conclusion, as Westrick insists in her piece, the way we talk about climate change matters immensely. It isn’t enough to merely acknowledge that climate change is happening, but we must integrate Bob Wyss’s element of risk into the mix for people to understand that climate change is a personal threat to every person around the world. 

Sources:

https://www.cnn.com/2019/09/23/us/washington-climate-shutdown-trnd/index.html