Communicating the Climate Crisis: The Problem with Environmental Rhetoric Today

As a competitor on the national high school Public Forum debate circuit, I spend many hours each month poring over the pros and cons of various policy topics, ranging from right-to-work laws to student loan debt forgiveness to US military presence in the Arctic. In February 2024, the focus was an environmental hot topic: banning single use plastics in the United States.

When I initially began my research, I was impressed by the wealth of knowledge about plastic pollution that had accumulated over recent years. But upon closer inspection, I started to realize that many environmental websites were virtually identical, and not in a good way. Take the below graphic from plasticoceans.org; while there are useful facts about the global plastic crisis, the numbers are taken without context, citations only occur sparingly, and it illustrates its points with stock images of people and trash cans.

Compare this to the aesthetic, well-cited design of a pro-plastic website like RKW Manufacturing. The below graphic includes citations for specific statistics, in addition to a polished bar graph (RKW, 2022). This issue is not only limited to the debate around plastics for high school debaters; rather, it is pervasive throughout the entire climate change issue. It’s not surprising, then, that a PBS poll from 2022 finds a 9% decrease in the amount of Americans concerned about climate change’s impacts (PBS Newshour, 2022). It’s important to identify the causes of this trend and potential solutions in hopes that civilians take the issue of climate change seriously. 

I’ve found that this problem is not only concentrated in bad websites but also more broadly in the climate and environmental rhetoric used in the media. The language used to describe the climate change problem doesn’t connect with many civilians. A poll conducted by the Pew Research Center suggests that people often deem claims of climate change consequences as exaggerated (Funk et al. 23). Whether or not this is justified, it should be a sign to scientists that civilians are not especially concerned with doomsday messaging. It desensitizes the issue (since people receive large warnings with very few tangible results), causes an audience to become skeptical of the large claims, and puts people into denial about the progress they can achieve on their own. 

Finally, there is a lack of clarity in the world of environmentalism. Although common sense tells us that our individual contributions to emissions and pollution are not the reason global climate change occurs, we’re constantly hammered by environmental websites telling us to recycle, save water and energy, and pick up our trash at the beach (Smith 2022). 

I think we’ll need to see shifts in the attitudes of three groups of people if we want to shift the trajectory of climate advocacy. First are the scientists. Science can’t speak for itself. The research that scientists conduct, as essential as it is to solving this climate crisis, is too complex to be easily digested by the layperson–or it simply takes too much effort on the part of the layperson to understand. We cannot persuade the general public by handing them 50-page studies with dozens of figures and jargon-filled paragraphs.

This is where the second group of people comes in: the explainers of science. Not only should the explainers strive to be appealing to those with less scientific knowledge, but they should also make sure that their headlines are backed by science. For example, take the news story: ‘Plastics killing up to a million people a year, warns Sir David Attenborough.’ While this is an attention-grabbing headline, and Sir David Attenborough does make great documentaries, he certainly didn’t conduct this study. And does the study even claim what he quotes? The study states: “Between 400,000 and 1 million people die each year in developing countries because of diseases related to mismanaged waste.” Not only is the statistic not even specifically concerned with plastic, but the diseases are only related to the waste and may not be directly caused by it. An endorsement from someone like Sir David Attenborough is great, but it could be utilized to a far more substantial effect if paired properly with sound scientific studies. Further, ensuring that images like the plasticoceans.org graphic are posted with proper citations and formal design choices in mind can go a long way in bringing more positive attention to environmental efforts. 

Not only this, we need to shift away from the apocalyptic messaging commonly used to describe climate change. While many see these cataclysmic claims as appeals to fear, it feels much more plausible (and relatable) to link climate change to localized impacts that still affect day-to-day life. In the same way that people often care more about local news on city tax rates than about international foreign policy, making messaging more personalized, prevalent, and relatable for different demographics could be more persuasive. This might also clarify the individual’s role in solving a global problem. Although counterintuitive, departing from the “inevitable doomsday” messaging about climate change could actually motivate more people to put their best environmental foot forward. 

Finally, there’s us–the people! While it’s great to change our everyday environmental practices when we encounter a well-cited and credible explanation for doing so, it’s also important to be skeptical of arguments that have been poorly made and numbers that have been accidentally manipulated. For example, the aforementioned number that Sir David Attenborough quotes should be approached with skepticism, since the study is being taken out of context. Recognizing this and doing enough self-research to educate ourselves is crucial for a better environmental activism movement.  

Environmental practices are important. Human activities are having a serious effect on our environment, and our current climate path is troubling at best. But maybe this problem isn’t just rooted in the quantity of carbon emissions we produce, but also in the minute, everyday ways that environmental ideas are communicated to the public. It’s a difficult thing to do. In many ways, I’ve found Public Forum debate to be about much of the same rhetoric–and across the board I’ve realized how small shifts in how issues are framed can generate outsized increases in persuasiveness.

Citations

Funk, Cary; Pasquini, Giancarlo; Spencer, Alison; Tyson, Alec. “Why Some Americans Do Not

See Urgency on Climate Change.” Pew Research Center (blog), August 9, 2023.

https://www.pewresearch.org/science/2023/08/09/why-some-americans-do-not-see-urgency-on-climate-change/.

PBS News. “Many in U.S. Doubt Their Individual Impact on Fighting Climate Change,” August

15, 2022. https://www.pbs.org/newshour/science/many-in-u-s-doubt-their-individual-impact-on-fighting-climate-change.

Plastic Oceans International. “Plastic Pollution Facts | PlasticOceans.Org/the-Facts.” Accessed

June 20, 2024. https://plasticoceans.org/the-facts/.

Pombinho, Miguel, Ana Fialho, and Jorge Novas. “Readability of Sustainability Reports: A

Bibliometric Analysis and Systematic Literature Review.” Sustainability 16, no. 1

(January 2024): 260. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16010260.

rkw-group.com. “Benefits of Plastic,” June 14, 2022.

https://rkw-group.com/blog/benefits-of-plastic-why-plastics-are-indispensable-in-o/.

Smith, Allison. “Why Don’t Donors Give to Environmental Nonprofits?” June 9, 2022. 

https://neonone.com/resources/blog/environmental-donations/ 

Tollefson, Jeff. “UN Climate Reports Are Increasingly Unreadable.” Nature, October 12, 2015.

https://doi.org/10.1038/nature.2015.18543.

Environmental Remediation with Unmanned Aerial Vehicle

Alex Battikha developed an unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) for environmental remediation. Learn about his project below:

Nuclear energy as the world’s next clean energy source

As the world approaches 1.5 degrees Celsius in warming by 2030, policymakers must start making carbon-aware policy decisions. The UN explains various effects of high levels of warming such as increased temperatures, rising ocean levels, biodiversity loss, 23.1 million people in poverty, and the deaths of 13 million people per year. According to the New York Times, Scientists have even found that the Arctic will be ice-free by 2030. Climate change’s effects are even a current reality, as Reuters and NPR report floods and global heatwaves with devastating results, killing over 90,000 people globally. 

While scientists and politicians worldwide have been more conscious of these problems, the United States’ carbon footprint is exorbitant. According to research by Roser et al., the United States emits the second most CO2 globally at 15% of global emissions and 5.3 billion tonnes of CO2 annually. The United States can reduce this problem in two key ways. First, by reducing our reliance on fossil fuels such as coal, and second, by using clean energy sources with high energy efficiency, like nuclear power.

Coal and black carbon are some of the most environmentally damaging energy sources used in the world. According to Statista, global coal combustion caused the release of 15 billion metric tons of CO2 in 2022 alone. Additionally, research from Ritchie et al found that coal was responsible for approximately 60 deaths per terawatt hour of energy via air pollution and coal mining accidents, and 820 tons of carbon emissions per gigawatt hour. Ritchie furthers, “...these estimates for fossil fuels are likely to be very conservative. They are based on power plants in Europe, which have good pollution controls... global death rates from fossil fuels based on the most recent research on air pollution are likely to be even higher.” What’s worse is that the United States uses a significant amount of this extremely harmful energy source. According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, 20% of the United States' energy is sourced from coal, and as Statista data corroborates, is the third largest consumer of coal in the world. Based on data from the EPA and Statista, the United States emitted 882 million metric tons of CO2 from coal alone. According to Roberts in 2018, this cost the United States $4.1 billion. 

Knowing that coal is a harmful and inefficient energy source, we should seriously consider nuclear energy as a cleaner, safer, and more efficient alternative. According to research by Ritchie et al, Nuclear energy causes 0.03 deaths per terawatt hour of energy compared to the 60 deaths per terawatt hour of energy of coal. In other words, when using nuclear energy, 1 person would die every 25 years instead of the 25 deaths per year because of coal. Additionally, nuclear energy releases only 3 tons of carbon per gigawatt hour compared to the 820 tons of carbon released by coal. The Nuclear Energy Institute finds that nuclear energy reduces 470 million metric tons of CO2 per year, the effect of removing 100 million cars off the road, and that a pellet of uranium, the size of your fingertip, produces the same amount of energy produced by 1 ton of coal. 

Countries such as France have seen such success in their energy sectors. According to the World Nuclear Association, as of 2023, France derives a whopping 70% of its energy from nuclear power. The French Embassy finds that France has even been able to reduce its per capita carbon emissions past the United States’ 5 tons of emissions per capita to 2 tons per capita. Additionally, “There has also been a 75-percent decrease in sulfur dioxide, which is responsible for acid rain, and had France not converted to nuclear energy, the emissions of smog-creating nitrous oxide would be 20 percent higher.” If France, now the second largest producer of nuclear energy, can see so much success, even offsetting high oil prices in Europe, surely the United States will be able to have a similar level of environmental and economic success. 

However, nuclear energy comes with some potential concerns. Nuclear energy, while extremely effective in its positive climate impact, has had safety issues over the years. In 1986, Ukraine had a massive accident at its nuclear reactor in Chernobyl. Using such a clean and powerful energy comes with some tradeoffs. Nuclear energy has risks regarding its safety. However, since Chernobyl, the technology for nuclear energy has improved immensely. The World Nuclear Association finds that the nuclear energy industry has avoided potential nuclear scenarios in which the reactor core overheats and causes a meltdown. “In the 60-year history of civil nuclear power generation…there have been only three significant accidents at nuclear power plants.” Since Chernobyl, no deaths have occurred due to a commercial nuclear reactor incident. The injuries and deaths that occur are very few, are due to overexposure to uncontrolled nuclear material, and are contained within the reactors. The belief that nuclear energy is highly dangerous and could cause explosions as powerful as multiple hydrogen bombs at any moment is unrealistic. The probability of such meltdowns, thanks to modern technology, has dropped to nearly zero.

The issue of nuclear waste, possibly the biggest problem with nuclear energy, has also been mitigated by current technology. While it is not easy to store, and there are remaining risks of radioactive material leaking into soil, government regulations on radioactive waste are extremely stringent, and have taken all protocols necessary to safely store nuclear waste until the radioactivity levels decline sufficiently. The U.S. Energy Information Administration finds that most nuclear waste produced has low levels of radioactivity. Furthermore, spent fuel with higher levels of radioactivity are safely stored underground far below soil levels for thousands of years, until they are safe to remove, according to the World Nuclear Association. The concerns surrounding the safety of nuclear reactors and nuclear waste are understandable. Nuclear energy will never be a perfect energy source, but it may be the best that we have for the environment and an efficient energy economy.  

Climate change and the United States’ carbon footprint are not problems with overnight solutions. One of the best steps we can take in the right direction is by increasing nuclear energy usage and decreasing reliance on coal.

Citations

Zhong, Raymond. “Arctic Summer Could Be Practically Sea-Ice-Free by the 2030s.” The New York Times, June 6, 2023, sec. Climate. https://www.nytimes.com/2023/06/06/climate/arctic-sea-ice-melting.html.

Press, The Associated. “Pakistan’s Floods Have Killed More than 1,000. It’s Been Called a Climate Catastrophe.” NPR, August 28, 2022, sec. Asia. https://www.npr.org/2022/08/28/1119854665/pakistan-flooding-climate-change.

Dickie, Gloria, and Gloria Dickie. “Why Some Heatwaves Prove Deadlier than Others.” Reuters, August 2, 2022, sec. Healthcare & Pharmaceuticals. https://www.reuters.com/business/healthcare-pharmaceuticals/why-some-heatwaves-prove-deadlier-than-others-2022-08-02/.

Nations, United. “Causes and Effects of Climate Change.” United Nations. Accessed March 30, 2024. https://www.un.org/en/climatechange/science/causes-effects-climate-change.

Ritchie, Hannah, and Max Roser. “CO₂ Emissions.” Our World in Data, January 22, 2024. https://ourworldindata.org/co2-emissions.

Statista. “Global Coal Use CO₂ Emissions 2022.” Accessed March 30, 2024. https://www.statista.com/statistics/784682/worldwide-co2-emissions-from-coal/.

Roberts, David. “Friendly Policies Keep US Oil and Coal Afloat Far More than We Thought.” Vox, October 6, 2017. https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2017/10/6/16428458/us-energy-coal-oil-subsidies.

“Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) - U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA).” Accessed March 30, 2024. https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php.

Nuclear Energy Institute. “Climate.” Accessed March 30, 2024. https://www.nei.org/advantages/climate.

“Nuclear Power in France | French Nuclear Energy - World Nuclear Association.” Accessed March 30, 2024. https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/country-profiles/countries-a-f/france.aspx.

Energy.gov. “5 Key Takeaways from the Nuclear Energy FY2023 Budget Request.” Accessed March 30, 2024. https://www.energy.gov/ne/articles/5-key-takeaways-nuclear-energy-fy2023-budget-request.

“Chernobyl | Chernobyl Accident | Chernobyl Disaster - World Nuclear Association.” Accessed March 30, 2024. https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/safety-and-security/safety-of-plants/chernobyl-accident.aspx.

Ritchie, Hannah, Pablo Rosado, and Max Roser. “Nuclear Energy.” Our World in Data, March 20, 2024. https://ourworldindata.org/nuclear-energy.

Statista. “U.S. Coal Energy Consumption 2022.” Accessed March 30, 2024. https://www.statista.com/statistics/184333/coal-energy-consumption-in-the-us/.

US EPA, OAR. “Frequent Questions: EPA’s Greenhouse Gas Equivalencies Calculator.” Overviews and Factsheets, December 12, 2016. https://www.epa.gov/energy/frequent-questions-epas-greenhouse-gas-equivalencies-calculator.

“Safety of Nuclear Reactors - World Nuclear Association.” Accessed March 30, 2024. https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/safety-and-security/safety-of-plants/safety-of-nuclear-power-reactors.aspx#:~:text=Investigations%20following%20the%20accident%20led,and%20operator%20training%20was%20overhauled.

Nuclear Energy Institute. “Nuclear Fuel.” Accessed March 30, 2024. https://www.nei.org/fundamentals/nuclear-fuel.

“Nuclear Power and the Environment - U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA).” Accessed March 30, 2024. https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/nuclear/nuclear-power-and-the-environment.php#:~:text=Nuclear%20energy%20produces%20radioactive%20waste,health%20for%20thousands%20of%20years.

“Radioactive Wastes - Myths and Realities : World Nuclear Association - World Nuclear Association.” Accessed March 30, 2024. https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/nuclear-fuel-cycle/nuclear-wastes/radioactive-wastes-myths-and-realities.aspx.

Cover Image:

Energy.gov. “Advantages and Challenges of Nuclear Energy.” Accessed March 30, 2024. https://www.energy.gov/ne/articles/advantages-and-challenges-nuclear-energy.