[Coral-List] Public perceptions about climate change
John Bruno
jbruno at unc.edu
Wed Oct 28 07:18:06 EDT 2009
Thank you Mel. I really like your ideas about communicating threats
to reefs.
But I think the ISRS may in fact be precisely an advocacy
organization. The first objective of the ISRS constitution is:
"Promoting the production and dissemination of scientific knowledge
and understanding of coral reefs", i.e., the purpose of the society is
to advocate for (as in disseminate) our science. There is no
professional, ethical or practical reason to be shy about
communicating our science, what we know about coral reefs, to the
public. And I think this includes direct communications to
individuals and other organizations that get the facts about coral
reefs and climate change wrong.
We cannot rely on environmental advocacy NGOs to communicate the
science of coral reefs, particularly at high administrative levels and
in the international media because in most cases they lack the
scientific credibility and expertise.
---
"As one who lives 'on the fence' between science and advocacy, I can
say it is a precarious position, but one we as a society (ISRS) are
trying to carefully navigate."
What environmental scientist doesn't live "on the fence" between
science and advocacy? Or maybe more accurately; does such a fence or
delineation even exist? Communicating what we know about our subject
is part of the job of any scientist, not an optional side-project.
Communicating the results of ones findings is a fundamental component
of science (or as my friend Sal Genovese likes to say, "if you don't
publish it, it isn't science"). Personally, I don't find explaining
science, i.e., educating people, at all precarious. Even as an
academic scientists this, i.e., advocacy, is literally part of my job
description.
Don Strong, the renowned ecologist and editor of Ecology, recently
published an essay on the role of scientists and scientific societies
in environmental advocacy or "environmentalism" (Strong 2008-email me
if you want a PDF of this):
"Whereas ecology is science and environmentalism sometimes is and
sometimes isn't, the latter is necessary for the former. We ecologists
have the same relationship to the subject of our studies as do art
historians and archeologists to theirs. There is no opprobrium upon
artists and archeologists advocating for the preservation of art and
antiquities. Protection of the environment – environmentalism – is
advocacy of what we study. Why should we not advocate for protection
of the environment in our professional capacity?...The negative
branding of environmentalism comes from groups that are part and
parcel of the notorious war on science. They are dedicated to denying
the environmental degradation that ecologists are documenting every
day. Some of the most prominent of these groups are discussed by
Jaques et al. in a review entitled, The organization of denial:
conservative think tanks and environmental skepticism (Environ Pol
2008; 17: 349–85). The authors document the concerted anti-
environmentalism and complete disregard of these groups for anything
connected with the environment. Jaques et al. describe the substantial
financial backing, broad reach, and scores of authors that have been
encouraged to spread disinformation regarding scientific findings –
particularly about global warming – by conservative think tanks. The
authors argue that these powerful entities seek to interfere with the
scientific communication that is the basis of society's understanding
of environmental issues."
Donald R Strong (2008) Ecologists and environmentalism. Frontiers in
Ecology and the Environment: Vol. 6, No. 7, pp. 347-347.
doi: 10.1890/1540-9295(2008)6[347:EAE]2.0.CO;2
In regard to our media outreach concurrent with the 2008 ICRS, I
agree; with the help of SeaWed and others the society did a splendid
job. But that was nearly 18 months ago. This debate is moving too
fast for us to only jump in every four years.
I guess what I am thinking about is a more focused effort on the major
sources of disinformation; print media, cable news, talk radio, etc.
relating specifically to climate change. The weakness of some of the
outreach efforts during the last international Year Of The Reef and
the last ICRS was that far too many problems were being communicated
simultaneously. I realize there are countless threats to reefs. But
most of these are not being contested in a coordinated way. We are
not hearing widespread denial about overfishing, coastal development,
nutrient pollution, etc in the media in the way that the public is
being misinformed about climate change when they are told it isn't
happening. In fact, some big oil-funded think tanks such as
CO2Science are making the case that reef loss and even bleaching are
caused solely by runoff/water quality (http://www.co2science.org/subject/c/bleachinggeneral.php
), disease (http://www.co2science.org/subject/c/bleachingdisease.php),
etc and not by temperature per se (http://www.co2science.org/subject/c/bleachingtemp.php
). And see their screeds against the science of coral reefs and
climate change here: http://www.co2science.org/subject/c/calcification.php
Again, to be clear, I am not criticizing the ISRS or its officers-I
think both are wonderful! Nor am I suggesting we/it aren't doing
anything. So there isn't cause for anyone to get defense about this.
I am only suggesting some additional actions we, or more precisely the
Society or at least it's elected officials, might take on our behalf.
Sincerely, John
More information about the Coral-List
mailing list