During
the opening day
of
the
COP26
,
the
UN
secretary general
,
António
Guterres
,
warned
in his speech that
”
we are digging
our
own grave
”
.
Earlier this year
,
Boris
Johnsonavisó
that climate
change
posed a threat
to world peace
.
They are not
far from
the
only one who
have
used almost
apocalyptic messages
to refer
to a problem
with consequences that
could reach
Serlas
.
However
, the message
cove and
, in fact
, there are doubts
whether
this strategy
really works.
The
problem has several
edges and
is also
slippery
terrain
dates.
On the one hand
, experts warn
,
it is necessary to
convey the
need to act and
to do so
as soon as possible
.
But on the other
,
a message
too
alarmist
apathy
or
defeatism
may return
.
“In Valencian, we have a saying that is Folleu, Folleu, that the Món S’Acaba,” illustrates Andreu Escrivà, Environmentologist and author of ‘and now I What I Do: How to Avoid Climate Guilt and Go to Action.’
“It’s a very clear current,” he recognizes, and even books are published with the places that a person should visit not before dying, but that these disappear.
“We are arriving in defeatism and catastrophism too because we see that there are no structural changes that take us to think that this is going to be solved,” he contextualizes him.
In this sense, Escrivà believes that also influences the guilt of the citizen on foot – “They are telling you that you are the culprit of everything because you see Netflix, you eat meat and take the car” -, which joins the impotence of seeing that the
Things do not change.
“You’re not going to annoy life because if you do not do the rest of the world,” she says.
Anyway
,
the discloser
does not consider that
to sound the
alarm is
alarmist
:
“We are facing
a process that
affects the entire
planet that
is already affecting
the lives of millions
of people
,
which will affect more
and will generate
losses
economic
brutal
, “he recalls
.
“I think
the rational and
honest is
to sound the
alarm
, the
problem is that
we want to convey
a sense of urgency
,
but we spent
braking
,” he
explained
time
acknowledging that
he himself
is included
in this group.
Tatiana Nuño, responsible for the climate change project in Greenpeace, coincides at this point: “We are living a climate crisis and it is important to communicate it from what it is”.
Of course, she appreciates that there is getting more and more information “and we know how to tell her better.”
The key, she exposes her, is “communicating from science” and always supported by three pillars: causes, consequences and, above all, solutions.
“We are already
seeing
a climate crisis
,
we are already seeing
the impacts of
climate change;
it
must be told
, but we must
always
link it with
the why
,” he argues
.
Ie
, explain
what is the origin
of the situation and
what
can be done to
reverse
rather than
treating it as an
immeasurable and
unfathomable
entity.
”
We can not stay
alone in
the crisis
and the drama
of the impacts of
climate
change that
we’re
seeing
and
we face
” sums
Nuño.
Thus
,
after telling
what causes
climate crisis
can
finish the
speech
”
that solutions
exist,
are in
our hands,”
the expert
argues
.
And
to emphasize
that the scenario
changes a lot
if you act
:
”
Avoid
the climate crisis
will have many
more benefits
to
our health and
our way of life
that
act and
there’s
not
that
much
influence
.”
“It is important
to give an overview
” summarizes
.
In
a connected world
,
“information is
very
quick
and we were
in the headlines
,” she
explains
.
”
We need to be
able to digest
what the causes are
and
what the solutions
are and not
stay only
in the
catastrophism
”
.
Escrivà agrees with this idea of explaining “clearly” that you can still do things and that “this is not a deterministic catastrophe and we will experience an apocalyptic future let us do.”
Again, find the balance to dodge the defeatism, but also passivity.
Faced with this
lack of interest,
Escrivà
advocates
distinguish between
being
getting late and
it
‘s late
;
between
that climate change
it is already
irreversible
and still
be adjusted by
its magnitude.
And
for the communication of
the message
he puts
figuratively
his
house on fire.
”
Imagine you
‘re at home
and one room
is burning
:
it is clear that
what was there
was
burned
,
but
does that mean you
do not have to
try to save
the rest of your
house?
”
.
It is to be transmitted
to be
put out that fire
,
with the urgency
that entails
,
but
people think
that home
is not going
to end
up.
The
environmentalist
also considered
”
increasingly skeptical
” of communication
with dates,
as with all
the targets set for
2030.
In
the end
,
regrets
, people see
it as
distant
something and
think of it as
a test that
you can study
the last
day to get
a miraculous
approved
.
And he
reroll
comparison
, this time
football
:
”
The question is not
that in 2030
live in
Mad
Max
, the
point is that in
2030
we can be in
mathematical
descent”
.
At this juncture
,
”
not to
alarm
, we must
offer an alternative
and, above all
, we must
tell people
that
we will not
live worse
, the actions
must be
perceived as
action to
live better.”
Nuño
, meanwhile
,
believes that a
good summary of
the situation could
communicate with the
fable of
the
hummingbird
before a
forest fire
begins to
extinguish the flames
with water
carrying
in its beak
.
At
the beginning, the
rest of the animals
believe that
makes no sense,
but
seeing
his tenacity
join
him and
, together,
they get
put out the fire
.
“The reality is
disturbing, but
the scenarios
we face
are much worse
,” laments
Nuño.
Thus, it
should address
the “Not
from
paralysis
,
but from
activism and
activity to avoid
the scenario that
we do not want
and
that
is
avoidable.”
