Many Australians are concerned about climate change but do not know how petrol, diesel and gas drive it, because climate language has become too technical, opaque and disconnected from daily life.
Opinion surveys such as the Australia Institute’s Climate of the Nation series show a significant level of climate change concern amongst Australians. On the other hand, the key metric for effective action – the extent to which we are shifting from polluting fuels such as petrol, diesel and gas to clean energy – does not show a consistent decrease in our use of those fuels. Why the gap?
It is very important to make a distinction between a person’s being concerned about climate change and their being engaged in the subject. A person may have heard enough – or seen enough from their direct experience – to be sufficiently aware that climate change poses a threat to their present or future well-being to respond with a “concerned” or “very concerned” in response to a survey question, without knowing anything more about climate change, or what its root cause is, let alone what part they might possibly play in reducing its adverse impact.
I have no criticism of such unengaged people: English might be their second, third or fourth language; the information environment inhabited by their social or cultural group may contain very little accurate information on climate change. Their daily lives may be so busy with the simple survival of themselves and their loved ones through precarious employment, precarious housing, precarious health, or all three, that engaging with a technical issue like climate change is simply not something they have time, energy or brain space to do.
An explanation of the gap is that many Australians do not know that the use of petrol, diesel, gas, etc. is the primary cause of climate change, and that shifting from those polluting fuels to clean energy is necessary if we are to reduce how dangerous our climate becomes. The not knowing has developed and continues because the language used in climate discourse is, for most people, opaque and arcane. Examples are “reducing emissions”, “carbon pollution”, “decarbonisation”, “a low carbon economy” and “fossil fuels”. Such language holds little relevance for the lives of many people; its use makes the subject mysterious, technical and complicated. As well as fostering not knowing, this technocratic language robs people of agency.
The Business NSW survey Unfinished Business was specifically aimed at the individuals who purchased energy in small to medium businesses in Queensland, New South Wales, Victoria, South Australia and Tasmania. The survey included questions relating to net-zero targets. When asked if they were confident they fully understood the implications of net-zero targets for their business, only 13 per cent of respondents said yes.
For most small businesses the greenhouse gas emissions for which they are directly responsible are those from the use of petrol, diesel, gas, LPG, etc. For those small businesses, achieving net zero is mostly about shifting from those fuels to clean energy. The finding that only 13 per cent of the small businesses surveyed said they fully understood the impact of achieving a net-zero target was very strong confirmation of the extent of not knowing in our community.
Another striking result from a series of survey questions relating to target dates for achieving net zero was:
51 per cent of businesses who have set themselves the target of reaching net zero by a specific date also say they have no awareness of the implications of net zero or do not understand how their business specifically will be affected.
This result reinforces the level of not knowing and also indicates a desire to take action, despite a lack of knowledge about what action to take.
Potential Energy is a philanthropically funded US non-profit which uses the tools of market research to explore climate messaging in a range of countries. Based on its research, experience and some great ideas from others, instead of saying “we need to reduce emissions”, we should say “we need to shift from polluting fuels such as petrol, diesel and gas to clean energy”. This is the Australian version, which uses our common names for the main polluting fuels that Australians buy; other countries with different common names should use theirs.
Everyone wanting to see our children and grandchildren experience the safest climate possible needs to change their language so that it is simple and direct, and uses local terminology. This is particularly true of leaders. We all need to help dispel the fog of not knowing, but leaders have the greatest responsibility. I would love to see climate campaigners taking leaders to task when their language is not simple and direct.
Australians are worried about the future their children and grandchildren will have. Dispelling the fog of not knowing will give them back climate agency.
David Hamilton
David Hamilton was educated in physics and worked as an occupational health scientist for many years. His final 15 years of employment in occupational health was with ExxonMobil, where he had experience in most sections of the oil industry. After retiring, David moved to Tasmania where he is a member of Climate Tasmania and was the founding Convenor of the Tasmania North branch of the Alternative Technology Association (now Renew).David accepts the evidence of climate change science and its message that we need to shift from petrol, diesel, gas, etc to clean energy as quickly as possible, and believes that the transition to renewable energy provides great opportunities for communities to take more control of their energy futures.