Climate News 25:10
“We don’t really use [bomb cyclone] very much. We just talk about a low pressure system deepening very quickly because ‘bomb’ can sort of create a little bit more panic and [make it sound] a little bit more scary than what it actually is.”
This quote from a Bureau of Meteorology representative about whether the current storms hitting the east coast of Australia can be classified as a bomb cyclone struck me as an interesting justification. The language we choose (or not choose) is never neutral. A bomb cyclone (or rain bomb) carries warlike images of destruction, an explosion in which victims are powerless to protect themselves. You can understand why BOM may want to avoid such imagery, especially at a time when real bombs are in the news every night. But a bomb cyclone is a meteorological phenomenon. Maybe a little bit of panic induced messaging might be useful at times? In this instance, we see the usual images of Aussies being their knockabout selves going surfing or fishing during a storm which is hardly going to suggest to others that it might be a good idea to move or at least be prepared for impacts. In the past decade, we’ve shifted from not being encouraged to link climate change to these events (‘not the right time’ which is a convenient sidestep of actually talking about the issue) to citing climate change, usually a few paragraphs down, as contributing to the event in question. Interesting, apart from some strong articles in The Conversation, there’s been little linking of this event to climate change in media. Call it the normalisation of climate change impacts. If a changed climate is our new normal, do we really need to talk about it anymore? And, if we don’t, what are we missing? For me, the biggest danger is that it engenders a sense of inevitability and apathy in the community. It’s going to happen, so why fight it? That also creates space for those opposing any action (even adaptive actions) on climate change to come roaring back, as we’ve seen in recent Australian local government elections. Talking about climate change is still necessary. It may feel boring from a communications perspective, where new is everything, but hard truths need to be told time and time again to create the impetus to act.
|
Previous
|
