106
completely disbelieve threat warnings. “The initial response to a disaster warning is
disbelief” (Drabek 1986). Biases are the lenses we all filter information through
when making decisions, and they warp perception when assessing likely threats and
opportunities.
In his book, Global Catastrophes and Trends, the Next 50 Years, Vaclav Smil
presents a measured and thoroughly researched evaluation of an array of possible
mid-twenty-first-century threats. His approach systematically considers the odds
that various natural and cultural/technological risks have to negatively affect the
lives of individual human beings or wipe out the entire human civilization. Smil
shows, for example, how relatively unlikely people were to die from a volcanic
eruption, airline accident, or terrorist attack compared to car accidents or medical
errors which were between three and four orders of magnitude more likely to take a
life (Smil 2008). People tend to not focus on and guard against less spectacular but
more likely risk events.
1
6.2 Climate Change Story
Directly explaining climate change to the public is like telling a story about rust.
The pace and technical details of the story make capturing the imagination a challenge. No matter how certain the science is about what drives it, the facts and phenomena play out over a time scale to which most people have trouble relating or
caring about. Even the most committed designers will likely not change the hearts
and minds of clients who are not already convinced that there is a problem that their
design addresses.
Stories of calamity and destruction are best told when the action happens suddenly. Unlike a nuclear explosion, a plane crash, or a house fire, the story about the
incremental changes in the ratio of certain harmful chemical elements and compounds in air and water, measured in parts per billion, does not immediately captivate. Even when it concerns all the air and water we have, the slow pace and
amorphous, invisible action tend to lose people’s attention. In today’s 24-hour news
cycle, large and spectacular short-term changes that directly affect human life for
the worse make better stories. They are fixed in the imagination more effectively
than long, drawn out, “boring” processes that indirectly cause harm. The steadily
warming environmental conditions that contribute to storm intensity (Murakami
et al. 2017) don’t generate the same interest or audience ratings as the sensational
coverage of a hurricane (Grabe et al. 2001). Because the violent effects of such a
storm are clearly tragic, they focus attention and immediate action to respond to
the crisis.
1 In the 2008 book, Smil concludes that we should be preparing for a nearly 100% chance of a novel
strain of influenza to produce a global pandemic. He also calls for government programs to simultaneously increase energy efficiency and decrease overall use to benefit the environment.
6 Addressing Resistance to a Fact-Based Approach
completely disbelieve threat warnings. “The initial response to a disaster warning is
disbelief” (Drabek 1986). Biases are the lenses we all filter information through
when making decisions, and they warp perception when assessing likely threats and
opportunities.
In his book, Global Catastrophes and Trends, the Next 50 Years, Vaclav Smil
presents a measured and thoroughly researched evaluation of an array of possible
mid-twenty-first-century threats. His approach systematically considers the odds
that various natural and cultural/technological risks have to negatively affect the
lives of individual human beings or wipe out the entire human civilization. Smil
shows, for example, how relatively unlikely people were to die from a volcanic
eruption, airline accident, or terrorist attack compared to car accidents or medical
errors which were between three and four orders of magnitude more likely to take a
life (Smil 2008). People tend to not focus on and guard against less spectacular but
more likely risk events.
1
6.2 Climate Change Story
Directly explaining climate change to the public is like telling a story about rust.
The pace and technical details of the story make capturing the imagination a challenge. No matter how certain the science is about what drives it, the facts and phenomena play out over a time scale to which most people have trouble relating or
caring about. Even the most committed designers will likely not change the hearts
and minds of clients who are not already convinced that there is a problem that their
design addresses.
Stories of calamity and destruction are best told when the action happens suddenly. Unlike a nuclear explosion, a plane crash, or a house fire, the story about the
incremental changes in the ratio of certain harmful chemical elements and compounds in air and water, measured in parts per billion, does not immediately captivate. Even when it concerns all the air and water we have, the slow pace and
amorphous, invisible action tend to lose people’s attention. In today’s 24-hour news
cycle, large and spectacular short-term changes that directly affect human life for
the worse make better stories. They are fixed in the imagination more effectively
than long, drawn out, “boring” processes that indirectly cause harm. The steadily
warming environmental conditions that contribute to storm intensity (Murakami
et al. 2017) don’t generate the same interest or audience ratings as the sensational
coverage of a hurricane (Grabe et al. 2001). Because the violent effects of such a
storm are clearly tragic, they focus attention and immediate action to respond to
the crisis.
1 In the 2008 book, Smil concludes that we should be preparing for a nearly 100% chance of a novel
strain of influenza to produce a global pandemic. He also calls for government programs to simultaneously increase energy efficiency and decrease overall use to benefit the environment.
6 Addressing Resistance to a Fact-Based Approach