During a recent press conference, Secretary-General António Guterres of the United Nations revealed that July has officially been recognized as the hottest month ever recorded. This remarkable milestone is unrivaled by any previous temperature data, emphasizing the magnitude of this heatwave.
“We don’t have to wait for the end of the month to know this,” he said, speaking on July 27. “Short of a mini ice age over the next days, July 2023 will shatter records across the board.” Continuing, he said, “Climate change is here. It is terrifying. And it is just the beginning.”
In a powerful analogy, he brilliantly depicted the alarming situation that we, as humans, are inflicting upon the Earth: “Bid farewell to the era of global warming, for now we have ushered in the era of global boiling.” This thought-provoking comparison emphasizes the severity of the environmental crisis we are currently facing. Without a doubt, we have reached a tipping point where the consequences of our actions are overwhelming and potentially catastrophic. The metaphor paints a vivid picture of the Earth being engulfed in the scorching heat of our negligence. The time for action is now, as we cannot afford to continue down this destructive path.
Since I wrote my initial report on climate change way back in 1984, I’ve come across numerous attempts to summarize this complex issue in only a few words. However, this particular description caught me off guard. For a while now, I’ve been firm in my belief that using a pessimistic approach in discussing climate change can actually discourage people from taking action for a better and greener future. It seems like some individuals are more likely to run away from the problem instead of actively working towards a sustainable solution.
This perspective has gained considerable backing from various sources. One notable advocate is Per Espen Stocknes, a renowned psychologist and economist affiliated with the Norwegian Business School. Stocknes has dedicated extensive writings to this topic, which can be found here (providing a link as an example). In a captivating Ted Talk, with close to 100,000 views on Youtube, he eloquently encapsulates his belief in the counterproductive nature of doomist rhetoric. But why does he hold this viewpoint? Let’s delve into his insightful summary.
Have you ever stumbled upon a mind-boggling phenomenon called “Collapse Porn”? It’s a captivating and highly intriguing topic, guaranteed to pique your interest. Let’s dive into this bewildering world together! Picture this: you’re browsing the internet, scrolling through articles, and suddenly you come across these mesmerizing, somewhat addictive videos about various collapses. But hold on, we’re not talking about buildings or structures here. No, “Collapse Porn” delves into the realm of societal, economic, and even environmental collapses. It’s like witnessing a car crash; you can’t tear your eyes away from it. There’s an inexplicable allure, a strange fascination, as we watch these breakdowns unfold before us. So, why are we so drawn to this concept of “Collapse Porn”? It sparks a mix of emotions within us – curiosity, fear, and maybe even a hint of schadenfreude. We find ourselves captivated by the fragility of our world and the possibility of its disintegration. It’s almost like watching a thrilling movie or reading a suspenseful novel – we can’t help but be absorbed by the chaos and unpredictability of these scenarios. Although it may seem strange, this peculiar fascination with “Collapse Porn” is a reflection of our complex human nature and our deep-seated need for both security and excitement. So, the next time you find yourself getting sucked into the rabbit hole of “Collapse Porn,” just remember, you’re not alone in your curiosity.
Typically, when we talk about climate change, it’s depicted as an impending catastrophe full of drawbacks, expenses, and sacrifices. This portrayal instills fear in us, but once that initial fear subsides, our brains tend to steer clear of the topic altogether. Despite over three decades of alarming climate change messages, a staggering 80 percent of media articles still employ the disaster narrative. However, humans have a tendency to acclimate to and eventually become desensitized to constant doomsday scenarios. Consequently, a growing number of individuals are now experiencing what can be described as apocalypse fatigue, where the excessive exposure to messages of collapse and destruction leaves us emotionally numb.
Ever since his Ted talk six years ago, the detrimental effects of climate change, such as scorching heat waves, raging wildfires, and torrential downpours, have become increasingly inescapable. Considering this alarming reality, I felt compelled to consult with climate scientists, climate communications experts, and journalists to gather their perspectives. I delved into various aspects of the issue, including their perception of Guterres’s discourse – whether it instills fear and discouragement or serves as a source of motivation.
I knew the scientists would have some issues with the language used, and my intuition proved me right. However, it was quite unexpected that the communications experts had a contrasting perspective. In the next part, you will find the responses from all individuals involved, which I have made slight improvements to for better understanding and grammar. Additionally, there are also some replies addressing further inquiries.
It’s no secret that sometimes we can get caught up in all the doom and gloom surrounding us. The constant barrage of negative news and pessimistic viewpoints can really take a toll on our mindset. But here’s the thing – dwelling on negativity can actually paralyze us, preventing us from taking action and moving forward. It’s like being stuck in quicksand, the more we struggle and focus on our fears, the deeper we sink. So instead of succumbing to this doomist rhetoric, it’s important to break free from it and shift our mindset towards a more positive and empowering outlook. By doing so, we can regain control of our thoughts and actions, and overcome any obstacles that come our way. It’s all about realizing that we have the power to shape our own reality, and choosing to focus on the possibilities rather than the limitations. So let’s ditch the paralysis-inducing doomist rhetoric, and embrace a mindset that is filled with hope, resilience, and optimism. After all, it’s only by taking action that we can truly make a difference in our lives and in the world around us. So let’s rise above the negativity, and start forging our own path towards a brighter future.
Let’s begin by talking about Michael Mann, an esteemed climate scientist from the University of Pennsylvania. This guy is all about taking action and he’s not afraid to shout it from the rooftops. He has been quite vocal about the urgent necessity to put an end to the release of greenhouse gases that contribute to global warming. In fact, he even dropped us an email to share his thoughts.
“It’s a really good question Tom, and as you probably know, I’ve argued (e.g. in “The New Climate War”) that doomist rhetoric (and this verges on that) can be paralyzing rather than motivating. In this case, it’s tempered somewhat by a reassurance that it is still possible to limit warming to 1.5C and avoid the ‘very worst of climate change.’ But there is some tension here — it almost feels as if his assessment of where we are (‘global boiling’) is in conflict with that reassurance.
I’m not a fan of using the word “terrifying” in this context either. It’s one thing to acknowledge that some people are filled with fear, partly because of the negative narrative that wrongly suggests we’ve already reached a point of no return or that global warming is spiraling out of control. However, we shouldn’t fuel this misperception like he does. The truth is already distressing enough. The Earth is steadily heating up due to continuous carbon emissions, and as we’ve repeatedly cautioned, this is resulting in increasingly severe and detrimental weather patterns. By swiftly decarbonizing our society, we have the power to halt this worsening situation. This is the main point we need to drive home.
I had a conversation with Mann, and I wanted to know what he thought about another term that’s been thrown around: “global weirding.” I was curious to hear his perspective on this. So, I asked him, and this is what he had to say.
I reckon there’s merit in the notion of ‘global weirding’. We’re observing a peculiar pattern of weather phenomena that differs from what we’ve been accustomed to, particularly the prolonged periods of stationary weather systems. This connects with our research on the ‘resonance’ of the jet stream. It’s like nature is throwing us a curveball, don’t you think? The weather is getting all haywire, hanging around for weeks on end without budging. It’s as if someone hit the pause button on Mother Nature’s remote control. This really underscores the importance of understanding the intricacies of the jet stream and its impact on our weather patterns.
You might be wondering what jet stream resonance is. Mann has written an excellent explanation for non-experts of that research, which shows how human-caused climate change can cause the jet stream to become very wavy and lock heat domes and other extreme weather events in place for extended periods. You can find it here. (And I included my own explanation in a story about European heat waves in 2019. Check that out here.)
Is the term “global boiling” truly capturing the severity of the situation at hand? While catchy and attention-grabbing, it might not quite do justice to the complex and urgent issue we are facing. It fails to convey the gravity and magnitude of the challenges we are dealing with. With rising temperatures, melting ice caps, and extreme weather events becoming more frequent, it’s clear that we are facing a global crisis that demands our immediate and unwavering attention. This isn’t just a minor inconvenience or passing trend; it’s a pressing matter that requires a united effort from individuals, communities, and governments alike. So, let’s delve deeper into the realities of climate change and explore how we can tackle this issue head-on.
During my research, I had the opportunity to speak with Kevin Trenberth, an esteemed scientist who has dedicated years to studying climate. Although technically retired, Trenberth continues to actively participate in scientific publications and holds the prestigious position of Distinguished Scholar at the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colorado. I was certain that Trenberth would have reservations regarding the concept of “global boiling” from a scientific perspective, and my intuition proved to be accurate.
He emailed me with his dissatisfaction towards the expression “global boiling” since it mistakenly suggests water. Instead, he prefers the term “global heating” to differentiate the ongoing phenomenon from “global warming,” which he has frequently mentioned before.
According to Trenberth, when we talk about “warming,” we usually mean an increase in temperature. However, the situation goes beyond simply getting warmer. It’s like how heat accumulates in a pot of boiling water on the stove; our emissions of greenhouse gases are causing a similar build-up of heat in the climate system. As a consequence, global temperatures are indeed on the rise. Yet this excessive heating also leads to other effects like increased dryness, evaporation, droughts, and wildfires. Additionally, it results in more water vapor building up in the atmosphere, which leads to stronger rainfalls and flooding. In summary, the term “warming” encompasses much more than just rising temperatures.
Gueterres employed a metaphorical phrase, “global boiling,” to describe the intense heat experienced this summer. Although it may seem technical, it accurately represents the widespread and severe nature of these scorching temperatures. However, as a journalist, I prefer not to rely on such terminology to encapsulate this phenomenon. You may wonder why.
When it comes to rallying action, a global leader may or may not find this approach effective. However, scientists and journalists have a distinct purpose – to provide accurate information, even when using simplified language or metaphors, in order to maintain the public’s confidence. That’s why I believe Trenberth’s term “global heating” is so powerful; it goes beyond mere temperature rise and includes other significant impacts like droughts, wildfires, intense rainfall, and floods. By using this evocative phrase, Trenberth captures the multifaceted nature of the issue and highlights its wide-ranging consequences.
The Secretary-General of the United Nations has a distinct role compared to a journalist. They are responsible for pushing world leaders to take more forceful actions in addressing and adapting to climate change. One could argue that using the term “global boiling” can be an impactful way to achieve this goal.
In order to delve into this matter, I realized that I needed to consult Ed Maibach for his point of view. To figure things out, I knew I had to tap into the knowledge and insights of someone with extensive experience in this field. So, I approached Mr. Maibach and posed the question to him, eager to gain a fresh perspective and gain a deeper understanding of the topic at hand.
Maibach directs the Center for Climate Change Communication at George Mason University. And he co-directs a major polling project (with Yale’s Anthony Leiserowitz) called Climate Change in the American Mind. In 2021, he was ranked by Reuters as the most influential scientist working on climate change at America’s public universities, and seventh overall out of 1,000. (Kevin Trenberth and Michael Mann were close behind.)
Below is the response he sent via email:
In my opinion, Secretary-General Guterres is truly impressive when it comes to communicating about climate change. He has a talent for breaking down complex concepts into easily understandable terms, using clear and factual messages. What makes his communication even more impactful is his clever use of metaphors, which add a powerful layer of depth to his explanations. With his approach, he ensures that every single person can grasp the importance and urgency of the issue. Secretary-General Guterres is undoubtedly a master at connecting with people on the topic of climate change.
This guy, he’s really worried about stuff, you know? And he’s not afraid to speak up and say what he thinks, especially when he’s talking to those big shots in politics. That’s what makes him real, genuine. And let me tell you, being genuine is a big deal when it comes to getting your point across. It’s like having a superpower in communication.
Lastly, it is quite surprising to see a senior bureaucrat deviating from the norm and communicating in a straightforward and uncomplicated manner. This departure from the expected conventions of bureaucratic communication is quite refreshing and captivating. By being unexpected in his approach, he has successfully captured and maintained the attention of the audience.
I think he’s not trying to scare anyone, but instead, his goal is to make us aware of the challenging circumstances facing humanity and the pressing need for global policy changes that can improve the situation. It’s like he wants to shake us out of our complacency and open our eyes to the truth. After all, our world is in a delicate state, and it’s crucial that we act now before it’s too late.
So, I went ahead and asked Maibach a follow-up question: “Why shouldn’t we be terrified by the concept of global boiling? Describing the planet as boiling seems undeniably frightening. Even though I understand the scientific inaccuracy behind it, can you enlighten me on where I might be mistaken?”
He is really scared, and with good reason, but I don’t think his intention is to scare others. In my opinion, he is trying to emphasize the importance of the policy process and push political leaders to take immediate action instead of procrastinating. His goal is to make them realize that they can’t keep avoiding the issue any longer.
Yesterday, I caught wind of some pretty shocking news: apparently, a whopping 130 million Americans are currently facing scorching temperatures that can only be described as extreme heat. Thankfully, we’re not quite at the point of actually boiling like a hot pot of water, but let me tell you, it sure feels like it sometimes! It’s like our insides are simmering, and it’s not a pleasant sensation, let me assure you. I mean, who wants to feel like they’re being slowly cooked? It’s no wonder that whoever relayed this information chose their words carefully to really capture the essence of what we’re experiencing. See, the thing is, we humans are emotional creatures. We feel things first, and then we start to think about them. That’s why good communicators know that tapping into those emotions is key to getting their message across. If you can make someone truly feel something, they’re much more likely to want to listen and engage with what you’re saying. It’s almost like cooking a delicious meal – if you get the seasoning just right, people will come back for more.
I’m totally open to the idea that everything I’ve mentioned might be totally off. In the end, it would be incredible to witness someone actually putting it to the test and seeing what the evidence suggests.
Navigating through the haze of distractions and the grip of inaction can feel like a daunting challenge. But fear not, for there is a way to break free from this foggy state. Imagine a world where your thoughts are crystal clear, focused, and brimming with energy. A place where you have the power to seize each moment and make progress towards your goals. Now, picture yourself taking charge and forging ahead, with determination and purpose. It’s time to step out of the shadows and into the light, reclaiming your productivity and unleashing your full potential. So, why wait any longer? Break through the fog and embrace the clarity and drive that await you on the other side.
Apart from Maibach, I also made sure to reach out to Susan Joy Hassol, who is a renowned and highly respected authority in the field of climate communication. It was essential for me to consult with both of them, considering their expertise and influence in this domain.
When I asked Hassol about her thoughts on Guterres’s rhetoric, whether it was terrifying and off-putting or motivating, she shared her perspective. Hassol, who leads Climate Communication, a nonprofit focused on science and outreach, provided an enlightening response. (Full disclosure: She also serves on the advisory board of an environmental journalism program I oversee at the University of Colorado.)
I don’t know if it’s really fair to accuse him of intentionally scaring people. In my opinion, he’s attempting to cut through the haze of distractions and complacency in order to raise awareness about the pressing need for action. I agree that our current situation is indeed terrifying, considering the alarming events occurring globally and the lethargic response to address them. As he’s pointed out, it would be sheer madness to continue expanding our reliance on fossil fuels. We must urgently phase them out and it all starts by putting a stop to new fossil fuel projects. However, despite the urgency, the industry is still growing both domestically and internationally. We are undeniably in the midst of a climate crisis and it’s high time we start taking serious action.
Think about the contrast between being alarmist and being genuinely alarmed. An alarmist is someone who tends to cause unnecessary fear or panic among others. However, there are situations where we should genuinely feel alarmed. The reason for this is that what is currently unfolding is indeed troubling and calls for our concern. This analogy helps to illustrate the distinction between exaggerating and exaggerating appropriately. In this case, what is taking place should genuinely arouse our alarm.
It’s important for people to feel a mixture of concern and optimism. If you’re not worried, you’re probably not paying close attention to the world around you. However, there is a glimmer of hope in the ongoing shift toward clean energy, even though progress is not happening as rapidly as we would like. In the United States, the Inflation Reduction Act brings some hope, although it is just a beginning and there are efforts to undermine its impact. Personally, I believe that we have the capacity to make the necessary changes, but I have reservations about whether we actually will. Interestingly, studies show that these mixed emotions can actually motivate action on climate change. It’s crucial to recognize that the challenges we face are not primarily technical or logistical, but rather political in nature.
Upon witnessing the overwhelming applause for Guterres’s metaphor, endorsed by both Maibach and Hassol, I found myself yearning to gather insights from fresh viewpoints. Thus, I reached out to three additional individuals to gain their perspectives.
Picture this: you’ve stumbled upon a rockumentary like no other, aptly titled “This is Spinal Tap.” Trust me, you’re in for a wild ride! This film captures the essence of a rock band’s journey with an absurdly hilarious twist. Prepare to be dazzled by the unparalleled creativity and sheer genius of this mockumentary. “This is Spinal Tap” will have you laughing until your sides ache, as you accompany the band on their outrageous adventures. So, get ready to be blown away by this one-of-a-kind cinematic masterpiece that will surely leave you in stitches. Don’t wait any longer – buckle up and let’s dive right into the world of “This is Spinal Tap!”
Revkin did not hold back in his critique of Guterres’s concept of “global boiling.” He expressed his disapproval without any doubt or hesitation.
He doesn’t have any other skills or abilities, only empty talk. I can see why he made that statement, it’s similar to a particular scene in the movie ‘This is Spinal Tap.’
The movie Revkin is referring to is a mockumentary about rock and roll, and the hilarious scene focuses on an amplifier that doesn’t top out volume-wise at 10; it goes all the way to 11.
Revkin dismissed the approach as utterly ridiculous and counterproductive. He emphasized that such rhetoric will not achieve the desired results, as its ineffectiveness has been apparent for decades.
To put it simply, Revkin shares the same viewpoint as Michael Mann (and me) that cranking the amplifier up to the maximum volume, so to speak, will prove ineffective. So, what’s the alternative? Well, we need to find a better solution that doesn’t rely on such a brute force approach. It’s like trying to push a square peg into a round hole – it just won’t fit. So, instead of persisting with this ineffective method, we should explore more innovative and practical strategies that will actually make a difference.
Let’s ponder on this: Isn’t it fascinating how we can constantly enhance an amplifier, making it progressively louder by simply adding more numbers to the volume controls? We can go from 11 to 12, and keep on increasing without any limit. However, in light of our current situation where global warming has evolved into global boiling, we face a perplexing question: what lies beyond in our journey with a continuously warming climate? Could we perhaps coin the term “global baking”? And then move on to “global scorching”? Eventually reaching the peak of “global roasting” and climaxing with “global broiling”? The possibilities seem endless, but it’s crucial for us to consider the severity and urgency of our environmental predicament.
So, what’s the next step? Should we crank up the volume on the amplifier until our eardrums explode?
Revkin highlights the importance of focusing on policy intricacies rather than mere rhetoric when it comes to addressing the issue at hand. He emphasizes that genuine strides in reducing emissions will only be achieved if affluent nations provide financial support for transitioning to cleaner energy sources in poorer countries. However, it’s essential to note that this support should extend beyond the transition phase alone. Revkin asserts that in order to meet our energy needs, we must drastically increase the amount of energy we currently consume.
Do you believe that there’s slim to no chance of this actually happening? Well, Revkin is on the same wavelength as you. But here’s a thought: Can using “global boiling” as a powerful tool to convey truth to those in authority, like Ed Maibach suggested, potentially alter this situation?
Is our fear of fear really outdated? It’s a thought-provoking question that warrants our attention. In today’s fast-paced world, we often find ourselves paralyzed by fear, whether it’s the fear of failure, the fear of the unknown, or even the fear of fear itself. But maybe it’s time we reassess our perception of fear. Perhaps, instead of fearing fear, we should embrace it as a catalyst for personal growth and transformation. It’s like taking a leap of faith, jumping into the unknown with an open mind and a willing heart. By facing our fears head-on, we can break free from the constraints that hold us back and discover our true potential. So, let’s challenge ourselves to overcome our outdated fear of fear and embrace the power it holds to bring about positive change in our lives.
Afterwards, I had the opportunity to chat with Leslie Dodson, an extraordinary ex-TV reporter who currently shares leadership of the Global Laboratory at the Worcester Polytechnic Institute in Massachusetts. Dodson’s expertise lies in creating hands-on, engaging experiences that allow individuals to navigate through the complexities of climate change and develop informed opinions. Additionally, she has dedicated her efforts towards engineering initiatives aimed at improving the lives of those in underprivileged communities.
During a phone conversation, Dodson, a climate communicator, shared with me the concerns they and others in the field have had regarding the notion that a forceful message could potentially repel audiences. The prevailing belief has been to avoid shocking individuals, as it could render them immobile and unable to take action. However, perhaps it is time to reevaluate this viewpoint in light of the changing times. The research that originally influenced our fear of instilling fear may no longer be applicable today. Our apprehension about causing alarm could be lacking relevance in today’s context.
Dodson believes in the importance of exploring multiple approaches when it comes to addressing climate change. He values the inclusion of fresh perspectives, even if they are straightforward or direct. In his opinion, if a policymaker at the United Nations introduces a new perspective on the issue, it should be welcomed and considered beneficial. Dodson emphasizes the significance of continuous conversations and discussions among all individuals involved in order to achieve meaningful progress in tackling the challenges of climate change.
She strongly believes that having a wide range of perspectives and opinions is important. She embraces this diversity without any hesitation. According to her, scientists do not possess exclusive rights to shaping the narrative. She believes that the complexity of any situation cannot be distilled into a single statement.
As we wrapped up our extensive chat, she expressed her belief in the power of flooding the system with as many messages as possible. She emphasized that if these messages could gain viral traction, it would be even better. In her view, criticizing [Guterres’s] message is not a productive exercise.
For decades, I have found myself simultaneously motivated and terrified. These contrasting emotions have fueled my drive and inspired me to push beyond my comfort zone. The combination of enthusiasm and fear has propelled me forward, urging me to embrace new challenges and take risks. Like a rollercoaster ride, this mixture of emotions has made my journey both exhilarating and nerve-wracking. It’s as if these feelings have become my loyal companions, constantly nudging me to grow and achieve more. Despite the perplexity and uncertainty that comes with this rollercoaster ride, I have found that it brings an incredible burst of energy and excitement to my life. It’s like lightning striking in the sky, electrifying my senses and compelling me to reach new heights. This lifelong dance of motivation and terror has molded me into a resilient and adaptable individual, always ready to face the next thrilling adventure. So, I ask myself, what would life be without this intriguing blend of emotions? It is the very essence of being human, pushing us to explore the unknown and discover our true potential.
Lastly, but certainly not of minor importance, I had a conversation with an extremely talented and intelligent individual named Daniel Glick. Glick is not only a journalist, but also a published author and an avid adventurer who frequently navigates rivers. His expertise lies in the realm of climate-related matters, with an extensive track record that spans several years. In fact, he co-authored a cover story for Newsweek as far back as 1996, and in 2004, he penned a compelling cover story for National Geographic called “The Big Thaw”. Additionally, Glick served as a science editor for the U.S. National Climate Assessment in 2014 – an impressive role to say the least. Interestingly enough, he is also romantically involved with Leslie Dodson.
Like everyone else I interviewed, I inquired Glick about his perception of Guterres’s rhetoric. Did he find it scary and discouraging or inspiring? Furthermore, did he believe it was an impactful rhetorical approach?
“I’ve been feeling a mix of motivation and fear for many years,” he expressed in our conversation over the phone. “But I’ve reached a point where I don’t want any more of those emotions. What I’m really interested in is finding the right language that can inspire people to take action on a large scale. You see, we’ve realized that although each of us can individually install solar panels on our roofs, the collective response is not proportional to the severity of the threat we face.
When it comes to communicating about this threat, we have experimented with terms like global warming, global weirding, climate emergency, and now global boiling. But we are unsure which one will truly resonate with people.
It’s frustrating witnessing all these extreme events happening without the urgency and gravity of the issue sinking in.”
Later in our conversation, he told me about an insurance issue he was experiencing in the aftermath of the Marshall Fire, a devastating wildfire and urban conflagration near Boulder, Colorado in 2021. Fueled by drought and driven by hurricane-force winds, the blaze ultimately destroyed an estimated 1,084 structures, including homes, a hotel, and a shopping center — in December.
Glick expressed his frustration this year, sharing that his attempts to secure insurance for their house from a renowned insurance company in the country were unsuccessful due to the looming threat of wildfires. To his surprise, their humble abode, nestled in the plains rather distant from the heavily wooded foothills of the majestic Colorado Rockies, was not immune to the ravaging effects of the Marshall Fire. As this fire rapidly spread over several miles towards the east, encroaching upon the plains not far from their residence, insurance options began to dwindle. It seems that this catastrophic event has played a significant role in the scarcity of insurance coverage.
So, it’s pretty cool that Guiterres used the term ‘global boiling’ – I gotta say, I like his enthusiasm. I mean, why not shake things up and see what happens, right? It’s like adding a pinch of spice to a dish, just to see how the flavors burst out. Let’s give it a shot and see how it all turns out!
Glick continued the discussion by delving into the various theories regarding how change can occur. One approach is the bottom-up method where citizens are the driving force behind demanding action, and policymakers eventually acknowledge these demands. On the other hand, there is also the top-down approach, which involves leadership initiating change and guiding the way.
When it comes to his role as Secretary-General of the United Nations, Guterres holds the prestigious position of leading the largest international organization in the world. It was quite apparent that his choice of words during his press conference was carefully thought out and not simply spontaneous. However, it remains uncertain whether individuals other than the environmental minister from the Seychelles will truly take notice of his powerful statement. It’s difficult to determine the level of attention it will receive from a broader audience.
In his conclusion, he added that he is uncertain if there are any secret words that can spark substantial, widespread, and impactful efforts to address climate change. However, he finds it unproductive to dismiss these concerns as merely exaggerated or alarmist. He poses a thought-provoking question: “What comes after boiling?” By asking this, he emphasizes that if we ignore the urgency of the situation, we will ultimately witness extensive human suffering.
Now, it’s my turn to have the final say:
Guterres was definitely doing something out of the ordinary for bureaucrats – he used direct, uncomplicated, genuine, and unrestrained language in an attempt to communicate the harsh reality to influential global leaders, urging them to take immediate action to prevent a climate catastrophe. However, it’s worth noting that Per Espen Stocknes cautioned against employing disaster framing as it can be ineffective. So, one may wonder why using this approach more frequently would yield better results now.
When it comes to the topic at hand, let’s dive into a classic quote that never fails to make us stop and think: “Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.” This powerful statement reminds us that if we keep repeating the same actions but hope for different outcomes, we’re only setting ourselves up for disappointment. It’s like trying to fit a square peg into a round hole – no matter how many times we try, it just won’t work. So, why not take a step back, reassess our approach, and try something new? After all, variety is the spice of life, and trying different strategies might just lead us to the results we truly desire. It’s time to break free from the cycle of repetition and embrace the potential of change.
Honestly, I’m not entirely convinced that Guiterres’s straightforward remarks reached a wide audience. Based on my informal assessment of news reports, it seems that the Secretary-General’s use of the term “global boiling” didn’t create as big of a reaction in the media as he may have anticipated.
When I scoured through various news outlets, it was quite puzzling to see the limited coverage of Secretary-General Guterres’ comments. CNN barely mentioned it, only giving a brief reference in their early morning “5 Things” podcast. Surprisingly, MSNBC did cover his remarks, but I expected Fox News to excessively mock him, yet they didn’t mention it at all (at least, I couldn’t find any such content). Instead, they aired an Associated Press article discussing the unusually high temperatures in July, burying the Secretary-General’s comments deep within. The Washington Post also ran a similar story, but I couldn’t find anything related in the New York Times. It’s really intriguing how these major news organizations varied in their coverage of this issue.
Maybe the reason for this is that after enduring weeks of intense, merciless heatwaves and witnessing other mind-boggling instances of extreme weather, journalists and editors are simply feeling numb.
To be honest, I’m not entirely sure about this. However, I have a feeling that even though Guiterres was attempting to express the truth to those in positions of authority, they simply didn’t pay attention. It seems like his message fell on deaf ears.