Climate change versus creating an environment for change

As issues of climate change get complex every day and every time, many actors and stakeholders have emerged and occupied considerable space, with the idea of moving the climate change discourse ahead and to other levels. 
But as the green actors and stakeholders alike, advocate for climate change behavioural change, one wonders how much climate for change they are putting in place.

 In this regard, special attention is to be focussed on the role effective communication play in facilitating a climate for change environment.

It appears, the climate change agents and their stakeholders alike have not yet struck the right chord, therefore, practically, and they are simply not yet there, as they are currently and seriously entrenched in the vicious climate mix.

The main question is how much effective communication can be implemented to culminate into the creation of climate for change, tough enough to foster resilience and environmental sustainability for the sustainable future that we all want.

In as much as movements and organisations for social change exert pressure for environmental sustainability, it is only pressure against the hidden and enormous counter-movements from the rich and powerful, who are advocates against the real climate for change.

In this regard, the transition towards a sustainable socio-economic change is facing enormous obstacles, hidden behind the language of glib, deception, communication massaging, and rhetoric as well as climate change denial.
Core to the mantra of green movements and activism should be adaptation and then issues of resilience would be shaped by sustainable adaptation.

Of course, the reduction of greenhouse gases need also to be central to their green living campaigns but on this aspect, they need to prepare more than battle, as denialists and climate sinners are ever ready and prepared to throw carbon footprints everywhere as obstacles.

The hidden institutions of denialism always have something up their sleeves against the creation of a climate for change.

 As the situation stands right now, it would appear as if countries are heading for a rapid acceleration and expansion of the establishment of climate-friendliest technologies in the form of renewable energy but the intended beneficiaries are yet to realise a meaningful climate for change in this regard, despite all the hype and high level conferences.

It is also equally significant and paramount that stakeholders in green movements and activism should transform and make versatile changes to the way they communicate for the climate for change.

This is where their enormous rhetoric should be toned down towards sustainable engagement and inclusivity in order to fight massive cooperate sponsored glib from established institutions of denialism.

When people reach or attain the level where communication can transform and facilitate the establishment of climate for change then we can start to see the beginning of the unfolding of the new paradigm shift and impetus.

In developing countries, before we could talk of the aspect of communication challenges as other forms of obstacles, the other militating barriers which are in the form of lack of meaningful infrastructure development in order to complement efforts towards the desired climate for change.

In some instances and situations, infrastructural establishments may not be existing, rather substandard, dilapidated or all of the above.

As such, the people of these contexts and settings cannot be expected to move at the same wave length with those from the developed countries.

In this regard, the role of effective communication employed in the developing countries should be used to the existing procedural barriers and uplift their standards of living, spirits and social motivations to the same levels as those in the developed countries.

Of course, too many communicators and change agents may either duplicate roles of failure to communicate effectively if these aspects are not handled quite well, hence they may not communicate.

Therefore, inclusivity and engagement should be able to remove or tame existing obstacles and barriers, militating against the creation of meaningful climate for change.

It would also be interesting to note that some of these barriers and obstacles are firmly entrenched in their thoughts and imaginations hence it would be necessary to cleanse their world-views and imaginations so that they are transformed and initiated to the current discourse for social change.

 These can come about as a result of being able to do away with the prevailing socio-cultural myths which can also culminate into climate change of myths as well.

The climate change are still very much prevalent and common in developing countries, hence they have to be termed constructively.

Otherwise, if they are not termed or even powerfully designed, communication strategies may end up not achieving desired and sustainable results, aimed at creating a sustainable climate for change as against the idea of climate change.

Source: NewsDay

Post Author: MISA Zimbabwe

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.