Climate change and scientific skepticism - an infernal duo

However, thinned-out science editorial teams, gaps in education and massive lobbying are creating a massive scientific skepticism that provides a poor basis for climate protection in society.

Helga Weisz from the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK) is convinced that this must be counteracted at various levels.

"We live in a world that is dependent on a variety of highly complex technical conditions, all of which are ultimately based on science. If there is no basic understanding of this, then it's a big problem," says Helga Weisz.

The complexity of the issues surrounding climate change and climate protection simply do not fit into a media landscape "where things are abbreviated, attention is courted and business models have eroded over the past two decades".

Media coverage is falling short because budgets for science journalism are shrinking.

"Ultimately, this costs money, but this money is well invested, just as it is well invested in education," explained the expert, who heads the FutureLab "Social Metabolism & Impacts" at PIK.

High-quality journalism also contributes to the education of society.

Lobbying makes people skeptical

Without a fundamental change in many economic sectors, real climate protection is not possible. Above all, the energy systems sector - this also means "a huge shift in wealth and profit opportunities from one part of the economy, which has profited greatly from this over the past 100 years and can therefore exert political influence, to others".

This movement or tilting of the system provokes massive lobbying activities, which in turn contributes a great deal to scientific skepticism.

"It must be made clear that important players are losing their business model and that there is great resistance from this direction, while many others, and above all future generations, will benefit from this," says Weisz.

There are more than two sides to the problem

According to Helga Weisz, individual technical solutions that are presented to the public as a solution to the climate problem are nothing but a dangerous oversimplification of the facts.

The message from some politicians is not as simple as it sounds:

"This message is that nothing has to change for the individual. We simply change the technology and everything goes on as before. That is of course completely wrong and misleading," Weisz clarified.

The context of the really big issue should also be communicated. The worst thing now is certainly simplification for the supposed benefit of the reader or potential voter.

"Disaster fatigue"

Climate protection is sometimes in the public eye and then fades into the background again.

In our fast-moving times of short attention spans, no topic can be kept at the top for so long.

"Now we have inflation and war in Ukraine and that is a top priority. But you could communicate that: Yes, there is high inflation and then it will go away, but climate change is not going away," says Weisz.

Unfortunately, that's the way it is.