The public’s opinion on the science, economics, and politics of climate change is greatly effected by the media’s coverage of it. Many influential groups and people have also sparked a debate for the pressing issue of climate change. It is a universal problem that effects the entire population. The media has acted as a positive and negative resource for people regarding climate change. Public figures, television, and the media use their platforms as a way to target the population in order to ignite concern for climate change and create more education and efforts to save the planet. People read, watch, and listen to all different forms of mass communication and may base their beliefs from the celebrities’ or political figure’s point of view. The debate of climate change is a relevant topic in today’s world because we are living through it. We witness our world get better and worse. It is proven that this generation of humans have done enough to create a change in the environment that experts claim as irreversible. The problem with resolving this controversy is the disagreement between the scientific community and the media or politics. All of these different factions of people are given platforms that have a lot of control when it comes to this universal issue; which can be controversial. Furthermore, some argue, the level of involvement of the population may be too heavily relied on what we hear in the news, online, and on television. However, these programs and people have created efforts that have led to significant improvements for climate change when the level of communication is accurate. This starts online. I aim to target uneducated citizens, non-social media users, and avid users. All of these groups can learn why and how climate change is a pressing issue that they have the power to advocate and research on their own. How have public figures and the media influenced society's perception on climate change?

Anthropogenic climate change refers to the production of greenhouse gases emitted by human activity. According to the Global Greenhouse Warming society, scientists have discovered that human activity has increased the proportion of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, which has skyrocketed over the past few hundred years. This is alarming because the health and potential lives of many people are at stake. I have always been environmentally conscious and I believe everyone should be willing to go the extra mile in order to help save the planet. I am educated on the subject because of an AP Environment class I took in high school and now I feel obligated to share what I have learned. Informing other people on what this all means will help them understand the extremity of the situation. It can affect us directly as individuals. For example, areas already experiencing health-threatening weather and climate phenomena, such as severe heat or hurricanes, are likely to experience worsening impacts, such as higher temperatures and increased storm intensity. This is creating unprecedented or unanticipated health problems or health threats in places where they have not previously occurred (US Global Research Program). Our world is in a place now that it was never meant to be in. The pollution of greenhouse gases by humans, has caused this process to proceed at an exponential pace. Humans have been burning fossil fuels since around 1750. About 45% of the carbon dioxide from fossil fuels has remained in the atmosphere, while about 30% has been infused by the oceans, and the small remainder has been taken up by plants. This is a major problem because the atmosphere can only remove about half of this CO2, and that is over a scale of 30 years. Essentially, 30% can be removed within a few centuries; but the remaining 20% will stay in the atmosphere for many thousands of years (Global Greenhouse Warming). These statistics are commonly skewed in people’s minds. Many still argue that climate change is a natural phenomenon. Although this may be true, it would have been a much more gradual change. The Stanford Social Innovation Review gives insight on what makes influence the most effective. Dubbs and McGeary said, “It is important to have proper credentials with the greater good for all people in mind.” Therefore, the best way to communicate the problem and possible solutions of climate change on a large enough scale is with social media, television, and influential people. 

The use of social media has been proven to be a successful medium in communicating with the rest of society. In order to create awareness and positive change for the environment,  people use social media to share their unfiltered, genuine beliefs. The Geological Society of America (GSA) shows how Facebook is observed by major industries. They do this in order to gain knowledge on how they should be attracting their audiences online (Kirk). This proves that social media is a strong tool. The GSA was able to judge individual’s beliefs on climate change through simple “likes”, shares, and comments. The same is true on Twitter. A specific event within the United Nations conference was discussed in the “twitter-sphere”, and gained a lot of attention (The Geological Society of America). They found out that the viewers of these tweets were not simply clicking on them blindly. They were actively participating in the online conversation. Whether they were learning or spreading information on the subject, the statistics show that more than half the users believed in climate change afterwards and will now support environmental policies. The companies, celebrities, and politicians who played a role in discussing the new policies and research found wanted to establish a platform in order to get their beliefs across. Politicians, Celebrities, Religious Leaders, and Governmental Organizations are all popular figures found with Twitter accounts that receive a lot of traffic on their pages during online debates about climate change (McNeal). From the observations by the GSA, they provided some best practices in how to create and organize climate related tweets that have high reach and longevity. This study assists communicators in understanding the role Twitter can play in regard to climate change and how to most efficiently utilize this platform (McNeal). Overall, social media gives major agencies a look inside what will get people’s attention and the overall flow of how information spreads.

A Huffington Post article talks about the concept of  social media’s role in environmental change. People debate whether it is really helping, or simply clicktivism. Clicktivism  is commonly defined as the use of digital media for facilitating social change and activism. Opponents believe that clicktivism reduces activism to a mere mouse-click, yielding numbers with little or no real engagement or commitment to the cause. Still, this is a new way for people to quickly and easily support an organization or cause and maximize a page’s views. It is believed that social media has the power to impact the public, corporations, and the government all on one forum. As a result of social media, the environmental sector can be shifted in the right direction (Dosemagen). Certain social media websites target people who have a vital voice on this issue. A credible source, like a government official, has a lot of power over his or her followers. The former governor of California, Arnold Schwarzenegger, is a popular face in Hollywood and the media. He used Facebook to take his stand on climate change because he has the power to influence millions of people in one place. By simply writing a post on Facebook establishing his view points, he was able to impact more than 103,000 people’s opinions (Dwyer). Similarly, the Harvard Public Opinion project created a poll to examine the civic engagements of American millennials on popular topics, such as climate change. After a video with the EPA executive Gina McCarthy, we learned that three in four people believed that climate change is happening at an alarming rate. This video interview with Gina McCarthy establishes the need for greenhouse gas guidelines, how to combat global warming, and it reaches out to future leaders that it is important that the population always sticks together for the common goal. These television programs were successful in raising concern. It emphasizes that television has an impact on its viewers and how they react to universal problems. Whether one disagrees or agrees with their take on climate change, social media is open to all campaigns for the public to see. These campaigns are led by experts on the subject, so people are able to learn from them and actually take a step toward positive adjustments. Schwarzenegger’s post attests to the claim that social media is a platform for influential figures to use to properly impact their viewers beliefs. It is not just something people click on and briefly read. Social media is a way for activism to spread quickly and easily. 

On the other hand, social media, television, or people can sometimes hinder the public’s knowledge of our environmental state. Social media is a public forum and anyone can write what they want. Climate change is real, but not everything online is as credible as one may think.  It makes sense why people would be hesitant to spend their time and money for climate climate. Especially if they come across the wrong source. The media has also led to violence. People join riots and protest because of something said or established that they do not agree with, instead of dealing with it through a non-violent debate (Dosemagen). This is causing things to move in the opposite direction because the only way we can make an effective change, is as a united population with the aim to end climate change. Although, technology has advanced greatly and there is a way in which communication forums can prove that the media is creating a positive change. It uses the metrics available through Web analytics to optimize Web pages, emails and online petitions. Social media may not be the perfect platform, but it has many benefits that outweigh the downfalls especially as even more sophisticated softwares are created to determine the level of influence the internet and TV have.

The news are also very biased sources that influence society. News on television and online have a way of keeping their viewers to be one sided. Many people are prone to agree with their usual new sources just because they have been reliant in the past, which causes people to be exposed to partisan opinions. This is harmful to the public because one sided arguments makes it difficult for policy makers to get through to people. The Yale Program on Climate Change Communication poses an interesting question: “Do the media influence audience beliefs, or are audiences simply drawn to outlets that support their pre-existing views?” (Feldman). Sometimes they only create stories to just gain and maintain viewers, instead of spreading important information. It is very unethical. This is an “echo chamber”. Society tends to follow what they are comfortable with, even if it is not true. However, as long as there are more reliable sources out there to overthrow these harmful aspects of the media, climate change will still be dealt with appropriately. These biased or even fake news stories should not become a threat because as long as people are aware of this, they will know to reference more than one news source. Hearing many sides to an issue before forming opinions is important, and the wide variety of news on tv and online makes the problem of biased news decrease. Even if certain claims are biased or false, the population is heavily affected by it just because of their influential power. It is important that these platforms are used in a way that will benefit the education of society and the well-being of earth so that we can work together in an effort to stop global warming and climate change.

As stated previously, climate change is a universal issue that effects everyone regardless if you can personally see or feel it. It is important for people to be educated and care about this issue because it is impacting the present, and especially, the future. The science behind climate change is real, the problem is convincing people on why they should care. We have a lot of responsibility to create a better future for this population. If carbon dioxide emissions continues to increase there will be increase in dangerous health effects including harmful radiation, water and food insecurity. Extreme climate events can be very unsafe and damage shelters, and overpopulation leads to the spread of diseases (The Lancet). Society should care about these issues because we have the power to bring together governments, international agencies, and non- governmental organizations to reduce greenhouse gas emissions (The Lancet). People will have more concern for the environment after the extremity of climate change is clarified. Our health and safety will greatly improve through monitoring, discussing, and advocating. These are things that can be done very easily. According to a 2014 survey by Cone Communications, 52 percent of adults go online to discuss what is on their minds. Among millennials, it is 71 percent. And there is ample opportunity to do this. Whether you are personally becoming an advocate, or if you are taking the time to become educated and make a difference, it is important to pay attention to the world around you. I believe that in order to gain support and greater visibility, we should be where the action is. We need to be part of the online discussion and exchange of ideas. But we also need to find ways to leverage that online presence to make digital engagement productive and meaningful (Huffington Post). The media has been a very powerful tool in tackling the problem of climate change and making it a reality. It is now our job to take advantage of it in the right way. 

Climate change is a topic that has been heavily debated over the past decade. Experts are realizing that a major change in our lifestyles need to occur. Positive change will only happen if the population is properly educated on the subject and becomes united in the goal to decrease fossil fuels emissions. Society has been neglecting the environment for over a century. There is proper scientific evidence that shows there is increased amounts of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and in the ocean that cannot be broken down or removed. These gases are harmful to plants and animals and is causing extreme changes in climates to occur. Social media, television, and influential figures have not taken this issue lightly. They are putting forth information and efforts for society to observe and act upon. Facebook and Twitter have been used as platforms for environmental awareness and it is working. The clicks to view web pages are not just gestures. It is a way for society to interact and share ideas on how to create a better world and keep the concerns for citizens a part of the conversation. Arnold Schwarzenegger is an example of an influential figure who used social media to publicize his ideas, and the aftermath of his posts were positive based off of the amount of shares, likes, and comments. Social media has become a force for societal change. Everyone has a different opinion on how to inform people. Social media, public figures and television have proven to be a powerful force in overcoming this challenge. All of these platforms have found success in operating effectively within the digital sphere. Targeting large audiences to raise concern for climate change and creating more education has led to a universal goal to improve the environment. The media, television, and influential figures are shining light on subjects previously unknown, deepening conversations and empowering citizens of the world to unite and effect change.
