The Rise Of Dalit Feminism

The issue of who is/can be a feminist dalit feminist discourse has persisted from the beginning. 

The question of experiencing authenticity has become a rallying cry for those who argue that only ‘dalit women' are dalit feminists. 

In contrast, experience is questioned in terms of transparency, and the birth-based community is seen as limiting and ghettoized. 

From being a Dalit woman to being a Dalit feminist, this section takes you on a journey. 

This section starts with a mapping of a Dalit woman's identity and continues to an examination of the positionality of/as a Dalit feminist. 

This outlines the main theoretical features of Dalit Feminism while also speaking to its primary audience in this manner. 

This mapping reveals a Dalit Feminism theorization that is both ongoing and ever-evolving. 

The conclusion's title has a political connotation. 

As an epistemological frame, the ontological interpretation of being and becoming in nearly binary terms is rebuilt here. 

Dalit Feminism is seen to be defined by the ontological category of ‘Dalit woman,' but also embracing a stance that emphasizes the politics of casteist sexism and its structural implications. 

We go from the perspective of ‘Dalit women' to that of a Dalit feminist intersectional viewpoint. 

This framework may be used to generate alternative knowledge regarding caste and gender as an epistemological instrument. 

This paradigm is also helpful since it looks at implicit casteist-sexism (in texts/issues that do not explicitly include Dalit women) as well as explicit casteist-sexism (in texts/issues that do not explicitly feature Dalit women). 

This mapping revisits and modifies the concept of the ‘Dalit woman' as its main constituency via its study of Dalit Feminism as an epistemological framework. 

Indeed, Dalit Feminism is based on the basis of Dalit women and their experiences. 

However, as argued in and, the presence of Dalit women, or their articulations, does not automatically constitute a text/event Dalit feminist. 

Through the notion of casteist sexism, the technique of reinterpretation becomes crucial in developing an understanding of the connection between caste and gender, which changes knowledge based on these two as separate systems. 

And this is how a Dalit feminist intersectional perspective is formed. 

As a result, this mapping ends by arguing that Dalit Feminism is a stance, not just an identity. 

As a result, we may utilize the Dalit feminist intersectional perspective to expose the underlying casteist, sexist narratives in any section (not only those that solely concentrate on Dalit women characters). 

Sharmila Rege expands on the concept of speaking as a Dalit feminist by emphasizing that the Dalit feminist perspective avoids "the narrow alley of direct experience based "authenticity" and narrow "identity" politics, and includes "other groups who must educate themselves about the histories, preferred social relations and utopias, and the struggles of the marginalized," as well as "other groups who must educate themselves about the histories, preferred social relations and utopias, and the struggles of the marginalized."

Dalit Feminism as a viewpoint is not limited to Dalit women in this definition. 

In reality, it becomes a political platform that allows for the development of solidarity in the face of systems of intersectional oppression. 

When seen through the lens of analytic methodology, such an understanding of the Dalit feminist perspective broadens the scope of its theoretical framework. 

Because Dalit feminist epistemology is based on tasks of recovery and reinterpretation, Dalit Feminism focuses on both Dalit women's articulations (as seen in their autobiographies) and unraveling the complexities of caste and gender in texts and issues that are primarily viewed through the lens of caste or gender. 

In such cases, the confluence between caste and gender is implied. 

Dalit Feminism offers an essential perspective through which to examine any work, whether or not it includes representations of Dalit women, resulting in new ways of seeing that emphasize the intersections of caste and gender. 

To demonstrate this argument, I offer a Dalit feminist analysis of the films Lipstick Under My Burkha  and Sairat , both of which, although significant feminist and Dalit works, are not explicitly concerned with the figure of the Dalit woman. 

Lipstick Under My Burkha  tells the tales of four women who live in the same neighborhood and whose parallel lives show patriarchal tyranny and resistance. 

Their ‘real' and socially-accepted life are controlled by patriarchy, as Usha Parmar dresses up as an asexual ‘buaji,' Shirin Aslam is exposed to her husband's sexual violence, Rehana Abidi's behavior is dictated by her parents, and Leela is on her way to an arranged marriage. 

At the same time, these women have their fantasy lives, which are shown in the story of Rosy, the protagonist of an erotic pulp fiction section that Usha secretly enjoys reading. 

Their concealed aspirations of finding in love, expressing sexual urges, and achieving their objectives are partially performed via their secret second lives as a lady engaged in phone-sex, a salesman, a young rebel, and an ambitious entrepreneur, as shown in this section. 

After being rejected/reprimanded by their families and society, the four women are shown to have a sense of sisterhood based on their common experiences of patriarchal oppression as well as a shared moment of resistance at the conclusion of the film. 

The mainstream feminist interpretation of this film has emphasized its expression of female sexual desire, the duality in women's life, and its assertion of autonomy. 

Even reviews that praise the film's 'inclusiveness' in terms of age and religion, as well as its 'cautionary notes' that preclude any simple resolution of the difficult issues about women's desire that it raises, praise its 'inclusiveness' in terms of age and religion. 

When seen from a Dalit feminist intersectional perspective, the concept of inclusion and its depiction of female desire are reinterpreted. 

Leela and her mother, in particular, become important from this perspective. 

These two characters are characterized more ambiguously in the film than the rest. 

This stylistic difference from Shirin and Rehana seems to identify them as Hindus since none of them wears a burkha in public. 

Leela, on the other hand, is never given a surname, unlike the other three major female characters in the film. 

Given that surnames are often indicative of caste and group identification, this omission is especially noteworthy. 

In light of the film's silence regarding Leela's mother's marital status; whether she is a widow or if her husband abandoned her, this suppression of caste identity becomes even more significant. 

The mother, who supports herself by modeling nude for art students, admonishes her daughter Leela, telling her that the only option to marriage is to become a prostitute or to pursue a career as a nude model, as she does. 

This connection between body and profession can be understood from a Dalit feminist intersectional perspective in terms of the brahmanical sexualization of Dalit women's bodies, as a result of which Dalit women, who are considered inherently impure and lustful, are often confined to jobs that perpetuate their sexualization. 

Leela's mother's restricted option—marriage or prostitution/sexualized use of the body in the public sphere—takes on a caste-specific meaning, preventing any true agential exercise of choice. 

Intriguingly, it is Leela who is portrayed to use her sexual agency to the fullest extent possible in the film, not only initiating sex with her boyfriend many times, but even recording the act in one case and afterwards kissing her fiancé in front of her boyfriend to make him jealous. 

While the film's emphasis on gender religion and the contradiction between sexual freedom and sexual oppression seems to exclude caste as an intersectional category of study, it also employs the brahmanical sexualization of the Dalit woman's body in its portrayals of Leela and her mother. 

As a result, a Dalit feminist interpretation of the film emphasizes the connection of caste and gender, which is implied in the film but overlooked by mainstream feminism. 

Sairat  puts caste front and center, while Lipstick Under My Burkha ignores it. 

The harshness of the caste system is illustrated by its strictures against exogamy in this Marathi film, which has garnered both financial and critical acclaim. 

In the film, a Dalit lad called Parshya and an upper-caste girl named Archie (from the landlord Patil caste) fall in love, are apprehended, escape and marry, only to be stabbed to death by the girl's family. 

Sairat has received praise for bringing to light the "disturbing" realities of caste, as well as playing Archie, a strong female character who "challenges traditional gender norms" by riding a Royal Enfield Bullet and standing up for Parshya against her brother. 

As a result, the film is commended for addressing both caste and gender issues. 

Caste and gender, on the other hand, are regarded as two separate groups that Parshya and Archie must deal with.

While Parshya is regarded as a symbol of Dalit tyranny by the uppercaste Patils, Archie is confronted with patriarchy via her family, particularly her father and brother. 

However, from a Dalit feminist intersectional perspective, the junction of caste and gender becomes the primary issue. 

When seen via this lens, the film seems to tacitly support rather than question certain casteist patriarchal beliefs. 

This film is considered a classic Dalit representation because it explores the Ambedkarite concept of inter-caste marriage (exogamy) via the union of a Dalit boy and an upper-caste lady. 

As a result, the Dalit lad becomes the main focus of the film, with the first part focused on his pursuit of the upper-caste girl who is the object of his love. 

This narrative arc implies a link between Dalit empowerment and Dalit masculinity. 

In reality, the film emphasizes Parshya's masculinity not only via his athletic prowess, but also through a comparison of his strong body to that of his bow-legged buddy, who, unlike Parshya, is unable to get the lady of his dreams. 

The film's near-complete omission of Dalit women strengthens this implicit link between Dalit masculinity and Dalit empowerment. 

Despite the fact that Parshya's mother and sister appear in the film, they are just in the background. 

While Parshya is away at school, his sister stays at home, and the film shows little knowledge of the family's gender inequality. 

The only time Parshya's mother and sister are shown conversing in the movie is during their discussion with Archie, during which they seem to be acutely aware of the latter's upper-caste status (as is visible through their servile attitude while speaking to Archie). 

As a result, this short contact does little to break down the caste barrier between women. 

The portrayal of Archie as a powerful, confident woman contrasts sharply with the near-invisibility of Dalit women. 

When seen in this light, Archie's caste identification becomes crucial to comprehending her agency in the film. 

Archie's behavior, for example, when she visits the large well and taunts the Dalit boys swimming there, represent a kind of caste agency that, in a harsher version, defines upper-caste men's verbal and physical attack on Dalit males. 

Caste dominance is portrayed as aggressive masculinity of upper-caste males when Dalit men verbally attack upper-caste men. 

Archie appropriates this masculinist casteist agency by mocking the Dalit lads. 

The mainstream understanding of Archie's pride as solely feminist is therefore challenged by a Dalit feminist reading, which emphasizes the caste privilege underpinning the feeling of superiority that characterizes her agency in connection to the Dalit males, especially Parshya. 

Archie's portrayal of caste and gender intersects even more in the second part of the film, when she and Parshya move to a new city to escape their caste-ridden hamlet. 

Archie does not have quick access to her caste authority in the public realm in this new social context, making her susceptible to sexual predators. 

Even in the city, however, Archie is portrayed to advance rapidly to a managerial position, whereas Parshya remains a mechanic, a low-paying, demeaning profession. 

As a result, their workplaces perpetuate the casteist pattern of valuing an upper-caste individual (although a woman) above a Dalit person. 

However, inside the domestic realm, Archie is perceived to be in charge of childcare and cooking, while Parshya shops and brings home the required supplies, reinforcing the patriarchal divide between the private and public spheres. 

Refocusing on the junction of caste and gender, rather than caste and gender in isolation, provides a new perspective on Sairat. 

It offers a more nuanced view of patriarchy's role in the portrayal of Dalit women, upper-caste women, and Dalit men.

~ Jai Krishna Ponnappan

You may also want to read more about Feminism and Activism here.

STOP The Faroe Islands Mass Slaughter Of Dolphins And Pilot Whales.

Hundreds of pilot whales and dolphins are killed every summer in the Faroe Islands in drive hunts known as the "grind," which locals defend as a long-standing custom. 

The hunt usually draws harsh condemnation from across the world, but never more so than last week, when a particularly large capture resulted in the slaughter of 1,428 dolphins in one day, raising concerns on the island about a practice that environmentalists have long considered inhumane. 

Hundreds of dolphins lined up on the beach, some of them chopped up by what looked to be propellers, the sea crimson with blood, stunned some of the "grind's" most ardent fans and caused alarm in the archipelago's vital fishing sector. 

For the first time, the local administration of the autonomous Danish archipelago in the North Atlantic's depths announced it will re-evaluate laws regarding dolphin slaughter in particular, without contemplating an outright ban. 

"It was unlike anything I'd ever seen before. In the Faroe Islands, this is the largest capture "One of the hunter-fishermen present at the incident in the hamlet of Skala, Jens Mortan Rasmussen, said. 

A slaughterhouse in the open air While he is accustomed to criticism, he said that this time was "a bit different." 

"Fish exporters are receiving a slew of angry phone calls from their customers, and the salmon business has NOW mobilized to oppose dolphin slaughter. It's a first for me." 

The Faroe Islands, which have a population of 50,000 people, have traditionally hunted pilot whales in a technique known as "grindadrap," or "grind." 

Whales are initially surrounded by a broad semi-circle of fishing vessels, then driven into a bay, where they are beached and killed by fisherman. 

Normally, approximately 600 pilot whales are captured each year in this manner, with fewer dolphins. 

The flesh of pilot whales and dolphins is exclusively consumed by fisherman, but there is fear that word of the slaughter would harm the archipelago's image, which is heavily reliant on the sale of other species, notably salmon. 

The Faroese defend the hunt by claiming that their seas are teeming with whales, dolphins, and porpoises (over 100,000, or two per capita). 

According to Vincent Kelner, maker of a documentary on the "grind," they view it as an open-air butcher similar to the millions of animals slaughtered behind closed doors across the globe. 

For the Faroe Islanders, it has historical significance: without this sea meat, their people would have perished. 

'Overwhelmed' However, when fisherman targeted a particularly large school of dolphins on September 12, the size of the harvest in the vast fjord astounded them. 

The large quantity of beached animals delayed the killing, which "took a lot longer than a typical grind," according to Rasmussen. 

"It's extremely tough to send the dolphins out to sea when they reach the shore; they always return to the beach." The fisherman were "overwhelmed," according to Kelner. 

He said, "It hurts their dignity because it calls into doubt the professionalism they sought to establish." 

While defending the tradition as sustainable, the archipelago's prime minister, Bardur a Steig Nielsen, stated on Thursday that the government will reconsider "dolphin hunts and what role they should play in Faroese culture." Critics claim that the Faroese can no longer use the rationale of subsistence to justify the slaughter of whales and dolphins. 

"It's outrageous for such a hunt to take place in 2021 in a very wealthy European island community... with no need or use for such a vast quantity of contaminated meat," said Rob Read, chief operating officer of the marine conservation NGO Sea Shepherd, referring to high mercury levels in dolphin meat. 

The search, according to the NGO, allegedly violated numerous regulations. 

"The district's grind foreman was never notified, and as a result, the hunt was never authorized," it stated in a statement. 

It also alleges that many of the participants lacked a license, "which is needed in the Faroe Islands since it entails specialized training in how to swiftly kill pilot whales and dolphins," according to the report. 

"Photos indicate several of the dolphins were driven over by motorboats, basically chopped by propellers, resulting in a protracted and agonizing death," according to the report. 

According to Hallur av Rana, a Faroese journalist, although a vast majority of islanders support the "grind" in general, 53 percent reject dolphin slaughter. 

"There is no question that the Faroese whale hunts are a spectacular spectacle for those unfamiliar with whale hunts and killing," a government official told AFP. 

"However, the hunts are well-organized and thoroughly controlled," he added. 

The North Atlantic islands, which have a population of approximately 50,000 people, have traditionally hunted pilot whales rather than dolphins, according to the spokesperson. 

"There are typically a couple of them in the 'grind,' but we don't generally kill such a big number," said Hallur av Rana, a local television journalist. 

The "grindadrap" is a technique in which whale hunters surround them with a large semi-circle of fishing boats before driving them into a harbor to be beached and killed. 

"It seems to be very severe, and it took some time to kill them all, which is unusual," av Rana added. 

On social media, photos of the bleeding bodies of over 1,000 Atlantic white-sided dolphins on the beach aroused anger. 

Despite the fact that 53% of the population of the islands opposes the "grind," there are no plans to end the practice, according to av Rana. 

Authorities claim that it is a sustainable hunting method. 

Sea Shepherd, a group that fights against whale and dolphin killing, called it a "barbaric activity." Local estimates put the number of pilot whales in the seas surrounding the Faroe Islands at 100,000, with 600 killed last year. 

According to residents and activists familiar with the situation, this hunt was the biggest in recent Faroe Islands history. 

Previous hunts, known locally as "grinds" (short for grindadráp in Faroese), mostly targeted pilot whales (Globicephala spp.) in pods of a few hundred to several thousand. 

Valentina Crast of Sea Shepherd, an organization that has been fighting the Faroese cetacean hunts since the 1980s, believes they are a remnant of the past and have no place in contemporary society. 

She said that this hunt was especially cruel since there were insufficient participants, and that as a consequence, most of the dolphins died inhumanely. 

In a Zoom interview with Mongabay, Crast said, 

"It was absolutely terrible." 

“We discovered that many of them were not properly murdered. So, despite being tossed upon the shore and presumed dead, they were still alive. They were thrashing each other. We mistakenly believe that since these creatures can't cry or show their agony, they aren't in pain.” 

The hunt was not permitted, according to local media sources. 

According to local news source, Heri Petersen, the foreman in charge of authorizing any hunts in Eysturoy, he was not informed about the hunt and therefore did not authorize it. 

“I'm furious about it, and I'm putting a lot of space between myself and it,” Petersen added. 

According to Crast, failing to get authorization from the proper supervisor is a breach of a local Faroese "grind law." Many residents have voiced their displeasure with the hunt, but not everyone feels comfortable speaking out in public. 

Bára Olsen (not her actual name), a local lady from the Faroe Islands who has just lately begun opposing the hunts for animal rights grounds, told Mongabay that the latest incident had startled her. 

In a phone conversation with Mongabay, Olsen said, "What occurred on Sunday was just terrible." “There is a lot of anger right now over the dolphin killing; I've never seen anything like it.” 

Another Faroese resident, Johan Andreasen (not his actual name), told Mongabay that although he does not oppose pilot whale hunting and has even participated in past hunts, he does not support the current dolphin hunt. 

In a phone conversation with Mongabay, he said, "Things's not how we do it." “It's never been our way of doing things. "

“At least 200 to 300 whales had beached themselves fully up onto the beach, and instead of going after those whales, the hunters were actually swimming out, catching the ones that were swimming around,” Andreasen said. 

“That takes up a lot of time. And when the whales lie down on the beach, the pressure from their bodies pressing against the sand would press on their lungs, which is equally cruel to leave them there for so long without immediately murdering them.” 

Prime Minister Bárur á Steig Nielsen responded by saying that the government would assess the recent hunt. 

Nielsen stated in a statement, "We take this issue very seriously." 

“Although these hunts are deemed sustainable, we will be paying careful attention to the dolphin hunts and how they should be integrated into Faroese culture. The government has decided to review the rules governing the capture of Atlantic white-sided dolphins.” 

The Faroese minister of fisheries, Jacob Vestergaard, had earlier said that he thought the hunt had been correctly handled. 

“As far as I know,” Vestergaard told the Faroese news station Kringvarp Froya, “every single animal has been slaughtered in a responsible manner.” 

Fabienne McLellan, co-director of international relations at Swiss NGO OceanCare, said she respected and welcomed the news that the Faroese prime minister would be reviewing the recent hunt, but that “what it really means” is still unclear.

In an email to Mongabay, she said, "We are of the opinion that such evaluation should be expanded to the general practice of the grind, as well as an inquiry into the grind from September 12th should be part of this process." 

Sea Shepherd's Crast expressed her hope that increased worldwide attention to the problem would help put an end to these customary hunts. 

“This time, the Faroese community is enraged,” she said. 

“They're pushing it on their own, and there's a huge discussion [among] themselves about it. 

And I'm hoping it will be sufficient to compel politicians to act.”

Please Sign This Petition To Stop the Inhabitants of the Faroe Islands from Slaughtering Dolphins and Pilot Whales.

Every summer in the Faroe Islands, about 800 whales and dolphins die in a horrific and savage rite of mass murder. 

Once upon a time, it was customary to utilize and consume their flesh, but today, some people prefer to allow the meat to rot in the sun, just taking the lives of marine animals for some twisted pleasure justified by a cultural practice. 

This was the 11th "hunt" carried out in the Faroe Islands during what they term the 2018 hunting season, according to Sea Shepherd, an environmental organization working hard to stop the yearly slaughter. 

This has been going on since at least the late 16th century, but it has now degenerated into a horribly egotistical, cruel, and useless spectacle that is likely to enrage and inspire animal lovers all around the globe. 

The organization that recorded this tragedy claims that approximately 62,000 pilot whales and dolphins have died as a result of the Faroese hunt in the last 50 years. 

In the Faroe Islands, it is estimated that 1,691 dolphins and whales were killed in 24 grindadráp hunts in 2017. 

Laughing fisherman herd these gorgeous and clever animals into coastal inlets, where they are mercilessly murdered. 

Before the stranded animals' spines are severed, metal hooks are pushed into their blowholes. 

The creatures bleed to death slowly. 

Whole families are killed, and some whales and dolphins spend hours swimming in the blood of their loved ones. 

We urge Her Majesty Queen Margrethe II to utilize her enormous moral influence to put a stop to this terrible and brutal murder, even though the Faroe Islands are an independent territory of the Kingdom of Denmark.

~ Jai Krishna Ponnappan 

You may also want to read more about Animal Rights and Activism here.

Climate Change Coverage In The Media

The public's knowledge of climate change problems, which individuals acquire via everyday media consumption, is related to the efficacy of climate change mitigation. 

News is everywhere in daily life, serving as a "kind of immediate historical record of society's speed, development, challenges, and aspirations." It may also have an impact on the consequences of the events it depicts. 

The mainstream media in the United States, on the other hand, has failed to properly report on climate change. 

Despite the fact that global climate change awareness is increasing, most countries' news coverage of climate change pales in comparison to crime, politics, celebrities, the economy, or sports. 

Climate change mitigation is often portrayed in the news as a fluid and contentious subject involving politics, science, and the general public. 

Despite the fact that science has proven that human activities have a significant role in climate change, the global phenomena is increasingly being portrayed as apocalyptic, as if it must be feared and irreversible in order for the people to pay attention. 

Broad societal change may be sparked by social shocks that accelerate political demands. 

Media framing has a big impact on whether people want to act or be fatalistic. 

In the case of climate change, the cost of inaction may be high. 

Ozone depletion, melting of the polar ice caps, loss of animal habitats, catastrophic sea-level rise, severe weather patterns, floods and drought, increases in average temperatures, and other irreversible climatic changes are among the anticipated effects of inactivity. 

Because of delays in the atmospheric system, even if all greenhouse gas emissions were to stop immediately, climate change would continue. 

The public discussion and the international negotiation process may be influenced by rapidly changing views among nonprofit organizations on the subject of global climate change. 

Leadership in climate mitigation is a battle for meaning that may change quickly over time. 

Leaders must lead discussions on whether to set emission reduction objectives that are severe enough to successfully combat climate change, as well as assess strategies for achieving those targets in light of the goals. 

Climate change now presents a bigger danger than global terrorism, according to statistics. 

Al Gore, the former Vice President, has compared the necessity for collective action to the threat presented by fascism's emergence in the twentieth century. 

Climate change, according to the Stern Review on the Economics of Climate Change, may reduce the world economy by 20%, whereas addressing climate change now would cost just 1% of global GDP. 

The effects of media routines, the factors that drive news coverage, the influences of claims-makers, scientists, and other information sources, the role of scientific literacy in interpreting climate change stories, and specific messages that mobilize action or paralysis are all explored in the following articles: 

It also looks at how journalists explain complex climate science and validate sources, how audiences process competing messages about scientific uncertainty, how climate stories compete for public attention with other issues, how large-scale economic and political factors shape news production, and how the media can engage public audiences in climate change issues.

The notion that laypeople are defensive, risk-averse, uncertain-averse, and unreflexive, whereas science is considered to be the pinnacle of reflexive self-criticism, is reflected in the dominant framing of public comprehension of climate science. 

Despite increasing public knowledge of global warming, the public has resisted accepting the trade-offs that any real solution, such as an international regulatory treaty, investment in alternative fuels, or carbon dioxide emission regulation, entails. 

  • People do not need to be amateur scientists to debate policy options, therefore public involvement must go beyond scientific knowledge. 
  • People must actively consider and reconcile potential acts with their own ideas and habits in order to go beyond awareness to judgment and resolve. 

Coverage peaked in 2007, and limited attention to Climategate in 2009 was quickly followed by a return to relative obscurity. 

Unless a new narrative develops that characterizes the issue in ways that are more locally and personally relevant than long-term catastrophic environmental effects, regulatory measures, and politics, climate change coverage may not return to 2007 levels. 

  • If journalists could communicate these dangers in non-catastrophic frameworks, human health concerns, economic development from energy innovation, or energy instability might offer this story hook. 
  • Small and medium-sized newspapers, which have traditionally given primarily national wire articles that lacked information regarding regional climate change effects and regional policy efforts, may benefit from local perspectives. 
  • The efficacy of news media content in motivating viewers to take action and support preventive policies will most likely determine the future of climate change mitigation. 
  • The flow of complicated and politicized information regarding climate change research and policy may be mitigated by media routines such as framing, balance, and source. 

Scientists and politicians should develop particular frameworks that may assist journalists in making climate change issues more personally relevant, important, and comprehensible to the general public.

~ Jai Krishna Ponnappan

You may also want read more about Global Climate Change here.

Public Communication And Engagement On Climate Change

According to polls, public awareness of climate change is low, and public action is much lower. 

The issue's future depends on maintaining public attention in global climate change via news coverage. 

Not only has the climate change problem been presented in terms of erroneous conclusions, but it has also been regarded as impersonal and nonpersonal. 

Most individuals in the United States don't know the difference between weather and climate, and certain news coverage, commentary, and media-sponsored surveys have lead people to think they can predict climate change just by gazing out their windows. 

Climate science has a lot to say about rainfall and floods, including its frequency, distribution, and hazards. 

The link between reporting on high-profile flooding disasters and scientific knowledge of climate change, on the other hand, is often shaky. 

Responsible climate coverage clarifies scientific facts to encourage informed discussion and emphasizes that climate change is a long-term danger with consequences that may not be visible or discernible right away. 

To start climate change mitigation on any scale, public involvement with climate change problems may be needed. 

Collins and Evans offer a public engagement model that includes three phases of public involvement with scientific issues throughout time: knowledge gaps, democratization of science and practice, and approved expertise. 

Poor decisions and actions are blamed on a lack of information, dependence on "sound" research, and the desire to remove ambiguity before acting in the first wave. 

In the second wave, democratic public participation reduces the shared "bads" and "goods" in a risk society. 

Some organizations and institutions are allowed to talk about climate change in the third wave, while others are not. 

Even though climate change news coverage does not reach everyone evenly, people in poor economies exhibit the most worry, commitment, and optimism, whereas those in more developed countries show the most apathy, hesitation, and fatalism. 

When the IPCC report was published in 2007, prominent television stations in China, India, Mexico, Russia, and South Africa did not cover it during prime-time nightly news. 

Meanwhile, the world's poorest and most vulnerable people, who contribute the least to the issue and have the least access to climate knowledge, will bear the brunt of the consequences. 

Climate change is a media-driven problem in the sense that news reporting may quickly make the subject prominent in the public's mind. 

However, despite massive amounts of knowledge and data produced over the past 30 years, the public is usually misled about climate change because it is an intangible problem that is difficult to explain to the ordinary citizen and is presented as a dispute. 

Although the global energy problem has become too big and complicated for the media to tackle alone, public indifference regarding the future energy economy is not entirely the responsibility of the media. 

Personal accountability is often diffused when news goes from the public to the private realm of individual involvement. 

Despite the fact that all people contribute to greenhouse gas emissions via their everyday activities, certain vulnerable human groups are subjected to disproportionately severe consequences. 

The public opinion environment is complicated when dealing with scientific problems, and developing consensus policies may be difficult. 

In a scientific discussion such as the climate change issue, a spiral of silence may emerge when apparent opposition declines, even as public opinion seems to be hegemonic, since people's fear of social isolation prevents them from voicing minority views. 

When skeptical citizens are willing to speak among those who believe themselves to be more knowledgeable about science or among those who use moral reasoning in addition to consequentialist and utilitarian arguments, a spiral of silence in public opinion about controversial science is more likely to develop. 

In a scientific debate, Canadians are more inclined than Americans to be ethical populists, believing that ordinary people should make personal choices about science problems based on ethical concerns. 

The most prevalent group in each nation is utilitarian, who think that risks, costs, and benefits should be considered when creating policy, and that professionals should do so. 

In both nations, two additional cluster groups, moral authoritarians and democratic pragmatists, exist in almost equal numbers. 

The majority of media coverage of climate politics focuses on expert and elite discourse while ignoring people' interests, viewpoints, and voices. 

The erroneous belief that ‘‘the environment" does not include human activity and society is one reason people are excluded from the debate. 

Many practical efforts in public awareness of climate change have been guided by the premise that more information leads to more favorable views. 

The media play an essential role in shaping the social environment in which people evaluate contentious scientific topics like climate change. 

When people learn about climate change through newspapers and television, they get a better grasp of the links between fossil fuel usage and climate change. 

As a result, people's claimed intentions to act rise as their knowledge grows. 

Climate change concerns, on the other hand, often lack the day-to-day relevance required to inspire people to take action. 

Their compartmentalization of cognition grows in tandem with their specialized expertise and concern. 

Climate change information may therefore be consigned to a realm where taking ‘‘appropriate" action is seen too difficult. 

Value predispositions, schema, and media usage, rather than scientific understanding, influence public views of science. 

Citizens' assessments of difficult scientific problems are often influenced by value predispositions linked to social ideology, as well as concerns about science. 

Ideology may have a significant impact on public knowledge of climate science, and ideology can combine with other variables that influence information comprehension, such as college education. 

Worry for global warming diminishes when people' worldview changes from liberal to conservative, and college education does not enhance global warming concern among conservative ideologues. 

Citizens with a college degree and more general scientific knowledge, on the other hand, are less concerned about global warming. 

It's difficult for media viewers to tell the difference between true climate research findings and scientific-sounding spin or disinformation. 

Finding truth and common ground is difficult when parties have drastically different information. 

Chris Mooney, a scientific journalist, believes that journalism should be held to the same standards of proof, rigor, and reproducibility as contemporary science. 

Citizen assessments of science may be influenced by newspaper coverage and particular entertainment television genres. 

The impression of research advantages is influenced by trust in university scientists, exposure to national television news, and familiarity. 

Individuals who read scientific or environmental news have higher risk perceptions and support for climate policies, while those who read political news have lower risk perceptions and less support for climate policies. 

Individual attitudes toward science have a low internal consistency, and there are few connections between attitudes toward science in general and attitudes toward particular fields of scientific study. 

Science comprehension is linked to more favorable views in general, but it is also linked to more coherent and discriminating opinions. 

People with greater knowledge have a more favorable attitude toward science in general, but are less supportive of ethically problematic areas of study like climate change than citizens with less knowledge. 

In the end, educated public opinion may limit climate change research. 

Poor scientific literacy may be related to a lack of public support for climate change mitigation. 

Although civic scientific literacy has historically remained around 20% in the United States, there was a strong and ongoing public conviction in the importance of scientific research for economic success and quality of life prior to 1999. 

Some worries about the speed of change produced by science and technology, as well as the connection between science and religion, existed prior to that period, but the public regularly harmonized these opposing viewpoints in favor of science. 

The "deficit model" of citizen attitudes toward science claims that scientific knowledge predicts and explains citizen attitudes toward science. 

Knowledge has a big influence on how people feel about science. 

Although public involvement is critical to the success of environmental policymaking, the scientific nature of environmental problems makes such participation difficult when the public lacks scientific knowledge. 

The majority of lay views are dismissed as unscientific, and teaching people about environmental science does not ensure that they will be able to engage productively in government. 

The prevalent view is that scientific literacy is both the issue and the solution to social disputes in climate change debate. 

Science communication efforts, on the other hand, may promote public dialogues that acknowledge, accept, and integrate diversity in knowledge, beliefs, views, and objectives. 

Without a thorough assessment of engagement procedures, the advantages of public engagement efforts on risk-related policy problems are impossible to demonstrate. 

Even though they are promoted as a remedy for a lack of lay knowledge and other policy-making issues, these efforts are often not assessed. 

Climate change campaigns may be evaluated via participatory action research. 

Via a process of double-loop learning, a grassroots organization may be changed through personal and communal political power. 

Activist organizations may influence legislative results on climate change from the start, via broad grassroots support and political knowledge of a proposed law. 

Because of increasing media coverage, public worry about the effects of climate change and the federal government's lack of reaction became more apparent. 

When people debate where to draw the line in a scientific debate, they often address regulation and which circumstances should be researched. 

Rather than suffocating further democratization of scientific policy, ambiguities and conflicts in ordinary narratives may help it. 

Laypeople may possess technical, methodological, institutional, and cultural knowledge in addition to the deficit model of scientific ignorance. 

When people do deploy a store of information, their social environment and beliefs of relevance play a role. 

Identifying ordinary people as experts in the ways science may influence their lives, rather than unaware of it, is a critical first step toward increased public involvement in policy debates. 

When it comes to assigning blame for collective action, the media often avoids addressing scientific uncertainty for fear of undermining the desire for collective action. 

Reporters are usually sensitive to the political environment in which they work, and they tend to connect local, national, and international dangers. 

Many government publications in the United Kingdom have pushed for more public discussion and participation in scientific problems. 

Moving beyond slogans about science and democracy necessitates the creation of strategic messages. 

Opinion-leader initiatives have the potential to stimulate broader political involvement on climate change and environmentally friendly consumer choices and behaviors. 

In contrast to face-to-face efforts, combining the recruitment of digital opinion leaders with conventional media tactics results in substantial trade-offs. 

Digital opinion leaders, on the other hand, are only successful in increasing online interactions and real-world relationships under certain circumstances. 

Through emotional and cognitive involvement with climate change, communication may engage the public in low-carbon lifestyles by enabling top-down public acceptance of legislation and inspiring bottom-up, grassroots action. 

These top-down and bottom-up methods may be reconciled by using communication to generate demand for regulation. 

To encourage attitudinal change, climate communication initiatives often need substantial resources, but research indicates that promoting attitude change alone is unlikely to be successful. 

Social norms and other factors moderate the connection between individual attitudes and future action. 

Introducing regulations that compel green behavior may encourage mitigation, but the government is concerned about losing political capital. 

Individual, voluntary action-oriented communication methods, on the other hand, disregard the social and institutional barriers to behavior change. 

The danger that global climate change presents to human and nonhuman species' health and well-being has gotten comparatively little attention in the media. 

At the same time, worldwide surveys show that climate change is not a top priority in terms of health. 

Only a small percentage of individuals consciously link climate change to human health concerns. 

The majority of individuals in the United States, Canada, and Malta think climate change presents serious health concerns, and around a third say people are already suffering as a result of it. 

More over a third of Americans and Canadians believe that climate change will cause moderate or severe damage to themselves, their families, and others in their society. 

Many Canadians think that the elderly and children are more vulnerable to danger, while Americans believe that individuals in underdeveloped nations are more vulnerable. 

Climate change, according to the majority of Canadians and Maltese, may cause respiratory difficulties, heat-related disorders, cancer, and infectious illnesses. 

Sunburn and injury were also mentioned as effects of severe weather occurrences by Canadians. 

Community ability to undertake mitigation and adaptation measures may be increased by substantial press attention to health risks connected with climate change, but most of the present news coverage is not substantive. 

Extreme heat, illness, and respiratory difficulties are seldom addressed, and most tales that do include health concerns merely respond to heat waves, storms, and other naturally occurring occurrences. 

Only a small percentage of articles contain enterprise or explanatory reporting. 

Localized subjects such as regional climate studies, regional public health meetings, and other localized topics may benefit from news agenda-building methods. 

Individual behavior change may be aided by the media, which would increase public awareness of climate change problems and contribute to health-related climate change mitigation objectives. 

An emerging research paradigm known as public health communication is based on intersections between health communication and public health scholarship. 

Transdisciplinary philosophy and technique are required for effective climate change public health communication. 

  • Communication interventions offer a lot of promise for changing people's behavior in ways that are compatible with climate change prevention and adaptation goals. 
  • Communication interventions may help individuals alter their behavior for the better, either by directly addressing people who are already worried about climate change and the others who influence them, or by indirectly affecting people's living and working surroundings. 

Planners should explore possibilities to utilize media to target both people and locations in ways that complement and expand current programs to maximize the impact of a climate change communication intervention. 

Although most Americans are only vaguely aware of the health consequences of climate change, offering a human health frame of reference in news coverage may help to increase public involvement with the issue. 

Proposed climate policy changes such as cap and trade, carbon taxes, and international climate treaties may rely on broad public support and mobilization to overcome political stalemate and opponents' communication efforts. 

Public participation is required for policy action, but it depends on the media's ability to reframe the importance of climate change in ways that reach a wider audience. 

High-quality news coverage frequently reaches just a small group of people who are already well-informed and engaged, while the rest of the public either ignores it or misinterprets competing assertions based on partisanship or self-interest. 

Fear-inducing depictions of climate change are common in news articles, and they successfully draw attention to the issue. 

The famous film "The Day After Tomorrow" made people more concerned about climate change and inspired them to act. 

It also made them less worried about severe climate change events, such as the potential closure of the North Atlantic thermohaline circulation, commonly known as the Gulf Stream. 

Fear isn't usually an effective motivator for real personal involvement. 

In the context of climate change problems, nonthreatening visual images and symbols that connect to people's daily emotions and worries are more engaging. 

Fear, hope, shame, compassion, and nostalgia are often associated with verbal and visual representations as a result of anchoring and objectification in social representations. 

As a result, emotive representations of climate change may increase public awareness of the problem while simultaneously drawing attention away from climate change as a long-term, abstract phenomena.

~ Jai Krishna Ponnappan

You may also want read more about Global Climate Change here.