How do we talk about the consequences of our actions for the environment? A recent interview with David Attenborough sparked considerable controversy around this long-standing debate. Talking about his new BBC wildlife series, Attenborough told the Observer that repeated warnings about human destruction of the natural world are “alarmist”, and can be a “turn-off” for viewers. But what if the truth is simply alarming? When it comes to biodiversity loss – a topic relevant to Attenborough’s new series – this recent WWF report would seem to suggest so. Do we soften the message of such reports? Or do we communicate their findings as they are, even if that might scare some viewers away? Read the original interview with David Attenborough in The Observer and a response by George Monbiot in The Guardian to get two very different points-of-view on what is the best communication strategy to drive change.

David Attenborough in The Observer: “too much alarmism on environment a turn-off”

George Monbiot in The Guardian: “downplaying our environmental crisis generates complacency, confusion, and ignorance”

°Consequences – How do we talk about consequences?