While embattled American environmentalists continue trying to convince their fellow citizens and their government that global warming actually exists, Brits have long-since put aside the debate and moved on to the tough work of getting individuals to act. But the current dire dispatches on global warming may not be suited to the task, says the Institute for Public Policy Research (IPPR). The problem, says the think tank, is the debilitating effect of 'climate porn.' The term, coined in IPPR's recent report, 'Warm Words: How are we telling the climate story and can we tell it better?' (click to download a pdf), describes the 'secretly thrilling' hype of alarmist environmental reporting that is 'awesome, terrible, immense' and contains 'an implicit counsel of despair.'

Writing for TomPaine.com, Simon Retallack, who heads IPPR's climate-change team, cites both his group's report and a similar 2001 study by the US-based FrameWorks Institute as evidence of the inefficacy of apocalyptic reporting. The problem with environmental coverage in both the United States and the United Kingdom, says Retallack, is that it 'stresses the large scale of global warming and then tells people they can solve it through small actions like changing a light bulb.' Approaching the issue with an 'inflated or extreme lexicon' that alludes to 'acceleration and irreversibility' is simply counterproductive to getting people to act, he argues. The FrameWorks Institute had similar findings, reports Retallack, saying that Americans' response to environmental demise is to adopt an 'adaptationist' mode aimed at 'protecting themselves and their families' with tacks like 'buying large SUVs to secure their safety.'