ABSTRACT
Moser and Dilling (2011: 163) describe a common, though flawed, assumption that is often made when communicating environmental issues. The assumption, known as the Information Deficit Model, is that a lack of information explains the lack of public concern and engagement on environmental issues. Years of research, they claim, have shown that the model is incorrect, that ‘Ignorance of the details about climate change is NOT what prevents greater concern or action’ and ‘at worst it assumes that people have to be “little scientists” to make effective decisions’ (Moser and Dilling 2011: 164). They describe how the cause of inaction, or destructive actions, is far deeper than a lack of information, and involves deeply held values and beliefs that relate to a sense of self. Crompton and Kasser (2009: 7) argue that it is at this level of values and identity
that environmental communication must aim, since only change of identity can make a real difference to people’s behaviour. Their aim is to ‘change those features of society that currently support the environmentally problematic aspects of identity, and promote those alternative aspects of identity that are environmentally beneficial’ (Crompton and Kasser 2009: 25). This is an ambitious aim, but given
that identities are primarily or at least partially forged and resisted in language, it is one to which ecolinguistics can contribute. Darier (1999) and Gorz (1993) are suspicious of the information deficit model
not just because it is incorrect but because of the power it gives to dominant forces to define reality. Darier (1999: 238) argues that:
Reducing individual energy consumption in the North shouldn’t be justified by an imperative / threat like ‘global warming’ defined by an ‘expertocracy’, but because one might not want the consumption of large amounts of energy to be a defining characteristic of oneself! In the context of rampant consumerism in the North, it is up to us to … work on ourselves.
