I put up a Bsky post that is doing better than normal.
However (because?) I didn’t include a link to this blog post I wrote yesterday, about the “information deficit model” and the (UK) climate “movement” (or, rather, one organisation within the “movement.”).
In this post I am going to take a stab at answering four questions. Not the final word, not even my final words. Am genuinely interested in what you, dear reader(s?) think. Let me know in the comments or on Bluesky.
- What is it?
- What are its consequences?
- If it is so bad, why does it persist?
- What is to be done?
[*To be clear to any spooks who may be reading, this is not a Vylanous statement – IDM stands for Information Deficit Model.]
What is it?
Let’s just go to Wikipedia
In studies of science communication, the information deficit model, also known as the deficit model or science literacy/knowledge deficit model, theorizes that scientific literacy can be improved with increased public engagement by the scientific community.[1] As a result, the public may then be able to make more decisions that are science-informed. The model implies that communication should focus on improving the transfer of information from experts to non-experts.
Currently, many studies challenge the information deficit model as it ignores the cognitive, social, and affective factors that influence one’s formation of attitude and judgements toward science and technology.
Once you see it, you see it everywhere. It’s the default model for education and, tragically, for most “activism”.
What are its consequences?
I am not going to defend the IDM (below I will explain why it persists). Presumably the defence goes along the lines of “but people Need to Be Told The Truth (and the truth will set them free).
It pacifies and renders people passive. It turns attendees at events into ego fodder.
It makes “sage on the stage” even more likely.
We get people being told that they must inform themselves (and most of them then think that’s ALL they need to do.)
It individualises “action” as if what matters is changing people’s thoughts and that those changes of thought will a) persist and b) add up to something.
It means that there is less time/bandwidth for talking about what needs to be done differently.
If it is so bad, why does it persist?
Let’s start as charitably as possible.
- It’s the default (“nobody ever got fired for firing IBM”) and so any innovation is treated with suspicion (see the Nick Machiavelli quote).
- It’s how scientists are trained (another time I will rant about why we are STILL turning to natural scientists as guides for what needs to be done and how, and how that is completely fucking insane. But not today.)
Now, less charitably.
- It sidelines questions of power (and the insane levels of inane consumption in the West), and most NGOs and academics etc are very keen not to talk about that. NGOs need their nice middle class direct debiters, and they and academics need access to policymakers (politicians and bureaucrats) for their business model (lobbying and selling minor ‘successes’ as transformative) to work.
- It means NGOs and campaigning groups can continue to provide ego-fodder to academics/star activists on speaking tours etc. Almost everyone (speaker, organisers, wilfully passive attendees) is happy, but movements don’t get built.
- It allows those in charge to feel like they are the clever ones, the experts, bringing The Blinding Light of Enlightenment to the proles, the provincials, the great unwashed. It’s a cute little ancillary benefit.
What is to be done?
Ach, it’s too late to even slow the acceleration to our doom. The time to slam on the brakes is before the bus goes off the cliff. In 1988, when the climate problem became a political issue we were at 353ppm and were emitting about 20bn tonnes annually. We’re now at almost 430ppm (and next year is going to see a 3ppm rise, at least) and are emitting 40bn tonnes.
Global CO2 emissions by year 1940-2025 | Statista
Just as actions have consequences, so do inactions. Our goose, like the planet, is well and truly cooked.
Still and all, if you want to die with dignity, if you want to push back against the IDM, well, I wrote a whole damn 60 page publication about it, Standard Public Meeting Syndrome and what to do about it. ” Nobody read it (why would you be that masochistic).
We will continue with IDM because it makes us feel good, because it is how we have always done things around here. That it absolutely will not upset the applecart is not just a bug, it is also, in some circumstances, a feature.
God, that pre-spawning vasectomy in 2004 was a good move.
Stuff for me to read at some point, if I can be bothered.
Herberz, M., Uenal, F., Gouiran, M. D., Krainz, M., Pagel, L., Schmid, D., … & Brosch, T. (2026). A systematic review and meta-analysis of communication strategies to promote climate action. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 103176.
Knops, L., & Silberzahn, L. (2026). Beyond deliberation: Why we need affect for ecological democracy. Environmental Values, 09632719261472162.
Jones, L., Lê, H., Parsons, K. J., Võ, T. T., & Halstead, F. (2026). From science to storytelling: Advancing a climate knowledge–action framework through reflections on youth‐focused, participatory action research in Vietnam. British Educational Research Journal, 52(1), 61-87.
Suldovsky, B. 2017. The Information Deficit Model and Climate Change Communication | Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Climate Science | Oxford Academic