This video was made in collaboration with the National Center for Science Education
“Mr Plow” from the Simpsons’ 4th season is easily one of the best episodes of the long running
sitcom. For the uninitiated, this 1992 episode involves Homer starting a successful snow plow
business that is ultimately spoiled, first by friendly rivalry then by an unseasonably warm
winter day. It also includes one of the earliest mentions of the greenhouse effect in scripted
media; and is one the first, but hardly the last, to undercut the seriousness of the phenomenon.
It might not seem like much, but if you are watching this video, then you must care - at
least a little- about climate change. It probably puts you among the 59% of people in the US who see
climate change as a major threat1. The time for collective climate action is upon us,
which means we must try to reach the 41% of people who don’t seek out information
about climate change. And those people watch TV. On any given day, 80% of Americans will watch - or
stream- TV3, making it one of the largest platforms to communicate points of view. From
product placement to “very special episodes”, scripted media can be powerful in raising
awareness and changing minds. When it comes to general environmental issues,
television, particularly children’s media, has devoted countless hours
to covering pollution, endangered species and the importance of recycling.
Collectively, these efforts have contributed to highly successful community-based environmental
programs all across the country4. However, of all the environmental issues covered,climate change
has gotten comparatively tiny amounts of screen time. When it is discussed,
we found that it is usually framed in a way that casts doubt on its existence, treats activists
as scam artists, and discourages action. For this video, graduate students studying
science communication through the National Center for Science Education went through the past 30
years of television comedy to find and analyze how climate change is framed. You can find out
more about our methods in the description here, but a quick note: We only looked at scripted,
narrative comedy that had a point-of-view about climate change. That means no Daily Show segments
or climate disaster movies- their impact has been well-studied by others. However, we’ve
still probably missed some examples, so feel free to leave a comment and help us expand our list.
Comedy has to take a point of view, and understanding what a writer thinks is funny about
climate change can be suggestive of how they - and the audience they are writing for - think about
the issue. [Dharma and Greg clip]. This approach relies on the humor of violating the norm of
“global warming is bad” by highlighting a positive side, almost always something to do with warm
weather. Of course, this approach only works when the vast majority of viewers see this violation
as, well, benign. In the 90s, when this framing was popular, climate change seemed distant enough
to make this appear harmless. That’s why comedies from the Simpsons to Frasier used this framing,
often with the same set-up and punchline, over and over. As we became more aware of the true impact
of climate change, this framing gradually became less popular, dying out altogether in the 2010s.
While television comedies have become much less glib about climate change,
writers still struggled to frame climate change in a way that made people want to learn more. Moving
into the 2000s, a lot of humor centered on the perceived obnoxiousness of characters that cared
about the environment. The humor here came from the outlandish and extreme environmental views
expressed by these characters, from not owning a car, to making their own clothes to the perennial
favorite - drinking their own urine. 30 Rock, My Name is Earl, and Modern Family all had episodes
where the main cast was subjected to mental and physical torture at the hands of these annoying
characters. While the exact scenarios differ, these occurrences have three broad similarities.
First, the environmentalist character is an “outsider” to the main cast, and often low status,
suggesting that their perspective is less valid than the main characters’. Second, the
character receives a comeuppance by the end of the episode that suggests that they are either lying
about their environmental passion or equally as imperfect as the main character. Finally,
the take-home message for the audience is often “we know that you - like the main character- are
doing your best and that’s fine.” While viewers may find this positive message reassuring,
it ultimately frames taking even minimal action as extreme and negative. Viewing episode after
episode with this character archetype can lead to skepticism about motives and general disinterest
in learning more. Though thankfully this type of humor has become rarer, one only needs to watch
an episode of “The Politician” on Netflix to see the Obnoxious Environmentalist onscreen today.
Fueling this framing even further, was climate change’s big screen debut in 2004’s
An Inconvenient Truth. While the film had an important impact in inspiring climate action,
it also provoked a counter-narrative that took the obnoxious environmentalist character one step
further into climate alarmism, often casting doubt on the veracity of climate science. Though several
comedies incorporated characters skeptical of climate change, there was no television
show more prolific in promoting climate denial than South Park. The 2006 episode “ManBearPig”
parodied what the creators saw as alarmism on the part of Al Gore, as he scared the town into
believing in the fictional, titular character. At the end, Gore is congratulated for saving
the day, when the text of the episode suggests that the monster - a stand-in for climate change-
never existed. Other episodes including “Goobacks” and “Two Days Before the Day After Tomorrow”
showed high-status characters expressing denialist views on climate change that were framed as
correct. Though the creators of South Park, once climate skeptics themselves, have since come
around to accepting the scientific evidence for climate change, reruns of these episodes are still
airing on multiple networks worldwide, exposing millions of people to very dangerous rhetoric.
As a mea culpa, in 2019 South Park released “Time to Get Cereal,” where ManBearPig is
shown to be real and Al Gore becomes a hero. While this episode is certainly an improvement
on outright climate denial, it chooses to make climate change funny in a way that’s been popular
since 2016 - nihilism. From It’s Always Sunny In Philadelphia to The Good Place to SNL sketches,
modern humor about climate change wants us to laugh at how little anyone can accomplish,
even given the magnitude of the environmental problem at hand. The framing in this type of
humor leaves little doubt that climate change is real and an imminent threat,
but once again it encourages inaction. Why would anyone want to take action if it is ultimately
doomed to fail? Is this the goal of television writers? If they do want to move people to action,
they should instead take note of best practices from science communication - climate change
should be presented as something solvable. Comedy, more than other genres, has an untapped
potential to move people to engage with topics and ultimately take action. Both by increasing
the number of scripted media programs that tackle climate issues and by framing them in a way that
encourages action, writers can reach the sizable group of Americans who are currently disengaged.
Moreover, just as the science confirming climate change is settled, there is a vast literature of
science communication studies on the best way to talk about climate change. Here are the top six
techniques that we know work 5: Make it local
Connect to someone’s values Show the messenger as high-status
Normalize taking action Focus on what we can gain by taking action,
not what we will lose through inaction Show success
While it isn’t realistic to have a character in a sitcom single handedly solve climate change,
focusing on a local climate issue of personal relevance to a main character AND having that
character find some success making a change is a great way to encourage television viewers to take
action. Moreover, it can still be funny - rather than casting doubt on climate change, however, the
humor can stem from disagreements about climate priorities or the struggles of getting broader
support for climate change. A great episode of “Better Off Ted” manages to center the successful
implementation of a rooftop garden by two main characters, while still being a hilarious half
hour of television. By following this model, writers can produce comedy that not only has
social impact but hopefully won’t age as badly as the “global warming is good” comedy of the 90s.
Finally, let’s look towards what is the most alarming trend. Between 2010 and 2015,
there was almost no discussion of climate change in television comedies, less than any
other five-year time period since 1990. While it is hard to say exactly what’s behind this lack of
discussion, the sudden uptick of climate change plotlines in 2016 suggests that it might have
something to do with who is in the White House. While Joe Biden’s climate policy is promising,
it cannot operate in a vacuum. Therefore, it is more important than ever to be vigilant of
climate change coverage in the media. We should, at minimum, expect the television shows that
we consume to engage with climate issues in a way that is led by evidence-based science and,
without alarming the public, underlines the need for action. Even a serious issue like
climate change can be funny, as long as we are all laughing towards a solution.