Why real debate needs better questions

This morning I got a call from a radio station that was doing a phone-in on low emissions zones. After London reported on the success of its Ultra-Low Emissions Zone (ULEZ), people are talking about introducing something similar across other towns in the region. Could I come on the show and talk about it?

This is a regular occurence when there’s a local environmental story. Most callers will be against, so the station lines up a couple of voices to present the other side. That means that I have to listen in to the phone-in for a bit ahead of time, which is always a reminder of why I don’t usually listen to these shows.

By nature, media debates of this kind reduce topics to a simple binary: for or against. Pro or anti, yes or no. In this case, do you want a ULEZ where you live or not?

For most people, that’s an obvious and immediate no. Some callers will have believed the scare stories in the tabloids and want nothing to do with a low emissions zone. For others it’s the fear of uncertainty as much as anything. There’s a possibility that an incoming environmental measure will inconvenience them or cost them money. To be on the safe side, they’d rather not.

If we were to slow down, it could be different. Asked if they want to live longer, healthier lives, who would say no? By reducing cancer rates, heart attacks and asthma, that’s what air pollution measures do. They save and prolong lives. They also save the NHS the money needed to treat those preventable conditions. Everybody wants these things, and what stands in the way of them is air pollution from heavy and polluting vehicles. So the real question is not whether we do something or not, it’s what we do.

It’s not a yes or no question. It’s a how question.

How we do reduce air pollution from road traffic in a fair and transparent way? How do we make sure the burden of change doesn’t fall on those without the means to pay? How do we phase in changes so that people have time to prepare?

Low emissions zones work, and everybody benefits from them. Some people have to pay more, but they’re getting cleaner air too, and reducing their risk of health conditions or premature death. Clean air is a public good. Even London’s most passionate anti-ULEZ critics are breathing cleaner air right now.

Lots of environmental issues stumble over the instinct to push things into a binary choice. The middle ground becomes invisible and false choices abound – and when presented with a scary choice, many people will choose the carbon devil they know.

Having waited on the line, the radio presenter gave me about 90 seconds before moving on to a caller saying the scheme was “disgusting” and a cash grab. Perhaps there’s no redeeming the radio call-in format.

Nevertheless, the point remains: a big part of the communications challenge of climate change is to insist on nuance, scuff the black-and-white boundaries of opinion, and patiently talk people back from extremes. And often that starts with asking a better question.