The International Impact of The Day After Tomorrow

ith its November issue. Eitviroitiiieitt has provided a platform for an interW esting study o n a rather new type o f climate impact: After climate change reached Hollywcnwl. Hol ly~cnd struck back and gave the world Roland Emmerich's The, D1i.v Aftcr fiwtorrm.. the top-ranking film in the recently created film genre "Global Warming Films."' Anthony Leiserowitr's article. "Before and After Tiic Dii! After fiviiorroiv: A US. Study of Climate Change Risk Perception."' is an important contribution to a special field that assesses this new type of impact: that of climate change communication via the media on the general puhlic. The author has quoted some important literature on this issue. and his study might help contribute a novel facet to it. The article is also one o f several recent demonstrations that climate change science. largely dominated by the natural sciences. is an interdisciplinary endeavor that needs social science suppm. Along with colleagues at the Potdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK). I have completed a parallel study o n the public impact of The D11.v A j c r Torvtormc in Germany.' We surveyed about I . 3 W ) people imrnediately before and after viewing the film and about IS0 people 4 weeks later in subsequent telephone interviews to control for persistency effects. The questionnaire comprised about 20 questions. covering issues of climate system and change. climate policy. film attributes. and sociodemographic and lifestyle information. In addition to the US. and German studies. three other impact studies o n the film have been conducted: a Japanese study and two British studies.' PIK and the European Climate Forum (ECF) hosted a workshop in late Octoher with the main authors from all five studies. This meeting informs my comments. Before turning to study results. I would first like t o comment on the methodology Leiserowitz and his colleagues used. As far as one can tell from the article. the distinct ion hetween "watchers" and "nonwatchers" was based upon the answer to a question like "Have you seen Tire Diry After hitorrow?" in the second of the two nationwide SUNCYS the author performed. Most of the conclusions ahout the film's impact on the US. public is hased upon this distinction. Of course, we learn a lot if we compare both groups. But do we really learn about the impact of the film on the public? Do watchers display their often significant. distinctive answering patterns due to the fact that they have seen the film ( in which case their own answering behavior before having seen the film would have been significantly different), or do their answers reflect that they had more pro-climate or pro-environment attitudes before entering the cinema'? Only a comparison of cinema visitors before and after having seen the film (a panel study) would be able to uncover the true effect of the film. Leiswerowitz's study compares watchers to nonwatchers. but this comparison does not necessarily tell us what the film's impact was on its audience. The German panel study demonstrates a rather strong self-recruitment of bettereducated and more engaged visitors of the