“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.