We’ve spent the last dozen years trying to figure out best practice for climate communication.
No one has a magic bullet, but young scientists and engineers are finding creative pathways to tell the story in fresh fashion.
Climate science has struggled mightily with a messaging problem.
The well-worn tactic of hitting people over the head with scary climate change facts has proved inadequate at changing behavior or policies in ways big enough to alter the course of global warming.
While Europe has made some headway, the largest obstacles to change remain in the United States, which has historically been responsible for more emissions than any other country. And perhaps most important, climate change denial has secured a perch in the Trump administration and across the Republican Party.
Enter the fast-growing academic field of climate change communication. Across a swath of mostly Western nations, social scientists in fields like psychology, political science, sociology and communications studies have produced an expansive volume of peer-reviewed papers — more than 1,000 annually since 2014 — in an effort to cultivate more effective methods for getting the global warming message across and inspiring action.While recent polls have shown an increase in the percentage of people who describe themselves as worried about climate change, experts say not enough people have been motivated to act.
“The main reason people reject the science of climate change is because they reject what they perceive to be the solutions: total government control, loss of personal liberties, destruction of the economy,” said Katharine Hayhoe, director of the Climate Science Center at Texas Tech University.
“But ironically, what motivates people to care and to act is an awareness of the genuine solutions: a new clean-energy future, improving our standard of living, and building local jobs and the local economy.”–
The best climate-related appeals are not a collection of statistics, but those that target people’s affinity for compelling stories. They also work best if they avoid fear-based messaging (which can cause a head-in-the-sand effect) and provide a sense that individuals can affect the environment in a personal and positive way — by updating to energy-efficient appliances, for example, or eating less meat, given meat production’s heavy carbon footprint.
But these efforts at persuasion are up against a well-financed opposition.
In the United States from 2000 to 2016, major carbon-emitting industries spent more than $1.35 billion lobbying members of Congress on climate change legislation. They outspent environmental groups and renewable energy companies by 10 to 1, according to a paper last year in the journal Climate Change by Robert J. Brulle, an environmental sociologist at Drexel University in Philadelphia.
A 2015 paper by Bruce Tranter, a sociologist at the University of Tasmania, analyzed 14 Western nations and identified an association between a country’s per capita carbon footprint and the prevalence of climate science skepticism among its citizens.
And in a recent study published in Nature Climate Change, Matthew J. Hornsey, a social psychologist at the University of Queensland, found that nations that had the strongest relationship between political conservatism and climate science skepticism tended to be those with economies more highly dependent on the fossil fuel industry, including the United States, Australia, Canada and Brazil.
At the vanguard of the social-science-based response to such doubt is a pair of centers for climate change communications research at George Mason University and Yale University.These research hubs just released new polling data indicating that 96 percent of liberal Democrats and 32 percent of conservative Republicans support the Green New Deal — a public-opinion gap that widened by 28 percentage points between December and April as awareness about the proposed legislation grew.
In 2009, the two climate labs produced the highly regarded “Six Americas” report, which identified six different groups of Americans who represented the range of public opinion on climate change.
On one end of the spectrum are the “alarmed,” who are the most certain, and most concerned, about human-driven global warming. They’re also the most motivated to act to protect the climate. On the other end of the spectrum are the “dismissives,” who, as their name suggests, are least likely to accept or care about climate change. Between the two polarities are “concerned,” “cautious,” “disengaged” and “doubtful.”
The report has been updated repeatedly since its release and is often used by climate communication researchers to tailor their efforts to each demographic.
One such operation is the nonprofit Climate Outreach, based in Oxford, England. It recently issued a handbook that uses social science research to help climate scientists become better public champions of their own work.
Climate Outreach has also tapped into research that has identified especially effective visual techniques for communicating about climate change.
–Major environmental organizations such as Greenpeace and the Sierra Club are also looking to social science to inform how they communicate about climate change, including their choice of imagery, as are federal agencies such as the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), according to the agencies’ representatives.
Edward W. Maibach, director of George Mason University’s Center for Climate Change Communication, has recruited an ever-expanding army to speak about climate science to the masses. His research revealed that the public puts particularly high trust in local TV weathercasters and health care providers as sources about climate science. So over the past decade, Dr. Maibach’s team enlisted 625 on-air meteorologists to give newscasts that help viewers connect the dots between climate change and hometown weather.
Another member of the George Mason team, John Cook, is one of various global academics working with a teaching method known as “inoculation,” which is a preventive strategy grounded in the finding that it can be very difficult to extract misinformation once it has lodged in the brain.
Dr. Cook has designed a high school curriculum as well as a popular online course that presents students first with facts and then a myth about climate change; the students are then asked to resolve the conflict.
In WWII, that would have been more effective as well. We shouldn’t have scared people about the Germans and Japanese, we should have suggested to them not to buy German or Japanese goods.
In the Civil War, abolitionists really shouldn’t have used ‘facts’ when talking about the scary aspects of slavery. They should have mentioned all the positive ways that the North could work with the South to convince them that slavery was a bad economic model.
We shouldn’t really consider how movements like the Extinction Rebellion, Greta and her strike, and Ocasio-Cortez are the ones making actual headway at this moment in time. They are using scare tactics! It’s alarming and turning people off. We can’t scare people with facts. They can’t handle them. Only scientists and educated people can handle facts. We must earn the backwards people’s trust by not speaking with them as we do amongst ourselves. They’ll come around after that.
So everybody, get out there and eat less meat and update your appliances. The future won’t be that bad. We can have solar panels, more jobs, and happy times if we just don’t get scared and only talk about the positive.
Reacting to the NYT article, and what I consider to be the absolutely ridiculous notion that we shouldn’t scare people about climate change when the science is telling us it’s actually really bloody scary.
That said, good video.
Good stuff.
Well said “Jimbills” above. The best communication of climate change that influenced me was James Burke “After the Warming” on British T.V in the late 1980’s (I watched the show much later, but it was still relevant, as it is today 30+ years on).
Different techniques are required for different age groups, demographics etc.
Nearly all universities teach science communication courses these days, but as some one who speed reads and posts many climate based articles every day (on social media), a lot of university science stuff that is put out (officially) to media sources, is not public friendly at all, universities and science organizations do have a great responsibility and should improve clarity and not rely on interpretation by untrained media journalists. Many articles lack thrust and clarity and are dull to read, when indeed they have a very important message to convey.
If the academics and science institutions improved and clearly stated their message simply, with explicit and user friendly graphics they would have much greater and wider impacts. They could employ people who already have that presentation skill/gift, there are a few around (like Peter Sinclair for example).
Don’t let the liars, spivs, corrupt and bigots win at the cost of our children’s well-being .
“Victor Venema, Scientist, University of Bonn, Germany:
This op-ed by Ian Plimer in The Australian is exceptional. I see no way to honestly summarize how bad it is without sounding unprofessional.”
https://climatefeedback.org/evaluation/the-australian-commentary-by-ian-plimer-relies-on-false-claims-to-make-its-case/
PS.I do see how much interest each article I post attracts, and notice that certain personalities increase interest, for example this story was very popular and shared.
Dr Jane Goodall urges climate change protesters to follow up marches with proactive action
https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/new-zealand/2019/05/dr-jane-goodall-urges-climate-change-protesters-to-follow-up-marches-with-proactive-action.html
Last year I heard an article about one island’s local population (Tahiti?) suffering from SLR in a way that money from increased tourism would help. The takeaway was that more people should fly out to the remote island to support their tourism-based economy, with no indication at all that long-distance leisure flying was just about the worst carbon footprint you could have. Headslap.
Science institutions and responsible academia must up their public interface, the way they distribute knowledge.
They cannot leave it to politicians, they will be let down by empty promises and swings in the economy.
Media is very biased, by political and business influence.
Science needs a direct link, and they do have a responsibility to educate, especially the “baby boomers” who influence elections results.
It is a pity that science relies on politics and especially sympathetic parties, but that is the way we have developed society.
Australia’s coal communities, ignored by Labor, deliver brutal election defeat. .
https://www.climatechangenews.com/2019/05/20/australias-coal-communities-ignored-labor-deliver-brutal-election-defeat/
It seems in my part of the world both main parties (right and left) are prepared to work together, but that may only be a temporary agreement and is fragile.
The National Party will support the Government’s Zero Carbon bill through its first reading in the House, despite outlining previously outlining “serious concerns”.
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=12233007
Music and Arts and can are also contributing, exampled by Ms Jill Pelto’s beautiful paintings in the video.
‘Panic is setting in’: Jayda G brings climate crisis home to fans
DJ and producer wants to banish ‘disconnect’ between climate issues and daily life
“You can’t tell people what to do,” she says. “The best way is giving people as much information as possible and creating an environment where people can ask the questions they want to and not feel judged or ridiculed. That’s a big part of what I’m trying to create with these talks.”
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/may/21/jayda-g-brings-climate-crisis-home-to-fans
The difference between WWII and now,is not that millions upon millions of innocents will die, it is that in WWII we were told to keep our mouths SHUT “talk costs lives.”
Now we have a common goal “Talk SAVES Lives” – Everyone who gives a damn must try and communicate.
This is my attempt, by reading the available stash of communications. iIf it influences just one other person it is worth the hours I put into it.
“There has been a fundamental shift in the climate conversation recently, one which has seen environmental issues pervade every shade of the political spectrum, every industry, every walk of life.”
https://www.independent.co.uk/sport/changing-the-game-climate-change-series-environment-sport-olympics-a8922596.html
And further Emily Fairfax’s great video – and think Emily would approve of this article looking at rewilding, citing our friends “The beaver”.
“Rewilding simply means re-introducing wild creatures which used to live in countries like the United Kingdom and elsewhere in Europe and North America. One example is the Eurasian beaver, hunted in the UK to near-extinction several centuries ago but now making a tentative return to Britain.
They began their UK recovery modestly: two families were imported from Norway in 2001, with more animals following later to increase genetic diversity.
Through their skillful lodge-building and engineering of woods and waterways, beavers show how they benefit humans and other creatures. They create a range of habitats for birds, insects, fish, small mammals and plants; one re-introduction project records that the 10 clumps of frogspawn laid in 2011 in its ponds had increased to 370 clumps by 2018, thanks to the improvements made by the arriving beavers. They slow water flow, prevent flooding, and store water for local use.”
https://climatenewsnetwork.net/wilder-world-can-slow-climate-change/
Yes! I am thrilled to see this work coming together so intelligently. A huge breath of relief for teachers of all sorts working on climate change. Share, share share! (Can’t believe I finally found a missing link – I am in no way affiliated with this organization, still – hooray). Add to that a great article! Thanks!
Meanwhile………………..
Greenpeace Unearthed
Breaking on Unearthed: Air pollution around Beijing rebounds as coal consumption rises 13% Air quality in the region around Beijing deteriorated as coal consumption increased during the past winter, according to analysis of government data by the Greenpeace Air Pollution Unit.
The development came as local governments did away with restrictions on industrial operation that had squeezed output and emissions in 2017-18. As a result, coal consumption increased by 13% in the six provinces included in the air pollution control region, buoyed by demand from power plants and metals industry, based on proprietary data from Fenwei Energy Information.
The 6 provinces around Beijing burn about 1,200 million tonnes of coal, 30% of the national total and more than the EU and the U.S. put together. PM2.5 concentrations continued to fall nationwide, achieving a reduction of 9.2% over the same period.
‘In good news, this means when greenhouse gas concentrations go down, temperatures will do so as predicted; the bad news is there is nothing that saves us from temperatures going up as forecasted if we fail to drastically cut greenhouse gas emissions.’
http://www.ox.ac.uk/news/2019-05-22-global-temperature-change-attributable-external-factors-confirms-new-study
The new research will add to international pressure on the Chinese government to curtail the illegal use of CFC-11. It also confirms the results of several investigations, including one by The New York Times, which found evidence that factories in Shandong, one of the provinces specified in the study, were still making or using the gas to manufacture foam insulation.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/22/climate/china-cfcs-banned-chemicals-ozone.html?rref=collection%2Fsectioncollection%2Fclimate&action=click&contentCollection=climate®ion=rank&module=package&version=highlights&contentPlacement=1&pgtype=sectionfront
May 22, 2019–Fewer deaths and serious illnesses have occurred in the U.S. over the past decade as a result of cleaner air, according to a new report focusing on the two most potent air pollutants: fine particle (PM2.5) and ground-level ozone (O3). However, these improvements are almost entirely due to reductions in PM2.5 pollution.
https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2019-05/ats-rip051419.php
Reblogged this on Pr0jectClimate and commented:
I love this!!!!!