tag:theconversation.com,2011:/fr/topics/climate-change-and-public-opinion-3497/articlesClimate change and public opinion – The Conversation2019-09-21T01:01:18Ztag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1237402019-09-21T01:01:18Z2019-09-21T01:01:18ZThere’s evidence that climate activism could be swaying public opinion in the US<p>Climate activists <a href="https://globalclimatestrike.net/">walked out</a> of classrooms and workplaces in more than 150 countries on Friday, Sept. 20 to demand stronger action on climate change. Mass mobilizations like this have become increasingly common in recent years.</p>
<p>I’m a scholar of <a href="https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=V_l0Y6MAAAAJ&hl=en&oi=ao">environmental communication</a> who examines how people become engaged with solving dilemmas such as climate change, and how activism motivates others to take action. A new study I worked on suggests that large rallies, such as this youth-led Climate Strike, could be influencing public opinion. </p>
<p><iframe id="yxqIy" class="tc-infographic-datawrapper" src="https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/yxqIy/1/" height="400px" width="100%" style="border: none" frameborder="0"></iframe></p>
<h2>Conflicting signs</h2>
<p>For anyone in the U.S. who has been following climate change news for years, it could be easy to conclude that these protests don’t have an impact. After all, <a href="https://www.jstor.org/stable/43741156?seq=1#metadata_info_tab_contents">no major environmental legislation</a> has been signed into law in this country <a href="https://ballotpedia.org/Environmental_policy_in_the_United_States">in decades</a>.</p>
<p>Further, in 2016 a near-majority of U.S. voters <a href="https://www.cnn.com/election/2016/results">elected</a> a president who <a href="https://foreignpolicy.com/2019/07/31/trumps-shadow-war-on-climate-science-state-department-intelligence-analyst-resigns-white-house-muzzles-intelligence-assessment-climate-change-environment/">rejects the scientific evidence on climate change</a>. </p>
<p>On the other hand, <a href="https://climatecommunication.yale.edu/publications/americans-are-increasingly-alarmed-about-global-warming/">concern about climate change is rising</a>. So is <a href="https://doi.org/10.25810/jck1-hf50.15">media coverage</a> about <a href="https://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/icecaps/research/media_coverage/world/index.html">global warming</a>, notably including CNN’s seven-hour <a href="https://www.cnn.com/2019/08/27/politics/cnn-climate-crisis-town-hall-democrats/index.html">town hall</a> on the topic with 10 Democratic presidential candidates.</p>
<p>To see whether rallies, such as the Global Climate Strike are contributing to this change in public opinion in a measurable way, I partnered with Pennsylvania State University psychologist <a href="https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=JQSxXl8AAAAJ&hl=en&oi=ao">Janet K. Swim</a> and <a href="https://psych.la.psu.edu/graduate/program-areas/social/grad-students">Michael L. Lengieza</a>, a graduate student. We <a href="https://doi.org/10.3389/fcomm.2019.00004">collected public opinion data</a> before and after major protests.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/293385/original/file-20190920-135109-1lt2gsm.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/293385/original/file-20190920-135109-1lt2gsm.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/293385/original/file-20190920-135109-1lt2gsm.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=432&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/293385/original/file-20190920-135109-1lt2gsm.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=432&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/293385/original/file-20190920-135109-1lt2gsm.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=432&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/293385/original/file-20190920-135109-1lt2gsm.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=543&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/293385/original/file-20190920-135109-1lt2gsm.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=543&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/293385/original/file-20190920-135109-1lt2gsm.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=543&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">The March for Science on April 22, 2017 combined calls for scientific integrity and climate action.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.apimages.com/metadata/Index/Cool-Effect-at-March-for-Science/5531f1a78387426bb9b5a4562d0aa5bd/2/0">Kevin Wolf/AP</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Seeing activists in a less negative light</h2>
<p>We conducted surveys to assess public opinion before and after the <a href="https://www.cnn.com/2017/04/22/health/global-march-for-science/index.html">March for Science</a> – which had a wide-ranging agenda that included climate change – and the <a href="https://www.cnn.com/2017/04/29/us/climate-change-march/index.html">2017 People’s Climate March</a>, which took place on back-to-back Saturdays in April 2017. Hundreds of thousands of people took part in the main protests in Washington, as <a href="https://mashable.com/2017/04/29/peoples-climate-march-signs/">affiliated marches</a> occurred in other cities in the U.S. and around the world.</p>
<p>Nearly 600 people around the country, including some who had heard very little or even nothing at all about the mobilizations, answered our series of detailed questions. We tried to gauge their perceptions of climate activists and faith in humanity’s ability to come together on issues like climate change.</p>
<p>Half of the survey-takers completed their survey right before the first protest and the other half did it after the second one. Both groups represented broad ranges in age, education level and political beliefs. </p>
<p>The responses suggested that many Americans may have changed their opinion about the climate change movement around that time – in the spring of 2017.</p>
<p>For instance, the percentage who viewed climate activists as “aggressive” fell by 10 percentage points, from 74% to 64%. Similarly, survey respondents viewed activists as less “arrogant” and “dictatorial” after the protests occurred.</p>
<p>We consider this finding important because <a href="https://doi.org/10.3389/fcomm.2018.00054">other research</a> has suggested that people who view climate activists in this negative manner are more motivated to speak out against policies aimed at slowing the pace of global warming, such as the two carbon tax initiatives that <a href="https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2018/9/28/17899804/washington-1631-results-carbon-fee-green-new-deal">voters have rejected </a> in <a href="https://crosscut.com/2019/08/how-washington-state-turned-blue-three-decades-data-explain-our-partisan-shift">Washington state</a> despite its Democratic majority.</p>
<p><iframe id="M7rgx" class="tc-infographic-datawrapper" src="https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/M7rgx/3/" height="400px" width="100%" style="border: none" frameborder="0"></iframe></p>
<h2>Feeling less pessimistic about the future</h2>
<p>Although most survey-takers said they had heard about the protests, few actually knew someone who had participated in one. Wondering whether the way that media covered these events might influence how people reacted, we looked into whether Americans who prefer liberal-leaning media outlets, such as <a href="https://www.msnbc.com/">MSNBC</a>, reacted differently than those who rely on conservative-leaning media, such as <a href="https://www.foxnews.com/">Fox News</a>.</p>
<p>We detected some interesting and unexpected patterns.</p>
<p>Before we looked at the data, we thought that differences in the media coverage might further the <a href="https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/08/28/u-s-concern-about-climate-change-is-rising-but-mainly-among-democrats/">political polarization</a> of climate change. We were surprised when we saw that the marches appeared to have the opposite effect.</p>
<p>In particular, the protests may have made consumers of conservative-leaning news more hopeful. Before them, consumers of conservative-leaning news were more likely to say they doubted the ability of humanity to work together on big problems like climate change.</p>
<p>After the marches, fewer people of all kinds expressed pessimism. In particular, consumers of conservative media became less likely to agree to statements like this one: “People are too selfish to cooperate and to fix big problems.” Before the protests, 60% of them agreed with that statement. Afterward, only 45% did.</p>
<p><iframe id="9cXpB" class="tc-infographic-datawrapper" src="https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/9cXpB/6/" height="400px" width="100%" style="border: none" frameborder="0"></iframe></p>
<h2>The limits to this influence</h2>
<p>Even so, the mobilizations did not seem to sway public opinion in every way that the organizers might have hoped. In particular, despite the large numbers participating, the two waves of protests did not appear to have any measurable impact on convincing Americans that taking community action on climate change was a normal or common thing for people to do.</p>
<p>Specifically, there was no change in the perceived number of people in their community or in the entire country that survey-takers believed engaged in collective action, such as environmental activism or voting for politicians that support environmental issues.</p>
<p>We suspect the people we surveyed did not consider the marchers to be <a href="https://doi.org/10.1080/17524032.2018.1488755">similar to</a> <a href="https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.1983">average people</a> – like themselves.</p>
<p>Over the next few years, it will be interesting to see whether these shifts in public perceptions translate into shifts in consumer purchasing habits and public policy.</p>
<p>[ <em>You’re smart and curious about the world. So are The Conversation’s authors and editors.</em> <a href="https://theconversation.com/us/newsletters?utm_source=TCUS&utm_medium=inline-link&utm_campaign=newsletter-text&utm_content=youresmart">You can read us daily by subscribing to our newsletter</a>. ]</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/123740/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Nathaniel Geiger does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>A team of researchers tried to gauge public perceptions of climate activists and faith in humanity’s ability to work together on issues like climate change.Nathaniel Geiger, Assistant Professor of Communication Science, Indiana UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1185012019-09-05T11:27:01Z2019-09-05T11:27:01ZHow many Americans believe in climate change? Probably more than you think, research in Indiana suggests<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/289294/original/file-20190823-170931-1xqzxjh.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Concern about climate change is broader than many Hoosiers think. </span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/welcome-sign-indiana-state-line-20250787?src=3nqmMMNCOUW-KBcNK1aiWw-1-0">Katherine Welles/Shutterstock</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Indiana certainly doesn’t look like a state that’s ready to confront climate change. Its former governor, Vice President Mike Pence, has questioned <a href="https://www.factcheck.org/2016/11/pences-stance-on-climate-change/">whether human actions affect the climate</a>. In 2016 the majority of Indiana residents <a href="https://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/state.php?f=0&fips=18&year=2016">voted for Donald Trump</a>, who <a href="https://www.cnn.com/2019/03/12/us/trump-climate-change-tweet-patrick-moore/index.html">rejects mainstream climate science</a>. And the state <a href="https://news.gallup.com/poll/125066/State-States.aspx">ranks first</a> in the proportion of its population that identifies as conservative – a position that generally means <a href="https://www.nationalaffairs.com/publications/detail/conservatives-and-climate-change">resisting calls</a> to address climate change.</p>
<p>Given these realities, it would be easy to assume that all Hoosiers largely doubt climate change and humans’ contribution to it. The truth is surprising. </p>
<p><a href="https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=LktEWJgAAAAJ&hl=en">My research</a> focuses on the human dimensions of climate change, including public opinion. In a recent statewide survey, I found that the majority of Indiana residents supported taking action on climate change. However, most Hoosiers underestimate just how widespread this view is in their state.</p>
<h2>Evolving perspectives</h2>
<figure class="align-right ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/289292/original/file-20190823-170951-apjssf.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/289292/original/file-20190823-170951-apjssf.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/289292/original/file-20190823-170951-apjssf.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/289292/original/file-20190823-170951-apjssf.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/289292/original/file-20190823-170951-apjssf.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/289292/original/file-20190823-170951-apjssf.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/289292/original/file-20190823-170951-apjssf.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Vice President Mike Pence opposed federal action to address climate change as governor of Indiana.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.apimages.com/metadata/Index/Pence-Governor/a95e1399582349068a4bd0af5a75ba24/2/0">Michael Conroy/AP</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>To explore climate change views, my colleagues and I commissioned an online survey of 1,002 Indiana residents statewide in April 2019. The most reported political affiliation was Republican (28%), though there was a wide diversity of affiliations across the sample. A slight majority were men (52%) and the largest age category was 25-34 (20%). </p>
<p>I found that, overall, Hoosiers believed that climate change was real and was happening. Around 80% of respondents reported believing that climate change was occurring “somewhat” or “to a great extent.” </p>
<p>Similarly, a majority felt that climate change will harm Indiana’s economy “somewhat” or to a “great extent” (77%) and that climate change was “already” causing harm in the United States or would by 2030 (72%). Over 65% “somewhat” or “strongly agreed” that climate change effects are greater now than five years ago, and 75% supported initiatives to address these impacts in Indiana. </p>
<p>In the United States, the public’s view of climate change often <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2016.08.003">divides along party lines</a>, and respondents in my survey were no exception. Those identifying with more conservative parties reported lower levels of belief in and support for action on climate change across the board. </p>
<p>Still, a majority of Republicans – 66% – believed climate change is real, compared to 91% of Democrats, and supported initiatives to address it. A slight majority of Republicans reported that their acceptance of the reality of climate change had strengthened over the last five years. The fact that these attitudes were held by a majority of respondents of all political affiliations was our most surprising finding.</p>
<p><iframe id="ZSCkb" class="tc-infographic-datawrapper" src="https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/ZSCkb/2/" height="400px" width="100%" style="border: none" frameborder="0"></iframe></p>
<h2>Underestimating climate change consensus</h2>
<p>If citizens keep their support for acting on climate change to themselves, society struggles to build consensus. But relatives and friends <a href="https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916519853302">can influence individuals’ attitudes</a> on climate. </p>
<p>Research shows that people’s willingness to change their beliefs or attitudes depends to a great extent on what they already <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nclimate1743">perceive as normal</a>. Therefore, I next examined whether Hoosiers correctly perceived the existence of widespread support for climate change in their state. My survey asked, “What percentage of other Indiana residents do you think believe climate change is happening (whether caused by human activity or not)?”</p>
<p>On average, respondents underestimated by about 24% how many Hoosiers accept climate change. Doubters thought that most others shared their skepticism, estimating that only around 43% in Indiana held the opposite opinion. </p>
<p>Surveyed Hoosiers who believed climate change is happening perceived that a higher percentage of Hoosiers felt like them. However, they too underestimated the percentage who accepted the reality of climate change’s occurrence, by around 20 points on average. </p>
<p><iframe id="EtbYH" class="tc-infographic-datawrapper" src="https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/EtbYH/2/" height="400px" width="100%" style="border: none" frameborder="0"></iframe></p>
<p>Such misperceptions <a href="http://dx.doi.org/0.31219/osf.io/vg74q">hinder action</a> on climate change. Previous research has shown skeptics can fall prey to a “<a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-1031(77)90049-X">false consensus effect</a>” – the tendency to assume one’s own opinion is held by a majority of others. For example, climate skeptics who falsely assume that most others share their opinion are less likely to <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nclimate1743">change their minds</a>. But if they recognize that a consensus exists on the issue and is different from their own initial belief, that could encourage more conservatives to <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.31219/osf.io/vg74q">believe in climate change</a>. </p>
<p>In the same way, believers who underestimate just how many actually agree with them are <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2016.05.002">more likely to self-silence</a> for fear of being stigmatized. They may avoid calling their political representatives to urge support of climate change policies. Researchers have identified such “<a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.64.2.243">pluralistic ignorance</a>” in studies of college students and social norms around alcohol use.</p>
<p><iframe id="RREkG" class="tc-infographic-datawrapper" src="https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/RREkG/1/" height="400px" width="100%" style="border: none" frameborder="0"></iframe></p>
<h2>Capitalizing on consensus, fighting misperceptions</h2>
<p>Even in a state as conservative as Indiana, belief that climate change is occurring and support for action to curb it are now mainstream.</p>
<p>Our survey did not ask more controversial questions, such as whether humans had a role in causing climate change or how to reduce emissions. While I expect that many in the state <a href="https://theconversation.com/many-midwesterners-will-likely-never-believe-in-climate-change-heres-how-to-encourage-them-to-act-anyway-105199">remain divided on these issues</a>, I still find my results encouraging. </p>
<p>Perhaps one sign of quietly changing attitudes in Indiana is South Bend Mayor and presidential candidate Pete Buttigieg’s <a href="https://grist.org/article/where-is-pete-buttigiegs-climate-plan/">rise in national polls</a>, due in part to his climate change agenda, which Buttigieg has linked to broader action to <a href="https://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/opinion/columnists/caucus/2019/08/13/pete-buttigieg-my-plan-re-imagines-opportunity-rural-america-iowa-caucus/1997170001/">revive rural America</a>.</p>
<figure class="align-right ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/289960/original/file-20190828-184248-ndofas.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/289960/original/file-20190828-184248-ndofas.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=415&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/289960/original/file-20190828-184248-ndofas.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=415&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/289960/original/file-20190828-184248-ndofas.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=415&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/289960/original/file-20190828-184248-ndofas.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=522&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/289960/original/file-20190828-184248-ndofas.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=522&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/289960/original/file-20190828-184248-ndofas.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=522&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">South Bend Mayor Pete Buttigieg has made climate change part of his agenda in campaigning for the 2020 Democratic presidential nomination.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.apimages.com/metadata/Index/Election-2020-Pete-Buttigieg/e67cdf13af17434bbf81985a8c4e0d77/5/0">Mary Schwalm/AP</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Addressing climate change will require <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/07/climate/ipcc-climate-report-2040.html">major societal changes</a>, which in turn will require overcoming barriers that discourage or prevent collective action. Hoosiers’ underestimation of local consensus on climate change is likely one such barrier in Indiana. </p>
<p>Our respondents are not alone in misperceiving how many of their peers hold supportive attitudes. Many people nationwide <a href="https://scholar.harvard.edu/files/dtingley/files/mildenbergertingley_bjps.pdf">underestimate consensus on this issue</a>. One way to overcome this tendency may be to focus on <a href="https://climatecommunication.yale.edu/visualizations-data/ycom-us-2018/?est=happening&type=value&geo=county">communicating the commonness</a> or the <a href="https://climatecommunication.yale.edu/publications/a-growing-majority-of-americans-think-global-warming-is-happening-and-are-worried/">growing belief</a> in climate change. </p>
<p>I also see it as critical for individuals who believe climate change is occurring to <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.31219/osf.io/vg74q">discuss the topic</a> with friends and relatives, especially if these loved ones are doubters. Helping people to recognize just how normal it is to believe in climate change could lead to broader calls for action in Indiana and beyond.</p>
<p>[ <em><a href="https://theconversation.com/us/newsletters?utm_source=TCUS&utm_medium=inline-link&utm_campaign=newsletter-text&utm_content=expertise">Expertise in your inbox. Sign up for The Conversation’s newsletter and get a digest of academic takes on today’s news, every day.</a></em> ]</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/118501/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Matthew Houser is an assistant research scientist at Indiana University. </span></em></p>A recent survey in Indiana finds broad concern about climate change and support for addressing it in this red state, with one catch: Many Hoosiers don’t realize their neighbors agree with them.Matthew Houser, Assistant Research Scientist and Faculty Fellow, Indiana UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/972232018-05-30T10:38:49Z2018-05-30T10:38:49ZMany Republican mayors are advancing climate-friendly policies without saying so<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/220344/original/file-20180524-117628-1gvs28h.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">San Diego Mayor Kevin Faulconer, right, and California Governor Jerry Brown, left, discuss drought and water restrictions on August 11, 2015. Faulconer has championed renewable energy, water recycling and other climate-friendly policies.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.apimages.com/metadata/Index/Drought-Governor-Brown/11128eeaafb5425ba69d29f513f51094/3/0">AP Photo/Lenny Ignelzi</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Leadership in addressing climate change in the United States has shifted away from Washington, D.C. Cities across the country are organizing, networking and sharing resources to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions and tackle related challenges ranging from air pollution to heat island effects.</p>
<p>But group photos at climate change summits typically feature big-city Democratic mayors rubbing shoulders. Republicans are rarer, with a few notable exceptions, such as <a href="https://www.sandiego.gov/mayor">Kevin Faulconer</a> of San Diego and <a href="http://www.carmel.in.gov/our-government/mayor">James Brainard</a> of Carmel, Indiana. </p>
<p>Faulconer co-chairs the Sierra Club’s <a href="https://www.sierraclub.org/ready-for-100/mayors-for-clean-energy">Mayors for 100 Percent Clean Energy Initiative</a>, which rallies mayors around a shared commitment to power their cities entirely with clean and renewable energy. Brainard is a longtime champion of the issue within the <a href="https://www.usmayors.org/">U.S. Conference of Mayors</a> and the <a href="http://climatemayors.org/">Climate Mayors</a> network.</p>
<p>In our research at the <a href="https://www.bu.edu/ioc/">Boston University Initiative on Cities</a>, we found that large-city Republican mayors shy away from climate network memberships and their associated framing of the problem. But in many cases they advocate locally for policies that help advance climate goals for other reasons, such as fiscal responsibility and public health. In short, the United States is making progress on this issue in some surprising places.</p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/1HpsaByBNBk?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
<figcaption><span class="caption">Miami, Florida Republican Mayor Tomás Regalado urged voters to support a $400 million bond in November 2017. About half of the money will be used to protect the city from sea level rise and flooding.</span></figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Climate network members are mainly Democrats</h2>
<p>In our initiative’s recent report, “<a href="http://surveyofmayors.com/survey/city_networks/">Cities Joining Ranks</a>,” we systematically reviewed which U.S. cities belong to 10 prominent city climate networks. These networks, often founded by mayors themselves, provide platforms to exchange information, advocate for urban priorities and strengthen city goverments’ technical capacities.</p>
<p>The networks we assessed included <a href="http://climatemayors.org/">Climate Mayors</a>; <a href="https://www.wearestillin.com/">We Are Still In</a>, which represents organizations that continue to support action to meet the targets in the Paris climate agreement; and <a href="http://icleiusa.org/">ICLEI USA</a>. </p>
<p>We found a clear partisan divide between Republican and Democrat mayors. On average, Republican-led cities with more than 75,000 residents belong to less than one climate network. In contrast, cities with Democratic mayors belonged to an average of four networks. Among the 100 largest U.S. cities, of which 29 have Republican mayors and 63 have Democrats, Democrat-led cities are more than four times more likely to belong to at least one climate network.</p>
<p>This split has implications for city-level climate action. Joining these networks sends a very public signal to constituents about the importance of safeguarding the environment, transitioning to cleaner forms of energy and addressing climate change. Some networks require cities to plan for or implement <a href="http://www.surveyofmayors.com/survey/city_networks/comparing_networks/">specific greenhouse gas reduction targets</a> and report on their progress, which means that mayors can be held accountable.</p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"998952626648592384"}"></div></p>
<h2>Constituents in Republican-led cities support climate policies</h2>
<p>Cities can also reduce their carbon footprints and stay under the radar - a strategy that is popular with Republican mayors. Taking the findings of the “Cities Joining Ranks” report as a starting point, I explored support for climate policies in Republican-led cities and the level of ambition and transparency in their climate plans.</p>
<p>To tackle these questions, I cross-referenced Republican-led cities with data from the <a href="http://climatecommunication.yale.edu/visualizations-data/ycom-us-2016/">Yale Climate Opinion maps</a>, which provide insight into county-level support for four climate policies: </p>
<ul>
<li>Regulating carbon dioxide as a pollutant</li>
<li>Imposing strict carbon dioxide emission limits on existing coal-fired power plants</li>
<li>Funding research into renewable energy sources</li>
<li>Requiring utilities to produce 20 percent of their electricity from renewable sources</li>
</ul>
<p>In all of the 10 largest U.S. cities that have Republican mayors and also voted Republican in the 2008 presidential election, county-level polling data showed majority support for all four climate policies. Examples included Jacksonville, Florida, and Fort Worth, Texas. None of these cities participated in any of the 10 climate networks that we reviewed in our report.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/220868/original/file-20180529-80661-11phhy8.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/220868/original/file-20180529-80661-11phhy8.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/220868/original/file-20180529-80661-11phhy8.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=341&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/220868/original/file-20180529-80661-11phhy8.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=341&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/220868/original/file-20180529-80661-11phhy8.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=341&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/220868/original/file-20180529-80661-11phhy8.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=428&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/220868/original/file-20180529-80661-11phhy8.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=428&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/220868/original/file-20180529-80661-11phhy8.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=428&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption"></span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://climatecommunication.yale.edu/visualizations-data/ycom-us-2016/?est=happening&type=value&geo=county">Yale Program on Climate Change Communication</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/">CC BY-ND</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>This finding suggests that popular support exists for action on climate change, and that residents of these cities who advocate acting could lobby their elected officials to join climate networks. Indeed, we have found that one of the top three reasons mayors join city policy networks is because it signals their priorities. A mayor of a medium-sized West Coast city told us: “Your constituents are expecting you to represent them, so we are trying politically to be their voice.” </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/220806/original/file-20180529-80645-1r66fk8.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/220806/original/file-20180529-80645-1r66fk8.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/220806/original/file-20180529-80645-1r66fk8.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=352&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/220806/original/file-20180529-80645-1r66fk8.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=352&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/220806/original/file-20180529-80645-1r66fk8.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=352&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/220806/original/file-20180529-80645-1r66fk8.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=442&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/220806/original/file-20180529-80645-1r66fk8.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=442&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/220806/original/file-20180529-80645-1r66fk8.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=442&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Mayors join networks to amplify their message, signal priorities to constituents and share information.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.surveyofmayors.com/survey/city_networks/why_mayors_join/">BU Initiative on Cities</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/">CC BY-ND</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Climate-friendly strategies, but few emissions targets</h2>
<p>Next I reviewed planning documents from the 29 largest U.S. cities that are led by Republican mayors. Among this group, 15 have developed or are developing concrete goals that guide their efforts to improve local environmental quality. Many of these actions reduce cities’ carbon footprints, although they are not primarily framed that way.</p>
<p>Rather, these cities most frequently cast targets for achieving energy savings and curbing local air pollution as part of their <a href="https://urbanplanning.cityofomaha.org/images/stories/Master%20Plan%20Elements/EnvironmentElement2010.pdf">master plans</a>. Some package them as part of <a href="https://www.elpasotexas.gov/%7E/media/files/coep/sustainability/el%20paso%20tx%20%20livable%20city%20sustainability%20plan.ashx?la=en">dedicated sustainability strategies</a>. </p>
<p>These agendas often evoke images of <a href="http://today.oregonstate.edu/archives/2016/apr/framing-discourse-around-conservative-values-shifts-climate-change-attitudes">disrupted ecosystems</a> that need to be <a href="https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/04/republicans-framing-climate-change/360911/">conserved</a>, or that endanger human health and quality of life. Some also spotlight cost savings from designing infrastructure to cope with more extreme weather events. </p>
<p>In contrast, only seven cities in this group had developed quantitative greenhouse gas reduction targets. Except for Miami, all of them are in California, which requires its cities to align their greenhouse gas reduction targets with <a href="https://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/localgovernment/localgovernment.htm">state</a> <a href="https://www.gov.ca.gov/2015/04/29/news18938/">plans</a>. From planning documents it appears that none of the six Californian cities goes far beyond minimum mandated emission reductions set by the state for 2020. </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/220336/original/file-20180524-90281-1msh92a.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/220336/original/file-20180524-90281-1msh92a.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/220336/original/file-20180524-90281-1msh92a.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=357&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/220336/original/file-20180524-90281-1msh92a.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=357&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/220336/original/file-20180524-90281-1msh92a.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=357&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/220336/original/file-20180524-90281-1msh92a.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=448&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/220336/original/file-20180524-90281-1msh92a.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=448&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/220336/original/file-20180524-90281-1msh92a.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=448&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Greenhouse gas reductions goals, with baselines, for the seven largest Republican-led cities.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Nicolas Gunkel</span>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/">CC BY-ND</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Watch what they do, not what they say</h2>
<p>The real measure of Republican mayors taking action on climate change is not the number of networks they join but the policy steps they take, often quietly, at home. While few Republican mayors may attend the <a href="http://www.wbur.org/news/2018/05/09/boston-climate-summit">next</a> <a href="https://globalclimateactionsummit.org/about/">round</a> of sub-national climate summits, many have set out policy agendas that mitigate climate change, without calling a lot of attention to it – <a href="https://theconversation.com/red-state-rural-america-is-acting-on-climate-change-without-calling-it-climate-change-69866">much like a number of rural U.S. communities</a>. Focusing narrowly on policy labels and public commitments by mayors fails to capture the various forms of local climate action, especially in GOP-led cities. </p>
<p>Carmel, Indiana Mayor James Brainard has suggested that some of his less-outspoken counterparts may <a href="https://thinkprogress.org/republican-mayor-jim-brainard-climate-change-e662f098c0a3/">fear a backlash</a> from conservative opinion-makers. “There is a lot of Republicans out there that think like I do. They have been intimidated, to some extent, by the Tea Party and the conservative talk show hosts,” Brainard has said.</p>
<p>Indeed, studies show that the news environment has become <a href="https://doi.org/10.1177/1075547018760334">increasingly polarized around accepting or denying climate science</a>. Avoiding explicit mention of climate change is enabling a sizable number of big-city GOP mayors to <a href="http://investor.firstsolar.com/news-releases/news-release-details/first-solar-build-solar-module-factory-mesa-arizona">pursue</a> <a href="http://www.governing.com/topics/transportation-infrastructure/gov-tulsa-climate-change-resilience-adaptation-flooding.html">policies</a> that advance climate goals.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/97223/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>The Boston University Initiative on Cities' Menino Survey, the program's flagship publication, as well as the compendium report "Cities Joining Ranks", which reviews membership and activities of city climate networks, are supported by The Rockefeller Foundation and Citi Community Development.</span></em></p>They may not say ‘climate change,’ but many Republican US mayors support clean energy, jobs in renewable industries, and other climate-friendly policies. And so do majorities of their constituents.Nicolas Gunkel, Research Fellow at Boston University Initiative on Cities, Boston UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/910492018-02-14T11:34:48Z2018-02-14T11:34:48ZCaribbean residents see climate change as a severe threat but most in US don’t — here’s why<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/206036/original/file-20180212-58322-hmro4z.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">People in the U.S. and the Caribbean share vulnerability to climate change-related disasters, but only in the Caribbean is the public truly worried. Why?</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.doncio.navy.mil/FileHandler.ashx?id=10786">US Navy</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/">CC BY-SA</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>During the 2017 <a href="http://www.noaa.gov/media-release/extremely-active-2017-atlantic-hurricane-season-finally-ends">Atlantic basin hurricane season</a>, six major storms – all of which were Category 3 or higher – produced devastating human, material and financial devastation across the southern United States and the Caribbean. </p>
<p>Last year’s above-average storm activity was foreseeable. Hurricane intensity ticked up in <a href="https://www.nhc.noaa.gov/data/tcr/summary_atlc_2016.pdf">2016</a> and scientists have predicted this trend will hold as <a href="https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/RisingCost/rising_cost5.php">global temperatures continue to rise</a>. </p>
<p>Though people in the U.S. and the Caribbean share this increasing vulnerability to hurricanes, they hold very different opinions about the severity of climate change. According to results from the latest <a href="https://www.vanderbilt.edu/lapop/">Vanderbilt University AmericasBarometer survey</a>, a strong majority of Caribbean residents perceive climate change as a “very serious” problem. In contrast, just 44 percent <a href="https://www.vanderbilt.edu/lapop/insights/IO929en.pdf">of the U.S. public does</a>.</p>
<p>Why the difference of opinion? Our <a href="https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=xwl-kqcAAAAJ&hl=en&oi=sra">research</a> identifies two key factors: politics and risk perception. </p>
<h2>Climate change is a partisan issue in the US</h2>
<p>The AmericasBarometer is a biennial survey conducted by Vanderbilt University’s Latin American Public Opinion Project. The <a href="https://www.vanderbilt.edu/lapop/">latest round</a> was conducted between 2016 and 2017 in 29 countries across the Americas.</p>
<p>The 10 Caribbean countries surveyed include <a href="https://theconversation.com/how-to-help-haitians-recover-from-the-mental-trauma-of-hurricane-matthew-66785">Haiti</a>, Dominica and <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2017/nov/01/it-feels-like-dominica-is-finished-life-amid-the-ruins-left-by-hurricane-maria">Barbuda</a>, all hit hard by hurricanes in recent years. The survey found that between 56 percent and 79 percent of respondents in the Caribbean believe that climate change is a very serious problem for their country. </p>
<p><iframe id="nz8QR" class="tc-infographic-datawrapper" src="https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/nz8QR/3/" height="400px" width="100%" style="border: none" frameborder="0"></iframe></p>
<p>Things look different in the United States, where the AmericasBarometer survey affirms <a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S095937801100104X">prior research</a> demonstrating that climate change is a partisan issue. More than three-quarters of individuals on the liberal side of the political spectrum reported that climate change is a very serious problem. </p>
<p>Less than 20 percent of those with conservative leanings expressed the same degree of concern. </p>
<p><iframe id="1N4Au" class="tc-infographic-datawrapper" src="https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/1N4Au/5/" height="400px" width="100%" style="border: none" frameborder="0"></iframe></p>
<p>This pattern holds even when we control for age, education, income, gender and perceptions of disaster risk.</p>
<p>In the Caribbean, political leanings are far less consequential to people’s views of climate change. The AmericasBarometer survey asked respondents in the Dominican Republic, Haiti and Jamaica to place themselves on a scale that runs from the political left to the right. We found no significant differences in opinions about climate change from people with different political views.</p>
<p>One explanation for why the Caribbean public demonstrates more of a consensus on climate change, then, is simply that the issue is not politicized in that region. People of all ideological bents agree that, in the Caribbean, climate change poses a very serious problem.</p>
<h2>Just how dangerous is climate change?</h2>
<p>People’s perceptions of their vulnerability to climate change-related dangers may also explain diverging views on the issue.</p>
<p>The <a href="https://www.vanderbilt.edu/lapop/">AmericasBarometer</a> asked respondents in both the Caribbean and <a href="https://www.vanderbilt.edu/lapop/insights/IO929en.pdf">the United States</a> to assess the odds that they or a family member would be killed or seriously harmed by a natural disaster in the next 25 years. </p>
<p>In both places, those who feel most vulnerable to disasters more often report that climate change is a “very serious” problem. This relationship holds even when accounting for age, education, wealth, urban residence and gender.</p>
<p>Overall, though, in the U.S. people feel less exposed to hurricanes and other disasters than their Caribbean counterparts. In fact, most members of the U.S. public believe that personal harm from a future disaster is either “not likely at all” or “unlikely.”</p>
<p>Most people in the Caribbean, on the other hand, say it is “somewhat likely” or “very likely.” </p>
<p><iframe id="YvkQ2" class="tc-infographic-datawrapper" src="https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/YvkQ2/2/" height="400px" width="100%" style="border: none" frameborder="0"></iframe></p>
<p>These notable differences may be due to geography. Because the Caribbean region is comprised of islands, a higher proportion of <a href="https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg2/ar4_wg2_full_report.pdf">communities there are coastal</a>. This, in turn, can increase the impact that storms have on residents. </p>
<h2>Climate change and hurricanes</h2>
<p>Some scientific consensus exists that <a href="https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/scientists-can-now-blame-individual-natural-disasters-on-climate-change/">climate change can be blamed</a>, at least in part, for the hundreds of casualties and more than US$400 billion in damage that <a href="https://www.cnn.com/2017/10/10/weather/hurricane-nate-maria-irma-harvey-impact-look-back-trnd/index.html">storms brought</a> to the U.S. and the Caribbean in 2017. </p>
<p>Scientific models indicate that the Earth’s warming climate is likely to shape future storm activity in the Atlantic basin. Scientists are not sure, however, exactly how this will manifest itself in future hurricane seasons. Some researchers suggest that warmer temperatures increase storm <a href="http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2017GL075888/full">probability</a>. Others restrict the effects to storm <a href="https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/full/10.1175/JCLI-D-13-00195.1">intensity</a>. </p>
<p>The 2018 hurricane season is just a few months away. Our research reveals that with politics removed and risk perceptions elevated, people in the Caribbean are bracing for whatever comes quite differently than their U.S. counterparts.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/91049/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Elizabeth J. Zechmeister directs Vanderbilt's Latin American Public Opinion Project. In that capacity, her work has been supported by USAID, the Inter-American Development Bank, United Nations Development Programme and Open Society Foundations. Opinions expressed in this article belong to the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the AmericasBarometer project or its funders.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Claire Q. Evans does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>New research suggests politics and risk perception may explain why the US and Caribbean see climate change so differently, though both places are ever more vulnerable to powerful hurricanes.Elizabeth J. Zechmeister, Cornelius Vanderbilt Professor of Political Science and Director of LAPOP, Vanderbilt UniversityClaire Q. Evans, Doctoral Student, Political Science, Vanderbilt UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/801172017-08-18T02:18:53Z2017-08-18T02:18:53ZCurbing climate change: Why it’s so hard to act in time<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/182223/original/file-20170816-32640-1a43s57.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">March for Science, Washington, D.C., April 29, 2017.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/washington-dc-april-29-2017-thousands-630429824?src=N_ANcSEM1VWrRYZfThhccQ-1-0">Shutterstock.com</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>This summer I worked on the Greenland ice sheet, part of a scientific experiment to study surface melting and its contribution to Greenland’s accelerating ice losses. By virtue of its size, elevation and currently frozen state, Greenland has the potential to cause large and rapid increases to sea level as it melts. </p>
<p>When I returned, a nonscientist friend asked me what the research showed about future sea level rise. He was disappointed that I couldn’t say anything definite, since it will take several years to analyze the data. This kind of time lag is common in science, but it can make communicating the issues difficult. That’s especially true for climate change, where decades of data collection may be required to see trends. </p>
<p>A recent draft <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/08/07/climate/document-Draft-of-the-Climate-Science-Special-Report.html">report on climate change</a> by federal scientists exploits data captured over many decades to assess recent changes, and warns of a dire future if we don’t change our ways. Yet few countries are aggressively reducing their emissions in a way scientists say are needed to avoid the dangers of climate change. </p>
<p>While this lack of progress dismays people, it’s actually understandable. Human beings have evolved to focus on immediate threats. We have a tough time dealing with risks that have time lags of decades or even centuries. As a geoscientist, I’m used to thinking on much longer time scales, but I recognize that most people are not. I see several kinds of time lags associated with climate change debates. It’s important to understand these time lags and how they interact if we hope to make progress. </p>
<h2>Agreeing on the goal</h2>
<p>Changing the basic energy underpinnings of our industrial economy will not be easy or cheap, and will require broad public support. Today nearly half of Americans – presumably including President Trump, based on his <a href="http://www.newsweek.com/what-has-trump-said-about-global-warming-quotes-climate-change-paris-agreement-618898">public comments</a> – <a href="https://www.wilsoncenter.org/sites/default/files/wilson.report.mind_the_gap.2-2.pdf">do not believe</a> that humans are the primary cause of modern rapid climate change. Others admit that humans have contributed, but may not support strict regulations or big investments in response. </p>
<p>In part, these views reflect the <a href="http://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/books/215462/dark-money-by-jane-mayer/9780307947901/">influence of special interest groups</a> who benefit from our high-carbon “business as usual” economic system. But they also reflect the complexity of the problem, and the difficulty scientists have in explaining it. As I point out in my <a href="https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/curbing-catastrophe/02789220833AB1F54C51B9D0628E639C">recent book</a> on how we think about disasters, statements made by scientists in the 1980s, 1990s and early 2000s about global warming were often vague and full of caveats, which made it easy for climate change skeptics to forestall action by emphasizing how uncertain the picture was. </p>
<p>Fortunately, scientists are improving at communication. The <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/08/07/climate/document-Draft-of-the-Climate-Science-Special-Report.html">increasing frequency of coastal flooding, summer heat waves and droughts</a> could also help to change minds, but it may take a few more decades before a solid majority of Americans supports high-level action.</p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/nAuv1R34BHA?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
<figcaption><span class="caption">Earth’s average temperature has risen over 1 degree Fahrenheit in the past century. It is projected to rise an additional 3°F to 10°F over the next 100 years.</span></figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Designing cleaner technologies</h2>
<p>It will also take time for technological developments to support our transition to a low-carbon energy future. Here, at least, there is reason for optimism. A few decades ago renewable energy sources such as wind and solar seemed unlikely to replace a significant fraction of carbon-based energy. Similarly, electric vehicles seemed unlikely to meet a significant share of our transportation needs. Today both are realistic alternatives. </p>
<p>This year wind and solar power <a href="https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=31632">hit 10 percent of U.S. electricity generation</a> for the first time. Electric vehicles and hybrids are also <a href="https://theconversation.com/how-electric-vehicles-could-take-a-bite-out-of-the-oil-market-81081">becoming more common</a>. The recent advent and rapid adoption of LED lighting could start to have an impact on our electrical consumption. </p>
<p>Thanks to these developments, humanity’s carbon footprint will look quite different in a few decades. Whether that’s quick enough to avoid 2 degree Celsius of warming is not yet clear.</p>
<h2>Funding the transition</h2>
<p>Once we finally decide to make a low-carbon transition and figure out how to do it, it will cost <a href="https://theconversation.com/how-electric-vehicles-could-take-a-bite-out-of-the-oil-market-81081">trillions of dollars</a>. Capital markets can’t provide that sort of funding instantaneously. </p>
<p>Consider the cost of upgrading just the U.S. housing market. The United States has approximately 125 million households, of which about 60 percent (75 million) own their own homes. The majority of these are <a href="https://www.kansascityfed.org/publicat/econrev/pdf/13q4Rappaport.pdf">single-family residences</a>. </p>
<p>If we assume that at least 60 million of these residences are single-family homes, duplexes or townhomes where it is feasible for residents to upgrade to solar photovoltaic power, then equipping just half (30 million homes) with a standard solar energy package and battery storage, at a cost of about US$25,000 per household, would cost nearly a trillion dollars. Our economy can support this level of capital investment over one or two decades, but for most of the world it’s going to take longer. </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/182226/original/file-20170816-32614-1x77dnq.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/182226/original/file-20170816-32614-1x77dnq.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/182226/original/file-20170816-32614-1x77dnq.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=144&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/182226/original/file-20170816-32614-1x77dnq.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=144&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/182226/original/file-20170816-32614-1x77dnq.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=144&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/182226/original/file-20170816-32614-1x77dnq.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=181&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/182226/original/file-20170816-32614-1x77dnq.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=181&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/182226/original/file-20170816-32614-1x77dnq.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=181&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Solar Charging Station for Electric Vehicles at Phillips Chevrolet, Frankfort, Illinois. New energy technologies require infrastructure to support them.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/95/Phillips_Chevrolet%27s_Solar_Charging_Station_for_Electric_Vehicles.JPG">Phillipschevy</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/">CC BY-SA</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>The natural carbon cycle</h2>
<p>Our ability to add carbon dioxide to the atmosphere greatly exceeds nature’s ability to remove it. There is a time lag between carbon emission and carbon removal. The process is complicated, with multiple pathways, some of which operate over centuries. </p>
<p>For example, some atmospheric carbon dioxide at the ocean’s surface dissolves into seawater, forming carbonate ions. Meanwhile, rainfall weathers rocks on land, slowly breaking them apart and washing calcium and magnesium ions into rivers and streams and on into the oceans. These materials combine into minerals such as aragonite, calcite or dolomite, which eventually sink and become entombed in sedimentary layers at the bottom of the ocean. </p>
<p>But since this process plays out over many centuries, most of the carbon dioxide that we put into the atmosphere today will continue to heat the world for <a href="https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.earth.031208.100206">hundreds to thousands of years</a>. </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/182227/original/file-20170816-32614-pas3m9.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/182227/original/file-20170816-32614-pas3m9.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/182227/original/file-20170816-32614-pas3m9.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/182227/original/file-20170816-32614-pas3m9.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/182227/original/file-20170816-32614-pas3m9.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/182227/original/file-20170816-32614-pas3m9.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/182227/original/file-20170816-32614-pas3m9.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/182227/original/file-20170816-32614-pas3m9.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Earth’s carbon supply constantly cycles between land, atmosphere and oceans. Yellow numbers are natural fluxes, and red are human contributions in gigatons of carbon per year. White numbers indicate stored carbon.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/CarbonCycle/">NASA Earth Observatory</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Today the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is just over 400 parts per million, rising by <a href="http://scrippsco2.ucsd.edu">about 3 ppm yearly</a>. Given the political, technological and economic time lags that we face, it’s likely that we will hit at least 450-500 ppm before we can seriously curtail our carbon emissions. The last time Earth’s atmosphere contained this much carbon dioxide was several million years ago, during the Pliocene era. Global temperatures were <a href="http://dx.doi.org/%2010.1126/science.1233137">much higher than 2°C above today’s average</a>, and global sea level was <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.aaa4019">at least 6 meters (nearly 20 feet) higher</a>. </p>
<p>We haven’t seen comparable temperature or sea level increases so far because of <a href="https://theconversation.com/if-we-stopped-emitting-greenhouse-gases-right-now-would-we-stop-climate-change-78882">time lags in Earth’s climate response</a>. It takes a while for our elevated carbon dioxide levels to trigger impacts on this scale. Given the various time lags that are in play, it is quite possible that we have already exceeded the 2°C rise over preindustrial temperatures – a threshold most scientists say we should avoid – but it hasn’t shown up on the thermometer yet. </p>
<p>We may not be able to predict exactly how much future temperatures or sea levels will rise, but we do know that unless we curb our carbon emissions, our planet will be a very uncomfortable place for our grandchildren and their grandchildren. Large-scale social changes take time: they are the sum of many individual changes, in both attitudes and behaviors. To minimize that time lag, we need to start acting now.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/80117/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Timothy H. Dixon has received funding from the US National Science Foundation, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, the Department of Energy and the Office of Naval Research. </span></em></p>Why is it so hard to reach consensus about how to slow climate change? Multiple time lags get in the way: some make it hard to convey the risk, while others prolong the search for solutions.Timothy H. Dixon, Professor, Geology and Geophysics, Natural and human-caused hazards, sea level rise and climate change, University of South FloridaLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/610772016-06-16T04:48:15Z2016-06-16T04:48:15ZSurvey: more Australians want climate action now than before the carbon tax<p>In April 2011, not long after Julia Gillard was returned to power in the 2010 federal election, I <a href="http://minerva.mq.edu.au:8080/vital/access/manager/Repository/mq:20670">asked a representative sample of Australians</a> about their attitudes to climate policy. </p>
<p>Climate was a water-cooler issue at the time. The carbon tax legislation had been introduced into Parliament in March, paving the way for a subsequent emissions trading scheme. </p>
<p>That scheme <a href="https://theconversation.com/obituary-australias-carbon-price-29217">bit the dust in 2014</a> after becoming a hotly debated issue during the rancorous 2013 election campaign, but carbon policy has not had the same high profile during the current campaign. My colleagues and I decided to repeat our survey and see whether attitudes really have cooled on global warming. </p>
<p>Despite climate policy being something of a sleeper issue in this election, our results suggest that concern about the climate is more widespread now than it was five years ago. </p>
<p>We found that 75% of people surveyed believe it to be an important global issue, and 74% see climate as an important issue for Australia.</p>
<p>As to what we should do about it, we found that 57% of people want Australia to act on climate change irrespective of whether other countries do or not. This is significantly more than in 2011, when 50% of people were in this category. </p>
<p>A further 28% in our new survey think that action should be taken only if there were concerted international policy action, whereas just 15% would prefer that Australia take no action at all. When asked why they did not want to proceed, 34% of them stated that they only wanted to proceed if global action was taken.</p>
<p>These are fairly clear indicators that Australians are not complacent about the need for climate action.</p>
<iframe src="https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/iZwqz/1/" frameborder="0" allowtransparency="true" allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen" webkitallowfullscreen="webkitallowfullscreen" mozallowfullscreen="mozallowfullscreen" oallowfullscreen="oallowfullscreen" msallowfullscreen="msallowfullscreen" width="100%" height="400"></iframe>
<h2>What policies do voters want?</h2>
<p>Both of the major political parties have committed to emissions targets: the Liberals have a target of a <a href="https://theconversation.com/australias-2030-climate-target-puts-us-in-the-race-but-at-the-back-45931">26-28% reduction relative to 2005 levels by 2030</a>, whereas Labor has <a href="https://theconversation.com/labor-pledges-45-emissions-cuts-by-2030-but-the-science-says-more-is-needed-51386">pledged a 45% cut</a> over the same time frame. Both are modest in comparison with the Climate Change Authority’s <a href="https://theconversation.com/climate-change-authority-calls-for-30-emissions-cut-by-2025-40554">recommended cut of 40-60% by 2030 relative to 2000 levels</a>. </p>
<p>As for the policies needed to meet these targets, Labor has <a href="https://theconversation.com/policycheck-labors-phased-emissions-trading-scheme-58496">proposed an emissions trading scheme</a>, but <a href="https://theconversation.com/labors-climate-policy-back-in-the-game-but-missing-detail-58477">some details are still vague</a>. The Liberal Party is persisting with its <a href="https://theconversation.com/au/topics/direct-action-plan">Direct Action</a> plan to “auction” emissions reduction projects to the cheapest corporate bidders.</p>
<p>Our survey, however, suggests that many voters’ preferred policy is a mixture, potentially including a carbon tax, an emissions trading scheme and other direct action policies. Some 40% of respondents preferred this policy mix, up from 31% in 2011. Support for carbon taxation or emissions trading as standalone policies both fell relative to five years ago.</p>
<p>When divided according to voting intentions, all groups preferred a policy mix to any of the other choices. This preference was strongest for “unsure voters”, who made up nearly a quarter of our respondents. For Labor and Greens voters, the most favoured second-choice option was a carbon tax, while no single policy (not even Direct Action) came a close second among Liberal voters.</p>
<p>The numbers get even more intriguing when we split them by gender, age and income. We found that 82% of females see the issue of climate change as important at a global level, and the same proportion described it as important at a local level; this was 15 and 16 percentage points, respectively, greater than among their male counterparts. There was a similar 15-point gender difference in the desire to proceed on climate policy irrespective of global action. </p>
<p>This desire for climate policy irrespective of global action was the dominant view in every age group, although we found that it declined among older groups. The 55-59 age group was the weakest in its support for climate action and the most likely (at 36%) to select “no policy” as the desired climate response.</p>
<p>In our 2011 study, higher incomes were associated with less desire for climate policy. This was replicated in 2016, as can be seen in the graph below – note the significant increase in support for “no climate action” among those with salaries over A$110,000.</p>
<iframe src="https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/QRTCj/1/" frameborder="0" allowtransparency="true" allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen" webkitallowfullscreen="webkitallowfullscreen" mozallowfullscreen="mozallowfullscreen" oallowfullscreen="oallowfullscreen" msallowfullscreen="msallowfullscreen" width="100%" height="400"></iframe>
<p>As these stats show, concern about climate change is relatively steady until we get to the highest income bracket, where it drops off significantly. There are several potential explanations, including the suggestion that those with higher incomes will be less adversely affected by climate change because they can afford to ameliorate its impacts.</p>
<p>But if there is a take-home message for politicians in these numbers, I would suggest it is this: even in those groups with the lowest levels of climate concern, a majority is still worried about the issue and wants to see action.</p>
<p>Perhaps, in the midst of the longest election campaign since the 1960s, it might be worth finding a bit more time to acknowledge that.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/61077/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Deborah Cotton received funding from Macquarie University Higher Degree Research Fund for the survey in 2011 and The University of Technology Sydney Business School for the 2016 survey.</span></em></p>Climate has been something of a sleeper issue in this election. But a new survey suggests voters are keener for action now then they were when the carbon tax was making its way through parliament.Deborah Cotton, Lecturer in Finance, University of Technology SydneyLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/573972016-04-07T09:50:08Z2016-04-07T09:50:08ZWill the health dangers of climate change get people to care? The science says: maybe<p>Climate change is a <a href="https://health2016.globalchange.gov/">major public health threat</a>, already making existing problems like asthma, exposure to extreme heat, food poisoning, and infectious disease more severe, and posing new risks from climate change-related disasters, including death or injury. </p>
<p>Those were the alarming conclusions of a <a href="https://health2016.globalchange.gov/">new scientific assessment report</a> released by the Obama administration this week, drawing on input from eight federal agencies and more than 100 relevant experts.</p>
<p>“As far as history is concerned this is a new kind of threat that we are facing,” <a href="https://amp.theguardian.com/environment/2016/apr/04/climate-change-public-health-threat-white-house-report">said U.S. Surgeon General Vivek Murthy</a> at a White House event. Pregnant women, children, low-income people and communities of color are among the most at risk.</p>
<p>Despite ever more urgent warnings of scientists, Americans still tend to view climate change as a scientific or environmental issue, but not as a problem that currently affects them personally, or one that connects to issues that they already perceive as important. </p>
<p>Yet <a href="http://www.rwjf.org/en/library/articles-and-news/2012/08/scholars--research-offers-insight-into-future-debate-over-climat.html">research suggests</a> that as federal agencies, experts, and societal leaders increasingly focus on the public health risks of climate change, this reframing may be able to overcome longstanding public indifference on the issue. The new communication strategy, however, faces several hurdles and uncertainties.</p>
<h2>Putting a public health focus to the test</h2>
<p>In a series of studies that I conducted with several colleagues in 2010 and 2011, we examined how Americans respond to information about climate change when the issue is reframed as a public health problem. </p>
<p>In line with the findings of the recent Obama administration report, the messages we tested with Americans stressed scientific findings that link climate change to an increase in the incidence of infectious diseases, asthma, allergies, heat stroke and other health problems – risks that particularly impact children, the elderly and the poor. </p>
<p>We evaluated not only story lines that highlighted these risks, but also the presentations that focused on the benefits to public health if actions were taken to curb greenhouse emissions.</p>
<p>In an <a href="http://bmcpublichealth.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1471-2458-10-299">initial study</a>, we conducted in-depth interviews with 70 respondents from 29 states, recruiting subjects from six previously defined audience segments. These segments ranged on a continuum from those individuals deeply alarmed by climate change to those who were deeply dismissive of the problem. </p>
<p>Across all six audience segments, when asked to read a short essay that framed climate change in terms of public health, individuals said that the information was both useful and compelling, particularly at the end of the essay when locally focused policy actions were presented with specific benefits to public health.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/117757/original/image-20160406-28966-1w9c7hq.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/117757/original/image-20160406-28966-1w9c7hq.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/117757/original/image-20160406-28966-1w9c7hq.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=377&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/117757/original/image-20160406-28966-1w9c7hq.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=377&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/117757/original/image-20160406-28966-1w9c7hq.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=377&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/117757/original/image-20160406-28966-1w9c7hq.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=474&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/117757/original/image-20160406-28966-1w9c7hq.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=474&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/117757/original/image-20160406-28966-1w9c7hq.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=474&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Effects of climate change, including higher temperatures, have direct effects on public health, but historically it’s largely been framed as an environmental issue.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/anoushdehkordi/2597420553">anoushdehkordi/flickr</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">CC BY</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>In a <a href="http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10584-012-0513-6/fulltext.html">follow-up study</a>, we conducted a nationally representative online survey. Respondents from each of the six audience segments were randomly assigned to three different experimental conditions in which they read brief essays about climate change discussed as either an environmental problem, a public health problem or a national security problem. This allowed us to evaluate their emotional reactions to strategically framed messages about the issue. </p>
<p>In comparison to messages that defined climate change in terms of either the environment or national security, talking about climate change as a public health problem generated greater feelings of hope among subjects. <a href="http://www.apa.org/science/about/publications/climate-change.aspx">Research suggests</a> that fostering a sense of hope, specifically <a href="http://scx.sagepub.com/content/early/2015/11/23/1075547015617941.abstract">a belief that actions</a> to combat climate change will be successful, is likely to promote greater public involvement and participation on the issue. </p>
<p>Among subjects who tended to doubt or dismiss climate change as a problem, the public health focus also helped diffuse anger in reaction to information about the issue, creating the opportunity for opinion change. </p>
<p>A <a href="http://rstb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/371/1689/20150214.abstract">recent study</a> by researchers at Cornell University built on our findings to examine how to effectively reframe the connections between climate change and ocean health. </p>
<p>In this study involving 500 subjects recruited from among passengers on a Seattle-area ferry boat, participants were randomly assigned to two frame conditions in which they read presentations that defined the impact of climate change on oceans. </p>
<p>For a first group of subjects, the consequences of climate change were framed in terms of their risks to marine species such as oysters. For the second group, climate change was framed in terms of risks to humans who may eat contaminated oysters. </p>
<p>The framing of ocean impacts in terms of risks to human health appeared to depoliticize perceptions. In this case, the human health framing condition had no discernible impact on the views of Democrats and independents, but it did influence the outlook of Republicans. Right-leaning people, when information emphasized the human health risks, were significantly more likely to support various proposed regulations of the fossil fuel industry.</p>
<p>In two other recent studies, the Cornell team of researchers have found that communications about climate change are more persuasive among political conservatives when <a href="http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0959378016300243">framed in terms of localized, near-term impacts</a> and if they <a href="http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S027249441630007X">feature compassion appeals</a> for the victims of climate change disasters, such as drought.</p>
<h2>Challenges to reframing climate change</h2>
<p>To date, a common weakness in studies testing different framing approaches to climate change is that they do not evaluate the effects of the tested messages in the context of competing arguments. </p>
<p>In real life, most people hear about climate change by way of national news outlets, local TV news, conversations, social media and political advertisements. In these contexts, people are likely to also encounter arguments by those opposed to policy action who misleadingly emphasize scientific uncertainty or who exaggerate the economic costs of action. </p>
<p>Thus our studies and others may overestimate framing effects on attitude change, since they do not correspond to how most members of the public encounter information about climate change in the real world. </p>
<p>The two studies that have examined the effects of novel frames in the presence of competing messages <a href="https://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/handle/2027.42/99670/jcom12040.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y">have found</a> <a href="http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/tops.12171/full">mixed results</a>. A third <a href="http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nclimate2948.html">recent study</a> finds no influence on attitudes when reframing action on climate change in terms of benefits to health or the economy, even in the absence of competing frames. In light of their findings, the authors recommend that communication efforts remain focused on emphasizing the environmental risks of inaction.</p>
<p>Communicating about climate change as a public health problem also faces barriers from how messages are shared and spread online, suggests <a href="http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10584-016-1643-z">another recent study</a>. </p>
<p>In past research on Facebook sharing, messages that are perceived to be conventional are more likely to be passed on than those that are considered unconventional. Scholars theorize that this property of Facebook sharing relates closely to how cultures typically tend to reinforce status quo understandings of social problems and to marginalize unconventional perspectives.</p>
<p>In <a href="http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10584-016-1643-z">an experiment</a> designed like a game of three-way telephone in which subjects were asked to select and pass on Facebook messages about climate change, the authors found that a conventional framing of climate change in terms of environmental risks was more likely to be shared, compared to less conventional messages emphasizing the public health and economic benefits to action.</p>
<p>In all, these results suggest that efforts to employ novel framing strategies on climate change that involve an emphasis on public health will require sustained, well-resourced, and highly coordinated activities in which such messages are repeated and emphasized by a diversity of trusted messengers and opinion leaders. </p>
<p>That’s why the new federal scientific assessment, which was promoted via the White House media and engagement offices, is so important. As these efforts continue, they will also need to be localized and tailored to specific regions, cities, or states and periodically evaluated to gauge success and refine strategy.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/57397/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<h4 class="border">Disclosure</h4><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Matthew Nisbet is Editor in Chief of the Oxford Encyclopedia of Climate Change Communication and incoming Editor of the journal Environmental Communication. His research on climate change communication has been funded by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation.</span></em></p>Academics are studying whether talking about climate change as a health risk, rather than an environmental or economic issue, will dispel Americans’ general indifference to global warming.Matthew C. Nisbet, Associate Professor of Communication, Northeastern UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/531992016-02-05T11:08:36Z2016-02-05T11:08:36ZWill extreme weather events get Americans to act on climate change?<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/109865/original/image-20160201-32257-14cxszd.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Hurricane Sandy was a turning point on views about climate change, but the effect doesn't trump political views.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.fema.gov/media-library/assets/images/66250">Liz Roll/FEMA</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Scientists are drawing a link between climate change and extreme weather events with increasing confidence. </p>
<p>An American Meteorological Society <a href="https://www2.ametsoc.org/ams/index.cfm/publications/bulletin-of-the-american-meteorological-society-bams/explaining-extreme-events-from-a-climate-perspective/toc/low-resolution-version/">report</a>, for example, studied 28 individual weather events occurring in 2013-2014 and found climate change to have influenced events such as the tropical cyclones that hit Hawaii; extreme heat waves in Argentina, South Korea and China; and severe rainfall in southern France. </p>
<p>And there could be more to come. Although many extreme weather events are driven by natural variability alone, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change <a href="http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WG1AR5_SPM_FINAL.pdf">expects</a> that climate change will raise the prevalence and severity of droughts, heat waves, hurricanes and other types of extreme weather.</p>
<p>Yet actually experiencing extreme weather does not seem to be having a significant impact on American citizens’ concern about climate change. </p>
<p>This may change in the future, especially if extreme weather events become more frequent and widespread. But, as things stand today, our recent <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10584-015-1555-3">analysis</a> reveals that Americans experiencing more unusual weather are not any more concerned about climate change. </p>
<h2>Extreme weather and public opinion</h2>
<p>Some climate change advocates <a href="http://www.eenews.net/stories/1059968551">suggest</a> that extreme weather will amplify public demands for action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and for policies to focus on building <a href="https://theconversation.com/building-climate-resilience-in-cities-lessons-from-new-york-52363">resilience</a> to the effects of climate change, such as hardening city infrastructure to better withstand intense storms.</p>
<p>In the United States, much of this line of thinking came on the heels of Superstorm Sandy, the devastating hurricane that struck New York, New Jersey and other eastern seaboard states in October 2012. </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/109875/original/image-20160201-32254-1c5kvu3.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/109875/original/image-20160201-32254-1c5kvu3.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/109875/original/image-20160201-32254-1c5kvu3.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=397&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/109875/original/image-20160201-32254-1c5kvu3.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=397&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/109875/original/image-20160201-32254-1c5kvu3.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=397&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/109875/original/image-20160201-32254-1c5kvu3.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=499&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/109875/original/image-20160201-32254-1c5kvu3.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=499&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/109875/original/image-20160201-32254-1c5kvu3.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=499&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Flooding in Missouri late last year: advocates say emphasizing any possible links between extreme weather and climate will get people to act, although not everyone is convinced that’s a good tactic.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/">CC BY-NC-ND</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>After all, there is some evidence that Americans believe that climate change is already affecting weather patterns. A 2013 <a href="http://environment.yale.edu/climate-communication/article/extreme-weather-public-opinion-April-2013">study</a>, for instance, found that almost 60 percent of Americans indicate that “global warming is affecting weather in the United States,” with near majorities also indicating that global warming made recent storms and droughts “more severe.”</p>
<p><a href="http://www.dailyclimate.org/tdc-newsroom/2012/11/opinion-sandys-climate-caution">Other advocates</a>, however, are less confident that experiences of extreme weather events alone will create a stronger impetus for people to support policies that reduce greenhouse gas emissions. </p>
<p>A couple of recent public opinion studies provide good reasons for this skepticism.</p>
<p>One recent study that considered differences in broad measures of climate variation, for example, <a href="http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S095937801400171X">concludes</a> that climatic extremes have only a negligible effect on how individuals perceive the seriousness of climate change. Other scholars <a href="http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10584-012-0403-y">find</a> something similar when considering the effects of extreme weather on measures of national public opinion.</p>
<h2>Tenuous and short-lived</h2>
<p>How an individual’s experience of weather events affects views on climate change is complicated and difficult to discern, which makes it a challenging area for research. </p>
<p>Scholars who try to understand the linkages design studies that ask if more exposure to extreme weather events, such as heat waves, droughts and storms, either directly or indirectly (through media consumption) tends to increase people’s belief in, or concern about, climate change. </p>
<p>In a study <a href="http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10584-015-1555-3">published</a> in Climatic Change, we pursued this question by matching a large database of storm events with a large nationally representative survey of Americans’ views on current issues. Our approach in this study differs from prior work that has relied on measures of climatic anomalies at much larger levels of spatial aggregation, such as climatic regions.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/110032/original/image-20160202-32247-zxxvym.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/110032/original/image-20160202-32247-zxxvym.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/110032/original/image-20160202-32247-zxxvym.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=363&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/110032/original/image-20160202-32247-zxxvym.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=363&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/110032/original/image-20160202-32247-zxxvym.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=363&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/110032/original/image-20160202-32247-zxxvym.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=456&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/110032/original/image-20160202-32247-zxxvym.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=456&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/110032/original/image-20160202-32247-zxxvym.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=456&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Annual flood magnitude from the 1920s through 2008 with green showing an increasing trend and brown showing a decreasing change. But do severe events change people’s views on the role of climate change in weather? Data from Peterson et al. http://dx.doi.org/10.1175/BAMS-D-12-00066.1.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://nca2014.globalchange.gov/">National Climate Assessment</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">CC BY</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Specifically, our study uses information from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s <a href="https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/stormevents/">Storm Events Database</a>, which collects data on the frequency, as well as the severity, of extreme weather events around the country. We focused on the types of weather events that are predicted by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change to become more prevalent in the decades to come. </p>
<p>We combined this with public opinion data from nationally representative surveys fielded in 2010, 2011 and 2012 as part of the <a href="http://projects.iq.harvard.edu/cces/home">Cooperative Congressional Election Study</a>, which includes a direct measure of respondents’ level of concern about climate change.</p>
<p>By carefully matching up geographical location and dates, we were able to examine whether there is an an association between living in areas that have experienced more frequent, as well as more severe, bouts of extreme weather and the extent to which people report that climate change is a problem of real concern.</p>
<p>A unique feature of the study is that we also added data on the frequency and severity of these extreme weather events over longer time periods, ranging from one month up to two years. </p>
<p>Our analysis suggests there is indeed an association between exposure to extreme weather and increased concerns about climate change. Importantly, however, we also find that people’s concern about climate change is associated only with recent extreme weather. In fact, events more than three months in the past typically have no bearing on opinions about climate change.</p>
<p>In addition, it is important to emphasize that these effects are dwarfed by Americans’ partisan identification and political beliefs. To illustrate, if we compare individuals that experience an average number of extreme weather events with a person that experiences about twice that, the associated increase in concern about climate change is small (just about a one percent increase). By comparison, the difference in climate concern between Democrats and Republicans is, on average, about 20 percent.</p>
<h2>New game plan for advocates</h2>
<p>Will this weak and quickly dissipating relationship between Americans’ experiences of extreme weather and their concern about climate change continue? </p>
<p>One can certainly imagine that, if weather events such as droughts or heat waves become more frequent and severe, people’s concerns about climate change might deepen. </p>
<p>It is also important to test these findings in other countries and jurisdictions. The fact that climate change has become something of an ideological litmus test in the United States – where our data were drawn from – might influence people’s reactions to extreme weather that lead some to downplay its importance. If we shift to other countries, the same type of effects may not be in play.</p>
<p>Adapting to climate change remains a wickedly difficult collective action problem, and there is no guarantee that growing concerns about climate change will translate into increased pressure on politicians to act. </p>
<p>In the short term, though, more frequent and severe extreme weather does not appear to be something that will push Americans to call for action on climate change. That means climate activists will need to pursue alternative strategies to motivate voters to push governments to act on this critical problem.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/53199/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>David Konisky receives funding from the National Science Foundation.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Charles Kaylor and Llewelyn Hughes do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Despite what some climate advocates think, extreme weather events do little to sway Americans’ political views on climate change.David Konisky, Associate Professor of Public and Environmental Affairs, Indiana UniversityCharles Kaylor, Assistant Professor of Instruction, Temple UniversityLlewelyn Hughes, Associate Professor of Public Policy, Crawford School of Public Policy, Australian National UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/489272015-10-13T05:20:57Z2015-10-13T05:20:57ZNew international climate chief faces a serious communication challenge<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/97960/original/image-20151009-9124-9wqwoo.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">
</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">from www.shutterstock.com</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>It’s all change at the most important climate science body in the world, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). <a href="http://www.carbonbrief.org/blog/2015/09/the-carbon-brief-interview-dr-hoesung-lee/?utm_source=Weekly+Carbon+Briefing&utm_campaign=658eb75303-Carbon_Brief_Weekly_081015&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_3ff5ea836a-658eb75303-303418709">Hoesung Lee of South Korea</a> was named the new chair – and it’s fair to say he is much less well-known than his European and American rivals.</p>
<p>Raising his profile will be one challenge, but much more important will be improving the way the IPCC communicates with its many audiences. Lee has promised to do exactly that, but so far he has been short on specifics and new ideas.</p>
<p>He will have to get up to speed quickly as the <a href="http://www.cop21paris.org/about/cop21">crucial Paris summit</a> is almost upon us. In the run-up to the last (potentially) breakthrough UN summit in Copenhagen in 2009, the IPCC was very slow to rebut the challenges to mainstream science launched by sceptics.</p>
<p>As the president of the Copenhagen meeting, Connie Hedegaard, <a href="https://theconversation.com/what-hope-success-at-the-paris-climate-talks-in-conversation-with-connie-hedegaard-46928">was quoted as saying</a>: “Millions were put into international campaigns, yet when <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2010/jul/07/climate-emails-question-answer">Climategate</a> emerged the IPCC had almost no one employed to take care of communications. They did not even have a communications team.”</p>
<p>The IPCC has come a long way since its inept handling of the Climategate and <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/environment/climatechange/7031403/UN-climate-panel-admits-mistake-over-Himalayan-glacier-melting.html">Himalayagate</a> controversies. For a start, it now has professional communications staff, but it has an equally long way to travel.</p>
<p>Academics and others have identified some of the obstacles to more effective IPCC communication – <a href="http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/10/06/a-top-task-for-the-new-chair-of-the-u-n-climate-panel-a-communication-reboot/?module=BlogPost-Title&version=Blog%2520Main&contentCollection=Climate%2520Change&action=Click&pgtype=Blogs&region=Body">a lack of resources</a>, <a href="http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v4/n6/full/nclimate2194.html">over-reliance on technical language</a>, and <a href="http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v5/n4/full/nclimate2528.html">failure to take advantage of new media</a> have all been identified.</p>
<p>To his credit, Lee did mention in his first press conference as chair one area of communication he wants to develop: he will increase the amount of outreach work directed at a wider audience around the world. This is one of the recommendations coming out of a recent survey of users of the IPCC’s blockbuster volumes known as the assessment reports, which the IPCC publishes every five or six years.</p>
<p>In this survey (to be published soon as part of a <a href="http://www.cicero.uio.no/en/posts/projects/ipcc-ar5-in-europe">research project</a> analysing how the IPCC reports inform policy making) my colleagues and I interviewed 30 representatives of the groups identified by an independent review of the IPCC as their target audiences – policy makers, the business sector, NGOs, higher education and the media. We wanted to know their views on the usefulness of the IPCC reports, their language and clarity, and recommendations for the future.</p>
<h2>Bad communication</h2>
<p>One of the recommendations is that one highly effective way of communicating the science is when IPCC authors talk directly to local, regional or sector-specific users, particularly when they combine their own expertise and scientific rigour to communicate the findings clearly. But another clear message from the research is that although the IPCC reports sets the standard for high-quality science, overall they still suffer from low-quality communication.</p>
<p>Part of the problem is that the often impenetrable or jargon-ridden language used by the scientists may be fine for other scientists in their peer group but not for policy makers and other non-expert groups. Many of the interviewees recommended bringing in specialist writers (who are familiar with the science) early in the writing process.</p>
<h2>Inadequate staffing</h2>
<p>Another issue is the appropriate level of resources for communication. The IPCC rightly parades the large numbers of scientists (running into the thousands) who write and review its reports.</p>
<p>But it is not as widely known that the communications team consists of just one head, former Reuters journalist <a href="https://www.ipcc.ch/organization/organization_secretariat.shtml">Jonathan Lynn</a>, backed up by one or two colleagues.</p>
<p>It may not be the best use of IPCC funds to substantially increase its permanent media staff as demands on them peak mostly at the time of publications. However, a strong case can be made for increasing selected funding in the following areas: outreach work, building an online and social media strategy, graphics development, learning good practice from other reports and developing better metrics for assessing how widely the IPCC reports are used.</p>
<h2>Tailored reports</h2>
<p>Lee wants more input from the finance and business sectors into the IPCC reports. He’s right, but how should he do it?</p>
<p>Again, our survey recommends that policy makers and businesses should have more input into the early stages of scoping the reports to help ensure that policy concerns are flagged more clearly in the final reports.</p>
<p>More so-called “derivative products” would also be very helpful. These are reports aimed at specific audiences that take parts of the IPCC reports and communicate them in formats that work for those audiences. Those produced by the <a href="http://www.cisl.cam.ac.uk/business-action/low-carbon-transformation/ipcc-briefings">Cambridge Institute for Sustainability Leadership</a> are a good example.</p>
<p>The challenge is to adapt the IPCC process to allow more deployment of IPCC authors to work with these types of reports, perhaps instead of devoting so much effort to the mammoth assessment reports. The IPCC could provide some accreditation and recognition to authors and universities for participating in this manner.</p>
<p>A huge body of climate science is now agreed upon by the large majority of scientists. Of course, the most important knowledge gaps need to be identified and reduced – but just as much intellectual energy needs to be directed at the thorny challenge of how best to communicate the science, particularly in a digital world.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/48927/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>James Painter receives funding from the Joint Programming Initiative AR5 project in Europe to do this research, which analyses how the IPCC’s Fifth Assessment Report informs policymaking. He has also received funding from the European Climate Foundation, the Grantham Institute and the Norwegian Environment Agency. </span></em></p>There are three things the new head of the IPCC can do now to help people understand climate science.James Painter, Head of the Journalism Fellowship Programme, University of OxfordLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/422832015-05-26T10:06:49Z2015-05-26T10:06:49ZDespite rhetoric, climate change ranks low in public’s Keystone pipeline worries<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/82734/original/image-20150522-32575-1o3gx5z.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Stuck in transit: The Keystone Pipeline proposal has become a symbol for politicians and environmentalists. </span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/shannonpatrick17/5100962376/in/photolist-8LKLpb-6ZTg2X-af4gty-bg6vWP-edJ9rW-raDzLa-aeLoX5-8paNG7-dVP993-bf2kBB-hUvnp1-aCyoBm-dVHwrV-dVHKgv-aCypxU-aCvEi2-dVPbeN-aCvHPr-aCyngd-aCyn9s-aCyoPL-aCyoHm-aCyoV5-bJGuJB-aCvF9K-aCMtoL-jKE69y-dgjFZg-jKBPJk-dgjHnw-dVJc5Y-aCykzU-aCvHLD-dVPp8G-jKBNuB-jKBPAp-jKESP3-jKE5wb-jKCFPD-jKCE7R-jKCEZn-jKBQ6x-jKERzQ-jKCEVV-jKCFDi-jKCEK4-jKET2N-jKE5Qh-atRGLm-r2P69j/">Shannon Ramos/Flickr</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/">CC BY-SA</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>A big battle over the Keystone XL pipeline is under way in Washington, DC. But, it’s mostly fought on terms that don’t matter to the American people.</p>
<p>Less than half of Americans (42%) are familiar with – or have even heard of – the Keystone XL pipeline according to the latest University of Texas at Austin <a href="http://www.utenergypoll.com">Energy Poll</a>, a biannual national survey of Americans’ consumer attitudes and perspectives on energy. Yet it remains a thorny political issue at the national level, as heated arguments seem to define the pipeline as a magic boundary between economic glory or devastating climate change.</p>
<p>While the environmental arguments hinge on the pipeline’s carbon risk, just 6% of those familiar with the pipeline who are opposed to its construction say climate change is a top concern. The public is far more likely to cite environmental degradation (36%), water contamination (14%) or hazardous chemicals (10%) as main reasons for opposing the project. Two thousand and seventy-eight people responded to the survey earlier this year.</p>
<p>The conversations happening on Capitol Hill, which center on climate change, do not reflect attitudes across the nation and mostly ignore the nuances of this now symbolic and partisan issue.</p>
<h2>Safety, emissions</h2>
<p>It’s true that like other pipelines, Keystone XL puts ecosystems at risk, including our water supplies. Threats of leakage into US water bodies like the Ogallala aquifer are serious, but it’s important to remember that there are already tens of thousands of miles of pipelines transporting oil and gas across the country, including over sensitive aquifers. This pipeline would not introduce a new problem, and therefore, doesn’t significantly increase our risk of water contamination. </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/82732/original/image-20150522-32586-151wzqy.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/82732/original/image-20150522-32586-151wzqy.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/82732/original/image-20150522-32586-151wzqy.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=315&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/82732/original/image-20150522-32586-151wzqy.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=315&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/82732/original/image-20150522-32586-151wzqy.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=315&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/82732/original/image-20150522-32586-151wzqy.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=396&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/82732/original/image-20150522-32586-151wzqy.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=396&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/82732/original/image-20150522-32586-151wzqy.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=396&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption"></span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.utenergypoll.com/">University of Texas Austin</a>, <span class="license">Author provided</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>A serious water vulnerability from a pipeline could occur at any time, so we should be focused on working to take strong precautions in order to keep sensitive aquifers safe from all of them, rather than oppose a specific, single project. This means raising standards for safety inspections and pipeline integrity – not just for Keystone XL, but all pipelines in the ground. A fee imposed on operators would help to fund regular inspections throughout the lifetime of this pipeline and others as well.</p>
<p>What about greenhouse gases? Oil sands production is more carbon-intensive than conventional petroleum production, so the Keystone XL pipeline will increase carbon emissions, which contribute to climate change. </p>
<p>While producing energy from these kinds of deposits is not desirable from an environmental standpoint, consider the alternative options. If Canada’s oil sands are produced and shipped overseas to China, the trip would require more energy input than transport by pipeline to Texas. </p>
<p>On top of that, refineries in Texas are cleaner and more efficient than in developing countries where air quality standards are not as stringent as the US. If the economic incentive to develop the oil sands is strong enough, the US market will provide a cleaner, less carbon-intensive alternative to locations around the world where the air quality rules aren’t as strict. Instead of halting the pipeline, approving it – together with a carbon tax – might be the grand bargain that we need to get these policies moving forward again.</p>
<h2>Measuring trade-offs</h2>
<p>But why support Keystone XL at all? Polling reveals that proponents for the construction of the pipeline are most likely to mention energy independence (26%), lower energy prices (25%) or job creation (25%) as reasons why they are in favor of the project. While it’s not clear that imports of Canadian oil would improve energy independence, we know that domestic energy consumers have national security and the economy on their minds.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/82736/original/image-20150522-32567-6tk0a1.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/82736/original/image-20150522-32567-6tk0a1.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/82736/original/image-20150522-32567-6tk0a1.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=317&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/82736/original/image-20150522-32567-6tk0a1.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=317&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/82736/original/image-20150522-32567-6tk0a1.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=317&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/82736/original/image-20150522-32567-6tk0a1.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=398&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/82736/original/image-20150522-32567-6tk0a1.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=398&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/82736/original/image-20150522-32567-6tk0a1.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=398&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Taking it to the streets to fight the Keystone pipeline proposal.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/tarsandsaction/6320925438/in/photolist-aCyoV5-bJGuJB-aCvF9K-aCMtoL-jKE69y-dgjFZg-jKBPJk-dgjHnw-dVJc5Y-aCykzU-aCvHLD-dVPp8G-jKBNuB-jKBPAp-jKESP3-jKE5wb-jKCFPD-jKCE7R-jKCEZn-jKBQ6x-jKERzQ-jKCEVV-jKCFDi-jKCEK4-jKET2N-jKE5Qh-atRGLm-r2P69j-dKrsr1-jKCEpV-dVHStr-dVGHJn-dgjF4t-kGdi7o-g7kWDZ-af1tct-nn2DHG-nnxe9K-e3VC7d-dVGHh6-nw64HL-dgjGTG-dgjF1H-dgjFkp-dgjGxG-dgjGob-dgjFaz-dgjGGq-jJKSDr-85WG7t">tarsandsaction/flickr</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">CC BY</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Increasing energy consumption from North American sources means that the US would become less dependent on petroleum from the Middle East and other, less stable countries like Nigeria and Venezuela.</p>
<p>This is good economically. When Canada, our largest trading partner, prospers, Canadians are likely to buy more goods from the US. They are also neighbors who share similar governing philosophies on democracy to our own – including attitudes on women’s rights and freedom. By contrast, petrodollars to the Middle East can create funding streams for activities that endanger America and its allies. That means the Keystone XL pipeline aligns well with our national security priorities.</p>
<p>It’s clear that political volleying on Capitol Hill and in the media has not reflected public attitudes regarding construction of the Keystone XL pipeline. Rather than present the proposal in black and white terms, we should recognize how it represents a combination of trade-offs, pitting potential economic and security benefits against environmental concerns. Smart policies would prioritize safety while investing to mitigate the downside risks through regular inspections and carbon prices.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/42283/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Sheril Kirshenbaum is executive director of ScienceDebate.org, a nonpartisan, non-profit initiative working to raise the profile of science and technology policy issues before the 2016 U.S. presidential election.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Michael E Webber is affiliated as a board member with the Fuel Freedom Foundation, a non-profit that seeks to reduce dependence in the USA on oil from the Middle East by using substitutes such as methanol, natural gas, or biofuels. The point of the op-ed is not aligned with the Fuel Freedom Foundation's mission.</span></em></p>Public opinion poll on Keystone pipeline shows more people are concerned with local issues – including the impact of spills on environment and aquifers – than with global warming.Sheril Kirshenbaum, Director of the Energy Poll, The University of Texas at AustinMichael E. Webber, Associate Professor of Mechanical Engineering, The University of Texas at AustinLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/406152015-05-13T10:17:11Z2015-05-13T10:17:11ZWill the presidential candidates have a substantive debate on climate change?<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/81450/original/image-20150512-25029-1x1vcmb.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Presidential debates around climate change will likely be a referendum on EPA proposals to lower carbon emissions from power plants.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">powerplant via www shutterstock com</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Republican New Jersey governor and presidential hopeful Chris Christie briefly made news last week when <a href="http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/241495-chris-christie-global-warming-is-real">he said</a> that global warming is real and that “human activity contributes to it.” </p>
<p>Yet as a whole, climate change has yet to emerge as a major issue in US presidential elections, which is consistent with the recent history. </p>
<p>In 2012, neither President Obama nor Mitt Romney talked much about it on the campaign trail. Climate change also did not come up during the presidential and vice presidential debates <a href="http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/last-presidential-debate-marks-first-time/">for the first time since 1984</a>. And according to an analysis by <a href="http://mediamatters.org/research/2012/11/13/study-tv-media-covered-bidens-smile-nearly-twic/191341">Media Matters</a>, ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN and Fox collectively spent less than one hour talking about climate change as part of their coverage of the 2012 campaign (MSNBC spent about three hours). </p>
<p>Will the 2016 election be different? Will climate change emerge as an important issue for either voters or the candidates?</p>
<h2>Of two minds</h2>
<p>Public opinion <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/31/us/politics/most-americans-support-government-action-on-climate-change-poll-finds.html?_r=0">surveys</a> suggest that Americans are more likely to vote for a candidate who supports policy action on climate change. And recent <a href="http://environment.yale.edu/climate-communication/article/will-new-voter-demographics-move-public-opinion-on-climate-change/">research</a> from the Yale Project on Climate Change Communication suggests that this is particularly true of younger voters, Latinos, African-Americans, and unmarried women – groups that comprise a growing proportion of the US electorate.</p>
<p>But for most voters, climate change is a marginal issue, and it has been this way for a long time. When Americans are asked to identify the most important problem facing the country – a question that pollsters often use to gauge public sentiment – climate change barely registers. In <a href="http://www.gallup.com/poll/181946/americans-name-government-no-problem.aspx?utm_source=position1&utm_medium=related&utm_campaign=tiles">Gallup’s March 2015 poll</a>, just 2% of the public stated environment or pollution, which is in keeping with historical numbers. </p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/AR1AAg8WMIA?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
<figcaption><span class="caption">The 2012 presidential and vice presidential debates did not discuss climate change for the first time since 1984.</span></figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Gallup data also show that climate change evokes less concern among Americans than other environmental problems, as I have written about <a href="http://bostonreview.net/state-nation/ansolabehere-konisky-climate-change-environmental-priorities">elsewhere</a>. Americans consistently express higher levels of personal concern about air and water pollution, drinking water quality, toxic wastes and endangered species, among other problems. </p>
<p>And, further, when Americans are asked how much they are willing to pay to address climate change, few indicate a willingness to pay more than a few dollars. It is for these reasons that Steve Ansolabehere and I <a href="http://mitpress.mit.edu/books/cheap-and-clean">characterize</a> Americans as being “of two minds” when it comes to climate change — we express concern about the problem in the abstract, but the issue is neither high on our list of public priorities, nor is it a problem for which we are willing to pay much to address. </p>
<h2>Clear difference in parties</h2>
<p>If voters are unlikely to force climate change onto the agenda, might the candidates? Here, there is some reason for optimism. </p>
<p>As part of Hillary Clinton’s official entry into the presidential race, John Podesta <a href="http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/plugged-in/2015/04/13/clinton-makes-climate-change-a-central-issue-for-2016/">tweeted</a> that “tackling climate change & clean energy” would be on top of her campaign’s agenda (alongside “helping working families succeed” and “building small businesses”). Podesta’s message carries some weight, not just because he is Clinton’s campaign chairman, but also because until recently he served as a key advisor to President Obama on climate change. </p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"587355760839000064"}"></div></p>
<p>Clinton herself has not yet spoken in any detail on climate change, but she has previously emphasized the severity of the problem and the need for a strong domestic and global policy response.</p>
<p>To this point, the Republican presidential candidates also have not spoken at length about climate change. Among the likely candidates, positions range from outright denial that climate change is caused by human activity to reluctant acknowledgment that there is reason for concern. </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/81448/original/image-20150512-25063-vug69n.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/81448/original/image-20150512-25063-vug69n.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/81448/original/image-20150512-25063-vug69n.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=281&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/81448/original/image-20150512-25063-vug69n.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=281&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/81448/original/image-20150512-25063-vug69n.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=281&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/81448/original/image-20150512-25063-vug69n.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=353&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/81448/original/image-20150512-25063-vug69n.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=353&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/81448/original/image-20150512-25063-vug69n.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=353&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Presidential hopeful in the 2012 election, Jon Huntsman, broke ranks with the GOP contenders and clearly stated his views on climate change.</span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>There is more uniformity on policy, however, as virtually the entire Republican field is united in opposition to essentially all meaningful policies to mitigate climate change. And, when the Republican candidates have talked about the issue, it is mostly to express outrage at what they view as executive overreach by the Obama Administration’s Environmental Protection Agency, and to assert their belief that new regulations and initiatives to reduce greenhouse gas emissions will result in job losses, higher electricity prices for consumers and a less reliable electric grid. </p>
<p>Clinton’s apparent decision to emphasize climate change in her campaign and the Republicans’ loud and open hostility to addressing the problem increase the likelihood that the issue will be at least part of the upcoming election. </p>
<h2>Framing as political horse race</h2>
<p>Outside money will certainly play a role too. Climate activist Tom Steyer <a href="http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2015/04/06/megadonor-tom-steyer-targets-gop-climate-deniers-for-2016-campaign">announced</a> in April that his Super PAC, NextGen Climate, will spend aggressively against Republican candidates that deny the existence of climate change. And we will certainly see these efforts counteracted by those supporting fossil fuel interests.</p>
<p>Events may also force the issue on to the agenda. The EPA is scheduled this summer to release the final version of its <a href="http://www2.epa.gov/carbon-pollution-standards/clean-power-plan-proposed-rule">Clean Power Plan</a>, which aims to reduce carbon dioxide emissions from coal-fired power plants. </p>
<p>In December of 2015, the world’s leaders will meet in Paris for the next round of United Nations sponsored climate negotiations. For the first time in recent memory, these global talks have significant momentum, in large measure due to the bilateral deal reached last fall between Obama and Chinese President Xi Jinping. </p>
<p>These important policy moments, in addition to continuing debates on a number of energy issues, including Keystone XL pipeline and proposed Department of Interior regulations on hydraulic fracturing, are certain to spill over into debates about the nature of climate change and the need for policies to address it.</p>
<p>With voters generally apathetic to the issue, and likely Democratic and Republican candidates widely disagreeing on the very facts of climate change, let alone on a policy response, it seems unlikely that the current political discourse on climate change will be much different during the 2016 presidential campaign. </p>
<p>The discussion is very likely to become a referendum on the Obama Administration’s policies and pledges, and may degenerate into the all-too-familiar hyper-partisanship that has stymied progress at the national level for decades. And, without a positive, optimistic message about how the United States can move toward a cleaner, less carbon-intensive economy, climate change is likely to remain a marginal issue for most voters.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/40615/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>David Konisky receives funding from the National Science Foundation.</span></em></p>The American public appear to be of two minds on climate change in politics: supportive of policy action but unconvinced climate change is an urgent priority.David Konisky, Associate Professor of Public and Environmental Affairs, Indiana UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/399722015-04-10T09:48:14Z2015-04-10T09:48:14ZThe pope as messenger: making climate change a moral issue<p>This summer, Pope Francis plans to release an encyclical letter in which he will address environmental issues, and very likely climate change. </p>
<p>His statement will have a profound impact on the public debate. For one, it will elevate the spiritual, moral and religious dimensions of the issue. Calling on people to <a href="http://www.marketwatch.com/story/pope-franciss-new-climate-change-encyclical-sneak-preview-2015-04-09">protect the global climate</a> because it is sacred, both for its own God-given value and for the life and dignity of all humankind, not just the affluent few, will create far more personal commitment than a government call for action on economic grounds or an activist’s call on environmental grounds.</p>
<p>Making a case on theological grounds builds on long-standing arguments in the <a href="http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s2c2a7.htm">Catholic catechism</a> that environmental degradation is a violation of the seventh commandment (Thou shalt not steal) as it involves theft from future generations and the poor. Against such a moral backdrop, the very call to “make the business case to protect the global climate” – a common tactic to argue for action on climate change – seems rather absurd. The pope’s statement will shift the tenor of the public and political conversation in needed ways.</p>
<h2>Transcending political tribes</h2>
<p>But perhaps even more important than the content of the message is the messenger: the pope. </p>
<p>The public debate over climate change today has been caught up in the so-called “culture wars.” The debate is less about carbon dioxide and greenhouse gas models than it is about opposing <a href="https://theconversation.com/social-sciences-are-best-hope-for-ending-debates-over-climate-change-39671">values and worldviews</a>. In the United States, those opposing cultural worldviews map onto our <a href="http://www.brookings.edu/research/papers/2012/02/climate-change-rabe-borick">partisan political system</a> – the majority of liberal Democrats believe in climate change, the majority of conservative Republicans do not. People of either party give greater weight to evidence and arguments that support pre-existing beliefs and expend disproportionate energy trying to refute views or arguments that are contrary to those beliefs. </p>
<p>Further, <a href="http://www.sup.org/books/title/?id=25621">research</a> shows that we have begun to identify members of our political tribes based on their position on climate change. We openly consider evidence when it is accepted or ideally presented by sources that represent our cultural community, and we dismiss information that is advocated by sources that represent groups whose values we reject. </p>
<h2>Beyond Catholics</h2>
<p>The pope, by contrast, can reach segments that the three primary messengers on climate change – environmentalists, Democratic politicians and scientists – cannot.</p>
<p>First, the pope can reach the world’s 1.2 billion Roman Catholics with an unmatched power to convince and motivate. Religion, unlike any other institutional force in society, has the power to directly influence our values and beliefs. </p>
<p>Government regulations can influence behavior, but often without changing underlying values and motivations. But by connecting climate change to spiritual and religious values, and introducing notions of sin, people will have new and more powerful motivations to act. The pope can make the issue as personal as Sunday School. Once the pope’s message is out, Catholics will hear that message reinforced in homilies in their home parish. </p>
<p>And it would appear that Catholics are a receptive audience. According to a <a href="http://environment.yale.edu/climate-communication/article/american-catholics-worry-about-global-warming-and-support-u.s.-action/">survey</a> by the Yale Project on Climate Communication, a solid majority of Catholics (70%) think that global warming is happening and 48% think it is caused by humans, compared with only 57% and 35% of non-Catholic Christians respectively.</p>
<p>But the pope’s reach extends far beyond his Catholic followers. A <a href="http://www.pewglobal.org/2014/12/11/pope-francis-image-positive-in-much-of-world/">survey</a> by the Pew Research Center found that the pope is extremely popular with both Catholics and non-Catholics. Americans are particularly fond of Pope Francis, with more than three-quarters (78%) giving him positive marks. In Europe, Catholics and non-Catholics view the pope with very similar acclaim. </p>
<p>His message will undoubtedly reach beyond the Catholics of the world, and has the potential to draw attention to the ongoing efforts of leaders in <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Worlds-Religions-Responding-Climate-Change/dp/0415640342/ref=sr_1_4?ie=UTF8&qid=1428586963&sr=8-4&keywords=andrew+szasz">other denominations</a>, including Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew I of the Orthodox Church, nicknamed the “<a href="https://www.patriarchate.org/the-green-patriarch">Green Patriarch</a>”). With the pope taking a stand on climate change, it could compel other religious leaders to make more public calls for action. </p>
<p>If the message of climate change is delivered more from the church, synagogue, mosque or temple, people will internalize it as a moral issue that compels them to act regardless of the “business case.” A change in the tenor of the public debate in America will set the stage for leaders of all faiths to step forward.</p>
<h2>Political influence</h2>
<p>This all leads to potential change within our political system. The 114th Congress has 138 <a href="http://www.pewforum.org/2015/01/05/faith-on-the-hill/">Catholic Congressman</a> (70 of whom are Republican) and 26 Catholic Senators (11 of whom are Republicans). Those 81 Republicans have followed the party lead in rejecting the scientific consensus on climate change, not because of the scientific evidence, but rather by yielding to party politics. </p>
<p>But this may be <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/wp/2015/01/23/hope-for-republicans-on-climate-change/">changing</a>. This past January, 50 Senators, including 15 Republicans, voted on an amendment that affirmed that humans contribute to global warming. Other Republicans have begun to chip away at what former Utah Governor Jon Huntsman called, the party’s “anti-science” position that flies in the face of the assessments of over <a href="http://opr.ca.gov/s_listoforganizations.php">200 scientific agencies</a> around the world, including the <a href="http://nationalacademies.org/onpi/06072005.pdf">scientific agencies of every one of the G8 countries</a>. </p>
<p>The pope’s message could give political cover for emerging Republicans to upend the notion that you can’t be a conservative and believe in climate change. They could undertake this conversion as a personal reexamination of their beliefs or as an answer to a reenergized base. </p>
<p>A <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/31/us/politics/most-americans-support-government-action-on-climate-change-poll-finds.html?_r=1">recent poll</a> found that two-thirds of Americans said they were more likely to vote for political candidates who campaigned on fighting climate change (including 48% of Republicans) and less likely to vote for candidates who denied the science that determined that humans caused global warming.</p>
<p>A newly non-partisan dialogue in Congress can lead to action on multiple fronts. It could hinder repeated threats by the GOP, and most recently by Republican Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, to defund the Environmental Protection Agency’s climate program to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. It might also influence the Supreme Court as it considers the case against the EPA (six of nine Justices are Roman Catholic). It may shift the US position on climate change in advance of the upcoming <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/dec/27/pope-francis-edict-climate-change-us-rightwing">United Nations Framework Convention on climate change in Paris</a>. Finally, it may help shift the views of presidential candidates, such as Marco Rubio, and elevate climate change on the list of election issues for both parties. </p>
<p>According to a <a href="http://www.gallup.com/poll/178133/economy-government-top-election-issues-parties.aspx">Gallup poll</a>, 61% of Democrats view climate change as important, compared with only 19% of Republicans, ranking it dead last on the list of GOP priorities.</p>
<p>In the end, the best possible outcome of the pope’s message for Americans is a breakdown of the partisan divide over climate change and a reestablishment of societal trust in our scientific institutions. On the one side, Democrats may learn a powerful lesson about the need to go beyond the scientific arguments on the issue and begin to connect it to people’s underlying values, which could help motivate action across the political spectrum. </p>
<p>And Republicans may reexamine their party position on, not only climate change, but environmental issues in general. To that point, this past March Republican <a href="http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-03-24/lindsey-graham-blames-republicans-and-al-gore-for-climate-change-inaction">Senator Lindsey Graham</a> from South Carolina blamed his party (and Al Gore) for the stalemate over climate change and concluded: </p>
<blockquote>
<p>You know, when it comes to climate change being real, people of my party are all over the board… I think the Republican Party has to do some soul searching. Before we can be bipartisan, we’ve got to figure out where we are as a party… What is the environmental platform of the Republican Party? I don’t know, either. </p>
</blockquote>
<p>Let’s hope that the pope, in concert with other religious leaders around the world, can help them figure that out.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/39972/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>The upcoming encyclical from Pope Francis can transform the climate change culture wars in America.Andrew J. Hoffman, Holcim (US) Professor of Sustainable Enterprise and Director of the Erb Institute, University of MichiganJenna White, MBA/MS candidate , University of MichiganLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/368702015-01-29T19:42:05Z2015-01-29T19:42:05ZScientists and public disagree, but let’s not get too excited<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/70521/original/image-20150129-22322-qx6s5u.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Average Americans don't view science issues the same way scientists do.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-114524698/stock-photo-business-person-standing-against-the-blackboard-with-a-lot-of-data-written-on-it.html">Man image via www.shutterstock.com.</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>A new <a href="http://www.pewresearch.org/science2015/">set of surveys</a> of scientists and the public finds the two groups have widely different views about scientific issues. Conducted by the Pew Research Center in collaboration with the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the survey found scientists tended to have a more positive opinion of many technologies than the general public.</p>
<p>Those involved in science may get frustrated by the survey’s findings, wondering why the public isn’t as enthused by their work as the researchers themselves. But the acceptance of new technologies is rarely straight-forward. The scientific community needs to remember that it continues to benefit from widespread, <a href="http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/seind14/index.cfm/chapter-7/c7s3.htm#s3">hard-won admiration</a>. </p>
<p>The survey might be a reminder to scientists that they can always do better at communicating their work and its motivations to the general public.</p>
<h2>Survey says:</h2>
<p>Some of the contrasts in the Pew Research Center data are stark. </p>
<p>Almost all of the scientists surveyed (88%) said they viewed genetically modified foods as safe, but only about a third (37%) of their fellow Americans said they shared this belief. Similarly, a majority of the scientists (68%) said they see pesticides as safe, but only about a quarter of the overall population said they felt that way (28%).</p>
<p>The only two issues where the scientists were more negative than the broader public were offshore drilling and hydraulic fracturing – fracking – to obtain fossil fuels. About half (52%) of Americans said they favor offshore drilling but only about a third of the scientists gave this response (32%). Similarly, 39% of Americans said they favor fracking in comparison to 31% of the surveyed scientists.</p>
<p>This difference may be linked to the fact that, whereas almost all scientists (87%) said they thought climate change was due to human activity, only half of Americans (50%) expressed this view.</p>
<h2>Warm feeling toward science itself</h2>
<p>In the face of all these differences, it’s worth remembering that overall perceptions of science are quite positive. More than three quarters of Americans (79%) told Pew they thought science was making life better and that the effects of science on health care (79%) were mostly positive.</p>
<p>Ultimately, 72% of Americans said that government funding for engineering and technology pays off in the long run and 71% said that funding for basic research pays off.</p>
<p>The main thing that seems potentially troubling about the research results is the small decline in positive views about science. Such results echo through the report’s comparisons of the 2014 figures against a similar study from 2009. For example, whereas 79% of Americans thought science made life better in 2014, 83% held this view in 2009.</p>
<p>However, it is difficult to know what to make of data based on only two data points and other research has not (yet) suggested we are in the midst of a substantial decline in support for science. Rather, other available data suggests that views about science have remained <a href="http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/seind14/index.cfm/chapter-7/c7s3.htm#s1">fairly</a> stable in recent years.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/70525/original/image-20150129-22314-8n12j1.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/70525/original/image-20150129-22314-8n12j1.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/70525/original/image-20150129-22314-8n12j1.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=465&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/70525/original/image-20150129-22314-8n12j1.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=465&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/70525/original/image-20150129-22314-8n12j1.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=465&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/70525/original/image-20150129-22314-8n12j1.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=584&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/70525/original/image-20150129-22314-8n12j1.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=584&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/70525/original/image-20150129-22314-8n12j1.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=584&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Survey results can identify interesting points of difference.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/swamibu/3596922151">Farrukh</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/">CC BY-NC</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>What might be behind the gap?</h2>
<p>Although 84% of the scientists surveyed said they thought the public’s lack of scientific knowledge was a “major problem” for science, <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0963662506070159">academic research</a> suggests that scientific knowledge is only a minor driver of attitudes about science.</p>
<p>The science views reported by Pew are instead likely driven by factors such as the degree to which respondents have faith in the expertise and good will of scientists (i.e., <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1317505111">key factors that drive perceptions of trustworthiness</a>). <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13669877.2010.511246">Overall worldview</a> also likely influenced responses, since we all tend to unconsciously adjust our views so that we see things we like, for example, as more safe and things we dislike as less safe.</p>
<p>For scientists, most of whom are also unlikely to be experts in more than one topic raised by Pew, it is reasonable to expect that they tend to trust their fellow scientists. The American public might be expected to be more cautious.</p>
<h2>There’s value in views</h2>
<p>The fact that the <a href="http://www.pewresearch.org">Pew Research Center</a>, as well as the <a href="http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/seind14/index.cfm/chapter-7/c7s3.htm">National Science Board</a>, the <a href="http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/archives/ebs/ebs_419_en.pdf">European Commission</a> and individual countries such as <a href="http://www.scienceadvice.ca/uploads/eng/assessments%20and%20publications%20and%20news%20releases/science-culture/ScienceCulture_fullreportEN.pdf">Canada</a>, are putting resources into these types of surveys speaks to the importance of tracking what citizens think about science.</p>
<p>We need these types of numbers to tell us whether science is losing support and where there might be room for improvement.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/70523/original/image-20150129-22322-1a9x3ot.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/70523/original/image-20150129-22322-1a9x3ot.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/70523/original/image-20150129-22322-1a9x3ot.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=419&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/70523/original/image-20150129-22322-1a9x3ot.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=419&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/70523/original/image-20150129-22322-1a9x3ot.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=419&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/70523/original/image-20150129-22322-1a9x3ot.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=526&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/70523/original/image-20150129-22322-1a9x3ot.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=526&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/70523/original/image-20150129-22322-1a9x3ot.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=526&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Scientists need to engage with those outside their fields.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-38617798/stock-photo-conference-hall-full-of-people-participating-in-the-business-training.html">Meeting image via www.shutterstock.com.</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>As is well known to <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.aaa7477">science leaders</a>, there is a need to ensure that science maintains and builds its place in society by having scientists engage with their communities in ways that allow them to hear from fellow citizens. This allows them to share the expertise that goes into scientific research and the deep sense of caring about society that underlies many scientists’ work.</p>
<p>What seems less likely to be helpful – no matter how satisfying – are efforts to put down those who may currently disagree with scientists through aggressive tactics such as labeling people as <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/29/books/review/Sanghavi-t.html?_r=0">deniers or irrational</a>. </p>
<p>It’s especially important to learn what we can from reports such as Pew’s while avoiding any the-sky-is-falling commentary that <a href="http://www.motherjones.com/blue-marble/2014/02/public-opinion-astrology-dumb">disparages</a> the survey respondents.</p>
<p>Such measures are apt to make scientists seem less trustworthy.</p>
<p>Finally, it’s worth noting that the scientists’ surveyed were randomly selected from the American membership of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS). Although the organization is very well respected and the world’s largest general purpose scientific society, it also tends to have an older membership base (35% of respondents were aged 65 or older) and its mission to “advance” science may also mean that the type of person who joins may be more outward facing than many scientists.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/36870/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>John C. Besley is the Brandt Chair in the College of Communication Arts and Sciences at Michigan State University. He studies public opinion about science and technology and science communication. He is also the lead writer of the National Science Board’s biennial chapter on public attitudes and understanding. He provided comments on a draft of the Pew research Center report.</span></em></p>A new set of surveys of scientists and the public finds the two groups have widely different views about scientific issues. Conducted by the Pew Research Center in collaboration with the American Association…John C. Besley, Associate Professor of Advertising and Public Relations, Michigan State UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/320722014-10-06T01:54:39Z2014-10-06T01:54:39ZNaomi Klein or Al Gore? Making sense of contrasting views on climate change<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/60689/original/xcqjt8f4-1412294757.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">For Klein, it's all about mobilising the grassroots. </span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://flic.kr/p/p3KtHm">Stephen Melkisethian</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/">CC BY-NC-ND</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Earth is “fucked” and our insatiable growth economy is to blame. So argues Naomi Klein in her intentionally provocative best-seller <a href="http://thischangeseverything.org/">This Changes Everything: Capitalism vs. the Climate</a>.</p>
<p>Klein is the latest among an influential network of like-minded authors who have declared that modern society is at war with nature in a battle that threatens the survivial of the human species. Examples include US writer/activist <a href="http://www.billmckibben.com/bio.html">Bill McKibben</a>, Canadian broadcaster <a href="http://www.davidsuzuki.org/david/">David Suzuki</a>, and Australian philosopher <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/clive-hamilton-195">Clive Hamilton</a>.</p>
<figure class="align-left ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/60791/original/b8wtn9jz-1412351060.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/60791/original/b8wtn9jz-1412351060.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=800&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/60791/original/b8wtn9jz-1412351060.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=800&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/60791/original/b8wtn9jz-1412351060.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=800&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/60791/original/b8wtn9jz-1412351060.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=1005&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/60791/original/b8wtn9jz-1412351060.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=1005&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/60791/original/b8wtn9jz-1412351060.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=1005&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Klein: To fight climate change, we have to end capitalism.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Naomi_Klein_Warsaw_Nov.20_2008_Fot_Mariusz_Kubik_12.jpg">Mariusz Kubik</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">CC BY</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Deeply skeptical of technological and market-based approaches to climate change, they urge the need for a new consciousness spread through grassroots organizing and protest. “Only mass movements can save us now,” Klein writes. She argues that “profound and radical economic transformation” is needed to avoid certain catastrophe. </p>
<p>The more than 300,000 people who turned out for last month’s <a href="http://qz.com/269303/watch-this-drone-capture-the-enormity-of-the-peoples-climate-march/">People’s Climate March</a> in New York are just the start. </p>
<p>For Klein, human survival demands that we engage in a furious battle against the status quo, one equal in intensity to the efforts that ended slavery and European colonialism. “Both these transformative movements forced ruling elites to relinquish practices that were still extraordinarily profitable, much as fossil fuel extraction is today,” she writes. </p>
<p>An abolitionist-style climate movement would allow a global alliance of left-wing activists to achieve a diverse range of social justice goals, argues Klein. These include repealing free trade agreements, easing immigration rules, establishing indigenous rights, and guaranteeing a minimum income level.</p>
<p>Ultimately, for Klein, climate change is our best chance to right the “festering wrongs” of colonialism and slavery, “the unfinished business of liberation.”</p>
<p>As a public intellectual and aspiring movement leader, Klein sees her mission as winning a “battle of cultural worldviews,” opening up the space for a “full throated debate about values,” telling new stories to “replace the ones that have failed us.”</p>
<figure class="align-right ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/60684/original/kwb6j54n-1412270799.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/60684/original/kwb6j54n-1412270799.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=902&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/60684/original/kwb6j54n-1412270799.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=902&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/60684/original/kwb6j54n-1412270799.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=902&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/60684/original/kwb6j54n-1412270799.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=1134&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/60684/original/kwb6j54n-1412270799.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=1134&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/60684/original/kwb6j54n-1412270799.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=1134&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Bill McKibben’s views align with Klein’s.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_McKibben#mediaviewer/File:Bill_McKibben_at_RIT-3.jpg">Hotshot977</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/">CC BY-SA</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>In these new stories, Klein and her intellectual confederates value solutions that they see as coming from the natural world. They eschew technologies such as nuclear power or genetic engineering, arguing on behalf of a transition to smaller scale, locally controlled solar, wind, and geothermal energy technologies and organic farming. </p>
<p>In this egalitarian future where people grow their own food, produce their own energy, share jobs working 3-4 days/week, and deliberate in small groups, traditional definitions of economic growth would cease, with progress defined instead in terms of health, happiness, and community. </p>
<p>Ultimately, the hoped-for grand bargain on climate change will be that as rich nations “de-grow” their economies, they will share their surplus wealth and renewable technologies with China, India and other developing countries. In return these countries will choose a different, less consumer-driven path.</p>
<h2>Public intellectuals, disruptive ideas</h2>
<p>In a <a href="http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/enhanced/doi/10.1002/wcc.317">paper just published</a> at Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews Climate Change, I analyze how public intellectuals such as Klein and McKibben shape debate over climate change. I compare their arguments to other prominent public intellectuals such as UK economist <a href="http://www.lse.ac.uk/GranthamInstitute/profile/nicholas-stern/">Nicholas Stern</a>, former <a href="http://www.algore.com/">US Vice President Al Gore</a>, The New York Times’ writer <a href="http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/author/andrew-c-revkin/">Andrew Revkin</a>, and Oxford University anthropologist <a href="http://www.keble.ox.ac.uk/academics/about/professor-steve-rayner">Steve Rayner.</a></p>
<p>Gore and Stern differ from Klein in arguing that climate change can be tackled primarily through market-based policies like <a href="http://finance.yahoo.com/blogs/daily-ticker/al-gore-put-price-carbon-131955992.html">carbon pricing</a>, rejecting the idea that we must choose between growing the economy and fighting climate change.</p>
<p>In contrast, Rayner was among the first public intellectuals to argue that climate change is more accurately framed as an <a href="http://thebreakthrough.org/archive/a_new_approach_on_global_clima">energy innovation and societal resilience problem</a>. He has also <a href="http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v449/n7165/full/449973a.html">strongly questioned</a> the pursuit of a binding international agreement to limit emissions. </p>
<p>Similarly, as Revkin <a href="http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/09/22/humanitys-long-climate-and-energy-march/">recently noted</a>, contrary to the arguments of Klein, renewable energy sources alone are not likely to meet the “intertwined challenges of expanding energy access [among the world’s poor] while limiting global warming.” Like Rayner, he argues that we need to rethink our assumptions, and broaden the menu of policy options and technologies considered.</p>
<p>On the need to diversify approaches, Stern along with Columbia University economist <a href="http://jeffsachs.org/">Jeffrey Sachs</a> have <a href="http://newclimateeconomy.net/content/press-release-economic-growth-and-action-climate-change-can-now-be-achieved-together-finds">offered similar arguments</a>, but place much stronger faith than either Rayner or Revkin in the ability of a global international agreement to decarbonize the world economy, <a href="http://unsdsn.org/what-we-do/deep-decarbonization-pathways/">guided by timetables, temperature targets, carbon budgets, research and development investments</a> and <a href="http://newclimateeconomy.net/content/press-release-economic-growth-and-action-climate-change-can-now-be-achieved-together-finds">carbon pricing signals</a>.</p>
<p>In defining what climate change means, these public intellectuals and others help create a common outlook, informally guiding the work of like-minded advocates, funders, journalists, and governmental officials. </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/60681/original/c23npn3t-1412269935.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/60681/original/c23npn3t-1412269935.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/60681/original/c23npn3t-1412269935.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/60681/original/c23npn3t-1412269935.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/60681/original/c23npn3t-1412269935.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/60681/original/c23npn3t-1412269935.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/60681/original/c23npn3t-1412269935.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/60681/original/c23npn3t-1412269935.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Public intellectuals and their views on climate change. Zoom for more detail.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Matthew Nisbet</span>, <span class="license">Author provided</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Given the complexity of climate change as a social problem it is possible for competing narratives and explanations about its social implications and solutions to exist. </p>
<p>So it is not surprising that among public intellectuals there is disagreement over what the issue means for society, leading to intense clashes among those who look to one discourse over another to guide their work. </p>
<p>Revkin, for example, <a href="http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/09/08/more-on-tar-oil-pipelines-and-presidents/?_php=true&_type=blogs&_r=0">has criticized</a> the grassroots campaign against the Keystone XL oil pipeline as distracting from the “core issues involving our energy future and is largely insignificant if your concern is averting a buildup of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.”</p>
<p>He has also argued the need to chart a path to a “<a href="http://nyti.ms/1kwU4pX">Good Anthropocene</a>”. In this new “Age of Us”, humans have generated considerable ecological and social risks, but at the same time, in the face of this uncertainty, possess the ability to create a better future through technological innovation and resilience strategies.</p>
<p>Not surprisingly, Bill McKibben dismisses Revkin’s outlook on climate change as “<a href="http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/09/08/more-on-tar-oil-pipelines-and-presidents/?_php=true&_type=blogs&_r=0.">relentlessly middle seeking</a>.” Incredible Hulk actor Mark Ruffalo, who opposes the pipeline, has called Revkin a “<a href="http://ensia.com/voices/why-its-good-to-debate-strategies-to-address-climate-change/">climate coward</a>.” </p>
<p>For his part, Clive Hamilton <a href="http://clivehamilton.com/the-delusion-of-the-good-anthropocene-reply-to-andrew-revkin/">argues that</a> Revkin and other public intellectuals promoting the possibility of the “good Anthropocene” are “unscientific and live in a fantasy world of their own construction.”</p>
<figure class="align-left ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/60685/original/zkssb9zf-1412270883.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/60685/original/zkssb9zf-1412270883.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=901&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/60685/original/zkssb9zf-1412270883.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=901&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/60685/original/zkssb9zf-1412270883.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=901&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/60685/original/zkssb9zf-1412270883.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=1132&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/60685/original/zkssb9zf-1412270883.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=1132&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/60685/original/zkssb9zf-1412270883.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=1132&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Gore: We can fight climate change and grow the economy.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d1/AlGoreGlobalWarmingTalk.jpg">Breuwi</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">CC BY</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>These disagreements over the social implications of climate change reflect differing values, intellectual traditions, and visions of the “good society.” They are embedded in contrasting beliefs about nature, risk, progress, authority, and technology. </p>
<p>In this battle among competing ideas, climate change becomes “a synecdoche – a figurative turn of phrase in which something stands in for something else — for something much more important than simply the way humans are changing the weather,” <a href="http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/enhanced/doi/10.1002/wcc.317">notes Kings College London’s Mike Hulme</a> (a public intellectual himself). </p>
<p>Reading Klein, it is clear that she is not confident that the mass movement she calls for and the deep structural reforms that “change everything” are achievable. Instead, like radical intellectuals of movements past, her utopian vision serves an important political function, creating space for <a href="http://ensia.com/voices/a-new-model-for-climate-advocacy/">more pragmatic, less revolutionary social innovations</a>.</p>
<p>Many who are inspired by Klein’s arguments will take to the streets, to social media, and to campuses to wage battle for their worldviews. For the rest of us, we should carefully engage with Klein’s ideas, seeking out with equal enthusiasm and critical reflection the arguments of other public intellectuals in the climate debate. </p>
<p>The goal is not to choose among competing perspectives, but to grapple with their tensions and uncertainties. Through this process, as we call on our political leaders to act and work with others on solutions, we can hold our own convictions and opinions more lightly; identifying what is of value among the ideas offered by those on the left, right, and in the center.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/32072/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Matthew Nisbet has received research grants from the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, the Nathan Cummings Foundation, and the MacArthur Foundation. His own outlook on the social implications of climate change is closest to that of the Ecomodernists (see table).</span></em></p>Earth is “fucked” and our insatiable growth economy is to blame. So argues Naomi Klein in her intentionally provocative best-seller This Changes Everything: Capitalism vs. the Climate. Klein is the latest…Matthew C. Nisbet, Associate Professor of Communication, Northeastern UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/252472014-04-04T05:01:31Z2014-04-04T05:01:31ZWho benefits from media coverage of climate change? Not the audience<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/45565/original/zp5qjhkr-1396547637.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Fiddling with words while the planet burns.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/dantaylor/2651007030/">Dan Taylor</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">CC BY</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>They key phrase spoken in BBC Radio 4’s Today programme on the findings of the <a href="http://www.ipcc-wg2.gov/AR5/">latest IPCC climate change report</a> was “it’s about people now”.</p>
<p>It’s a statement likely to carry great weight with a body of listeners who have tended to conceive of climate change as a remote, distant issue, the effects of which they had never really imagined having to face. The programme’s discussion laid out the report’s findings of threats to human health, homes, food and security, and those listening at home grabbing a slice of toast on their way out of the door would be in no doubt that “no one will be untouched”.</p>
<p>But those still listening later might well be. The next interviewee was Professor of Economics, Richard Tol, an IPCC contributor who announced he <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/mar/27/ipcc-author-climate-report-alarmist">wanted his name removed</a> from this report, stating he was unhappy with the final draft’s tendency to be “alarmist”. In terms of appeasing the listening public now wide awake at the prospect that climate change can’t just be ignored, he was highly effective.</p>
<p>Meanwhile on the BBC’s 5Live there was a similarly powerful rebuttal to the main, pull-no-punches headlines about the conclusions of the IPCC – a synthesis of the work of hundreds of scientists from more than 70 countries – when climate scientist <a href="http://judithcurry.com/">Professor Judith Curry</a> opened her interview with the words “the climate always changes”. She went on to highlight the great challenges of differentiating between “what’s natural and what’s anthropogenic” [man-made].</p>
<p>Scouring the media, as research has shown people now do routinely, audiences were subject to a reinforced message of reassurance regarding the IPCC’s headlines. <a href="http://www.channel4.com/news/scientists-challenge-work-of-climate-change-dissenter">Channel 4 News</a> that night asked “Was the climate change report alarmist?”, and Richard Tol again played down warnings about the economic impact of climate change, including those of the comprehensive <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/6098362.stm">Stern Review</a> in the <a href="http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/e8d011fa-b8b5-11e3-835e-00144feabdc0.html">Financial Times</a> and also <a href="https://theconversation.com/ipcc-report-shows-stern-inflated-climate-change-costs-25160">here</a>. For one dissenting voice among the hundreds contributing to the IPCC, Tol receives rather disproportionate air time and column inches.</p>
<p>The arguments about the inclusion of sceptical voices, and the links to lobbying groups, are strongly put elsewhere. But in terms of audience response, it is significant that this same week Parliamentary Science and Technology committee <a href="http://www.parliament.uk/business/committees/committees-a-z/commons-select/science-and-technology-committee/news/140401-climate-report-published/">criticised the BBC</a> for “failing to clearly and effectively communicate climate science to the public”, and giving undue weight to marginal opinion. Actually the committee was equally critical of the government, as well as other news outlets. Despite two invites, neither the Daily Mail nor the Daily Telegraph – the newspapers displaying most scepticism - bothered to show up.</p>
<p>While the BBC is not the only, nor indeed the worst, offender in terms of communicating climate change, there is a strong argument that it is the most important. As evidence to the committee from <a href="http://www.glasgowmediagroup.org/">Glasgow University Media Group</a> and others emphasised, it carries the most trust with audiences and therefore a weight of responsibility that other news outlets don’t. This is particularly so in an over-saturated media environment in which credibility is increasingly difficult to attribute.</p>
<p>In response to the criticisms, a BBC spokesman re-affirmed that “as part of our commitment to impartiality it is important that dissenting voices are also heard”, and that the BBC does not believe “in erasing wider viewpoints”. Achieving impartiality is, of course, in the BBC’s DNA, but in this case it appears to be prioritised over informing audiences. As a strategy it seems to function as one of almost deliberately confusing them.</p>
<p>Listening to the 5Live report with Judith Curry, the reporter himself sounds confused. It’s very difficult to justify claims that this is in the audience’s interests as they are torn from unequivocal reports that climate change is going to have “severe, pervasive and irreversible” effects, to being reassured that it probably won’t be all that bad. Especially so when there is no clarification of which side carries most weight.</p>
<p>That audiences are confused about climate change has been demonstrated by research. More specifically, that the media has sown the seeds of doubt about the pressing need to take steps to slow or prevent it. And yet <a href="https://theconversation.com/radical-policy-on-climate-change-not-such-a-leap-for-the-public-18852">there is evidence</a> that the public would in fact accept quite radical policy change on the issue if the communications were improved. But the most likely outcome of some of the coverage this week is that heads will continue to spin.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/25247/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Catherine Happer has received funding from the UKERC and Glasgow City Council.</span></em></p>They key phrase spoken in BBC Radio 4’s Today programme on the findings of the latest IPCC climate change report was “it’s about people now”. It’s a statement likely to carry great weight with a body of…Catherine Happer, Research Associate, Glasgow University Media Group, University of GlasgowLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/231112014-03-13T06:17:37Z2014-03-13T06:17:37ZIs misinformation about the climate criminally negligent?<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/43616/original/rf83th2d-1394558565.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Better communication may have saved lives in Italy's L'Aquila earthquake. </span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:L%27Aquila_eathquake_prefettura.jpg">TheWiz83</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/">CC BY-SA</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>The importance of clearly communicating science to the public should not be underestimated. Accurately understanding our natural environment and sharing that information can be a matter of life or death. When it comes to global warming, much of the public remains in denial about a set of facts that the <a href="http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus">majority of scientists clearly agree on</a>. With such high stakes, an organised campaign funding misinformation ought to be considered criminally negligent.</p>
<p>The earthquake that rocked L'Aquila Italy in 2009 provides an interesting case study of botched communication. This natural disaster left more than 300 people dead and nearly 66,000 people homeless. In a strange turn of events six Italian scientists and a local defence minister were subsequently sentenced to six years in prison.</p>
<p>The ruling is popularly thought to have convicted scientists for failing to predict an earthquake. On the contrary, as risk assessment expert <a href="http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/2012/10/22/the-laquila-verdict-a-judgment-not-against-science-but-against-a-failure-of-science-communication/">David Ropeik pointed out</a>, the trial was actually about the failure of scientists to clearly communicate risks to the public. The convicted parties were accused of providing “inexact, incomplete and contradictory information”. As one citizen stated: </p>
<blockquote>
<p>We all know that the earthquake could not be predicted, and that evacuation was not an option. All we wanted was clearer information on risks in order to make our choices.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Crucially, the scientists, when consulted about ongoing tremors in the region, did not conclude that a devastating earthquake was impossible in L’Aquila. But, when the <a href="http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v3/n8/full/ngeo936.html">Defence Minister held a press conference</a> saying there was no danger, they made no attempt to correct him. I don’t believe poor scientific communication should be criminalised because doing so will likely discourage scientists from engaging with the public at all. </p>
<p>But the <a href="http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/features/lessons-from-the-laquila-earthquake/2007742.fullarticle">tragedy in L’Aquila reminds us</a> how important clear scientific communication is and how much is at stake regarding the public’s understanding of science. I have <a href="http://philpapers.org/rec/TORTEO-2">argued elsewhere</a> that scientists have an ethical obligation to communicate their findings as clearly as possible to the public when such findings are relevant to public policy. Likewise, I believe that scientists have the corollary obligation to correct public misinformation as visibly and unequivocally as possible. </p>
<p>Many scientists recognize these civic and moral obligations. Climatologist Michael Mann is a good example; Mann has recently made the case for public engagement in a powerful New York Times opinion piece: <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/19/opinion/sunday/if-you-see-something-say-something.html?_r=0">If You See Something Say Something</a>.</p>
<h2>Misinformation and criminal negligence</h2>
<p>Still, critics of the case in L’Aquila are mistaken if they conclude that criminal negligence should never be linked to science misinformation. Consider cases in which science communication is intentionally undermined for political and financial gain. Imagine if in L’Aquila, scientists themselves had made every effort to communicate the risks of living in an earthquake zone. Imagine that they even advocated for a scientifically informed but costly earthquake readiness plan. </p>
<p>If those with a financial or political interest in inaction had funded an organised campaign to discredit the consensus findings of seismology, and for that reason no preparations were made, then many of us would agree that the financiers of the denialist campaign were criminally responsible for the consequences of that campaign. I submit that this is just what is happening with the current, <a href="http://phys.org/news/2013-12-koch-brothers-reveals-funders-climate.html">well documented funding of global warming denialism</a>.</p>
<p><a href="http://www.who.int/heli/risks/climate/climatechange/en/">More deaths can already be attributed to climate change</a> than the L’Aquila earthquake and we can be certain that deaths from climate change will continue to rise with global warming. Nonetheless, <a href="https://theconversation.com/establishing-consensus-is-vital-for-climate-action-22861">climate denial remains a serious deterrent against meaningful political action</a> in the very countries most responsible for the crisis.</p>
<h2>Climate denial funding</h2>
<p>We have good reason to consider the funding of climate denial to be criminally and morally negligent. The charge of criminal and moral negligence ought to extend to all activities of the climate deniers who receive funding as part of a sustained campaign to undermine the public’s understanding of scientific consensus. </p>
<p><a href="http://www.thefreedictionary.com/criminal+negligence">Criminal negligence</a> is normally understood to result from failures to avoid reasonably foreseeable harms, or the threat of harms to public safety, consequent of certain activities. Those funding climate denial campaigns can reasonably predict the public’s diminished ability to respond to climate change as a result of their behaviour. Indeed, public uncertainty regarding climate science, and the resulting failure to respond to climate change, is the <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2012/feb/15/leak-exposes-heartland-institute-climate">intentional aim of politically and financially motivated denialists</a>.</p>
<p>My argument probably raises an understandable, if misguided, concern regarding free speech. We must make the critical distinction between the protected voicing of one’s unpopular beliefs, and the funding of a strategically organised campaign to undermine the public’s ability to develop and voice informed opinions. Protecting the latter as a form of free speech stretches the definition of free speech to a degree that undermines the very concept.</p>
<p>What are we to make of those behind the well documented corporate funding of global warming denial? Those who purposefully strive to make sure “<a href="http://www.theguardian.com/science/2011/sep/20/italian-scientists-trial-predict-earthquake">inexact, incomplete and contradictory information</a>” is given to the public? I believe we understand them correctly when we know them to be not only corrupt and deceitful, but criminally negligent in their willful disregard for human life. It is time for modern societies to interpret and update their legal systems accordingly. </p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/23111/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Lawrence Torcello does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>The importance of clearly communicating science to the public should not be underestimated. Accurately understanding our natural environment and sharing that information can be a matter of life or death…Lawrence Torcello, Assistant Professor of Philosophy, Rochester Institute of TechnologyLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/228642014-02-11T05:50:24Z2014-02-11T05:50:24ZHow GIFs are changing the way we talk science<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/41043/original/xpnz65w3-1391797176.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">GIFs can help show the effects of climate change.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Patrick Kelley</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>The use of “GIFs” has exploded in recent years. They are used for news, views and entertainment but are most commonly seen as a light-hearted medium. Now scientists are beginning to see how GIFs can be used in public engagement with science and in <a href="https://blogs.nottingham.ac.uk/makingsciencepublic/2014/01/24/how-to-do-things-with-gifs/">science communication</a>.</p>
<p>GIF stands for Graphics Interchange Format and these are small moving pictures or animated computer images inserted into web-chats and discussions. They’ve been around since <a href="http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/subcultures/gif">1987</a>, but there are actually examples of <a href="http://www.theverge.com/2013/10/25/5027890/the-psychedelic-and-grotesque-proto-gifs-of-the-19th-century">protogifs</a> that date back to the 19th century. </p>
<figure> <img src="http://media.giphy.com/media/nt0C2kH3pG6SQ/giphy.gif"><figcaption>A 19th Century proto-gif.</figcaption></figure>
<p>Most people who spend time online will have come across a GIF at some point, even if we struggle to agree on how the word is <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4AMn-7qalgw">pronounced</a>. </p>
<p>There seems to be a spectrum of GIFs. They are used as a kind of extended emoticon to emphasise a point and even as <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CALhtQzNr0E">artforms</a>. And whole sites like <a href="https://vine.co/">Vine</a> have sprung up dedicated to GIFs.</p>
<h2>Capturing the imagination</h2>
<p>But aside from the thousands of GIFs that circulate of people falling down stairs or of cats behaving badly, their use as a way of getting complex scientific information across to a general audience appears to be a growing trend. </p>
<p>In one blog on <a href="http://amyrobinson.me/2013/03/09/awesome-science-gifs/">awesome science GIFs</a>, Amy Robinson calls <a href="http://www.gizmodo.co.uk/2013/11/6-chemical-reaction-gifs-that-will-make-you-a-smarter-person/%20%22),%20%22one%20of%20mankind%E2%80%99s%20finest%20internet%20creations%22%20and%20the%20Smithsonian%20elected%20to%20chart%20what%20it%20saw%20as%20the%20%5Bcoolest%20science%20of%202013%5D(http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/the-coolest-science-of-2013-in-gifs-180948069/">chemical reaction GIFs</a> in GIF form.</p>
<figure> <img src="http://s3-ec.buzzfed.com/static/2013-10/enhanced/webdr06/1/6/anigif_enhanced-buzz-26657-1380623142-0.gif"><figcaption>Setting fire to lithium. Nick Moore.</figcaption></figure>
<p>Many scientific disciplines are also now developing their own GIFs to encapsulate scientific methods, discoveries, objects and so on in succinct and relatively simple and enjoyable ways. They cover topics such as <a href="http://mhrussel.wordpress.com/2013/02/22/metagenomics-exlpained-with-gif-animation/">metagenomics</a> or <a href="http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/2013/07/30/5-gifs-of-n-body-orbits/">bodies in orbit</a> in a way that is both useful and informative.</p>
<p>A large selection of science GIFs can be found on GIF search engine <a href="http://blog.betaworks.com/post/45833295813/this-is-giphy">giphy</a>, and you can also now source them directly from Google images, which has added a subsection on animated images.</p>
<p>These images then find their way into science, technology and art communication videos, such as those produced by the <a href="http://www.youtube.com/user/pbsideachannel/about">PBS Idea Channel</a>, which explores the connections between pop culture, technology and art, and also <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sPZYQh7TCyU&feature=youtube_gdata_player">explains</a> how it sources the GIFs in the first place. Some science communicators, such as Hank Green, also host their own <a href="http://hankgreengifs.tumblr.com/">GIF blogs</a>. Two beautiful examples of GIFs for science communication were recently posted on twitter. One showed <a href="http://www.buzzfeed.com/tabathaleggett/these-gifs-of-birds-in-motion-are-maybe-the-best-thing">birds in motion</a> and the other a series of different types of <a href="http://www.animatedengines.com/">engine</a>.</p>
<figure> <img src="http://boygeniusreport.files.wordpress.com/2014/01/climate-change-33.gif"><figcaption>A NASA climate change video in GIF form. BGR.com.</figcaption></figure>
<p>GIFs have been particularly embraced in <a href="http://giphy.com/search/climate-change">climate change communication</a>, such as to show <a href="http://www.buzzfeed.com/kellyoakes/9-gifs-that-show-how-climate-change-will-affect-earth">how climate change will affect the earth</a>, or <a href="http://www.policymic.com/articles/34161/5-gifs-that-show-what-climate-change-will-do-to-major-u-s-cities">major cities</a>, or to illustrate how certain <a href="http://www.skepticalscience.com/going-down-the-up-escalator-part-1.html">graphs</a> can be interpreted by various people.</p>
<h2>Keeping it friendly</h2>
<p>GIFs and short videos that appear to have nothing to do with science also crop up in the discussion or comments sections of online articles. One example is a recent discussion on the website <a href="http://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2014/01/21/elements-of-truth/http:/andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2014/01/21/elements-of-truth/">andthenthereisphysics</a>, where the comment section was punctuated, so to speak, with very short videos of sketches from Monty Python, among others.</p>
<p>These were used almost as impromptu humorous interjections, apparently to keep the conversation in the comment stream relatively light-hearted. The use and abuse of comments left after online articles and blogs is an interesting <a href="http://blogs.nottingham.ac.uk/makingsciencepublic/2013/10/11/do-online-user-comments-provide-a-space-for-deliberative-democracy/">subject</a> <a href="http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1475-4959.2012.00479.x/abstract">in itself</a> so their use in science discussions may serve a bigger purpose than simply humour. </p>
<p>These short movies don’t make statements about a certain scientific issue. They might instead be called “performative” or interactional. They are tools of conversation and and perhaps tools of comment moderation. They are used more like elaborate emoticons and may make online communication more effective, enjoyable and less prone to misunderstandings and misinterpretations. These are all important in exchanges about climate change, where tensions can run high.</p>
<p>Of course, like emoticons, GIFs and other animated and moving images should not be overused, but they can change the tone of a conversation. They may contribute to making online debates less adversarial, as many of them are ironic and self-deprecatory. They are frequently used, it seems, to undermine authority and undercut tradition. </p>
<p>GIFs can both bring science to life for the uninitiated and help those talking about science keep it light-hearted and friendly or avoid crossed wires. I expect we’ll see a lot more GIFs on science sites in the future, doing different sorts of work in and for science communication and public engagement with science. </p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/22864/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Brigitte Nerlich receives funding from the Leverhulme Trust and the ESRC.</span></em></p>The use of “GIFs” has exploded in recent years. They are used for news, views and entertainment but are most commonly seen as a light-hearted medium. Now scientists are beginning to see how GIFs can be…Brigitte Nerlich, Professor of Science, Language and Society, University of NottinghamLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/227272014-02-04T06:21:34Z2014-02-04T06:21:34ZScience can’t settle what should be done about climate change<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/40501/original/92hz6zhf-1391447445.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Kiribati: island in danger.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">United Nations Photo</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>The sight of speakers known to dispute the scientific evidence supporting climate change being called to speak at a <a href="http://www.parliament.uk/business/committees/committees-a-z/commons-select/energy-and-climate-change-committee/news/ipcc-ar5/">parliamentary select committee</a> on the latest IPCC report last week has raised certain commentators’ blood pressure.</p>
<p>Some have gone so far as <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/environment/blog/2014/jan/27/ipcc-hearing-uk-us-climate-change">to claim</a> that the climate change debate in Britain has become “as depressingly unscientific and polarised as it is in the United States”.</p>
<p>I disagree. The debate about climate change needs to become more political, and less scientific. Articulating radically different policy options in response to the risks posed by climate change is a good way of reinvigorating democratic politics.</p>
<p>A paper by John Cook and colleagues <a href="http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/8/2/024024">published</a> in May 2013 claimed that of the 4,000 peer-reviewed papers they surveyed expressing a position on anthropogenic global warming, “97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming”. But merely enumerating the strength of consensus around the fact that humans cause climate change is largely irrelevant to the more important business of deciding what to do about it. By putting climate science in the dock, politicians are missing the point.</p>
<p>What matters is not whether the climate is changing (it is); nor whether human actions are to blame (they are, at the very least partly and, quite likely, largely); nor whether future climate change brings additional risks to human or non-human interests (it does). As climate scientist Professor Myles Allen said in evidence to the committee, even the projections of the IPCC’s more prominent critics overlap with the bottom end of the range of climate changes predicted in the IPCC’s published reports.</p>
<p>In the end, the only question that matters is, what are we going to do about it? Scientific consensus is not much help here. Even if one takes the Cook study at face value, then how does a scientific consensus of 97.1% about a fact make policy-making any easier? As Roger Pielke Jr <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/science/political-science/2013/may/24/climate-sceptics-winning-science-policy">has often remarked</a> in the context of US climate politics, it’s not for a lack of public consensus on the reality of human-caused climate change that climate policy implementation is difficult in the US.</p>
<p>So politics, not science, must take centre stage. As Amanda Machin <a href="http://www.zedbooks.co.uk/paperback/negotiating-climate-change">shows in her recent book</a>, asking climate scientists to forge a consensus around facts with the expectation that decisive political action will naturally follow misunderstands science and politics in equal measure. If democratic politics is to be effective we need more disagreement, not more consensus, about what climate change is really about.</p>
<p>As I have <a href="http://www.cambridge.org/us/academic/subjects/economics/natural-resource-and-environmental-economics/why-we-disagree-about-climate-change-understanding-controversy-inaction-and-opportunity">argued elsewhere</a>, the most important questions to be asked about climate change extend well beyond science. Let me suggest four; all of which are more important than the committee’s MPs managed. They are questions which people should and do disagree about and they have no correct answer waiting to be discovered by science.</p>
<ul>
<li><p>How do we value the future, or in economic terms, at what rate should we discount the future? Many of the arguments about urgent versus delayed interventions to reduce greenhouse gas emissions revolve around how much less we <a href="https://www.sciencenews.org/article/discounting-future-cost-climate-change">value future public goods</a> and natural assets relative to their value today. This is a question that clear-thinking people will disagree about.</p></li>
<li><p>In the governance of climate change what role do we allocate to markets? Many arguments about climate change, as about environmental management more generally, revolve around whether commodifying nature, by <a href="http://www.icaew.com/%7E/media/Files/Technical/Sustainability/costing-the-earth-oct-13.pdf">pricing environmental “goods” and “services”</a>, is part of the problem rather than part of the solution.</p></li>
<li><p>How do we wish new technologies to be governed, from experimentation and development to deployment? This question might revolve around new or improved low-carbon energy technologies (such as fracking, nuclear power, or hydrogen fuel), the use of genetically modified crops as a means to adapt to changing climate, or proposed <a href="http://www.oxfordmartin.ox.ac.uk/videos/view/334">climate engineering technologies</a>. Again, these are not questions upon which science, least of all a scientific consensus, can adjudicate.</p></li>
<li><p>What is the role of national governments as opposed to those played by multilateral treaties or international governing bodies? This requires citizens to reflect on forms of democracy and representation. They are no less important in relation to climate change than they are in relation to state security, immigration or financial regulation.</p></li>
</ul>
<p>Any considered response to climate change will need to take a position, implicitly or explicitly, on one or more of these four questions, and others besides. And the percentage of climate science papers that accept humans are causing global warming has little to no bearing on public deliberations about these four questions.</p>
<p>Because the questions about climate change that really matter will not be settled by scientific facts. They entail debates about values and about the forms of political organisation and representation that people believe are desirable. This requires a more vigorous politics that cannot be short-circuited by appeals to science.</p>
<p><em>This article has been updated to better reflect the views of the author.</em></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/22727/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Mike Hulme does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>The sight of speakers known to dispute the scientific evidence supporting climate change being called to speak at a parliamentary select committee on the latest IPCC report last week has raised certain…Mike Hulme, Professor of Climate and Culture, King's College LondonLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/203142013-11-18T03:26:28Z2013-11-18T03:26:28ZBroad consensus on climate change across American states<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/35447/original/wwkdt3vg-1384737534.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">The majority of people accept climate science; why not our leaders? </span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Glenys Jones</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>A recent US <a href="http://democrats.energycommerce.house.gov/index.php?q=page/stanford-university-state-level-climate-polling-data">“survey of surveys”</a> by Stanford University Professor Jon Krosnick has analysed public opinion on climate change in 46 of USA’s 50 states. Krosnick found to his surprise that, regardless of geography, most Americans accept that global warming is happening and that humans are causing it. </p>
<p>In all 46 states, they found that at least 75% of participants thought global warming was happening. Even in traditionally conservative red states such as Texas, 84% thought global warming was happening and 72% agreed humans were the cause. Acceptance of global warming increased to at least 84% for states hit by drought or vulnerable to sea level rise.</p>
<p>In all states, at least 65% of Americans thought humans were causing global warming. Utah showed the lowest level at 65% while acceptance was highest in New Hampshire with 90%. Most Americans also supported government curbs of greenhouse gas emissions from power plants.</p>
<p>This is comparable to a <a href="http://www.garnautreview.org.au/update-2011/commissioned-work/australians-view-of-climate-change.pdf">CSIRO analysis</a> that found 75% of Australians believe climate change is happening. While these results indicate high public acceptance of climate science, there is still a significant gap between public opinion and the views of climate scientists. A <a href="http://tigger.uic.edu/%7Epdoran/012009_Doran_final.pdf">2009 survey of the scientific community</a> found that among actively publishing climate scientists, 97.4% agreed that human activity was changing global temperature.</p>
<p>This result has since been replicated by an <a href="http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2010/06/04/1003187107.abstract">analysis of public statements by climate scientists</a>, finding 97% consensus among 908 scientists who had published peer-reviewed climate research. Earlier this year, I was part of a team that <a href="http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/8/2/024024">analysed 21 years of climate research</a>. Among 4,014 papers that stated a position on human-caused global warming, we found 97.1% agreement that humans were causing global warming.</p>
<p>Of course, let me head off the flood of inevitable comments by pointing out that our understanding of climate change is based on empirical evidence. There are <a href="http://www.skepticalscience.com/its-not-us-advanced.htm">many lines of independent observations</a> indicating that humans are causing global warming. The consilience of evidence has resulted in an overwhelming and strengthening consensus in the climate science community.</p>
<p>Three quarters of Americans may not be as high as the 97% scientific consensus. However, politically speaking, it is still a strong majority. So why is there so little support for climate action among politicians? </p>
<p>While the general public on average accepts climate science, Republicans are more likely to reject the scientific consensus. This is particularly the case with conservative Republicans, who are more likely to vote in primaries. During the 2012 Republican Presidential primaries, even candidates who accepted the science were <a href="http://www.sfgate.com/opinion/article/Republican-primary-candidates-on-climate-change-3000298.php">forced to reject the scientific consensus</a> in order to gain the support of their party.</p>
<p>Many studies have found a significant link between political ideology and climate beliefs. In 2006, <a href="http://web.uvic.ca/psyc/gifford/pdf/Free-Market%20Ideology%20and%20Environmental%20Degradation-%20The%20Case%20of%20Belief%20in%20Global%20Climate%20Change%20%282006%29.pdf">Heath and Gifford</a> found that support for unfettered free markets was a significant predictor of climate change concern. In other words, those who oppose government regulation of the fossil fuel industry are more likely to reject climate change science. The more politically conservative one is, the more likely they are to reject climate science.</p>
<p>However, there is a schism even within the Republican Party. A <a href="http://www.people-press.org/2013/11/01/gop-deeply-divided-over-climate-change/">recent Pew survey</a> found that among Tea Party members, only 25% accept global warming. In contrast, 61% of other Republicans accept that global warming is happening. A minority group out of kilter with the rest of the populace and the scientific community are exerting a disproportionate influence on the public discourse about climate change.</p>
<p>This is also occurring in Australia. A <a href="http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v3/n4/full/nclimate1743.html">survey of Australian views on climate change</a> found that only 7% of Australians think climate change isn’t happening. When the 7% of Australians who deny climate change are asked to estimate how many Australians share their views, they estimate 49%. This is known as the <em>false consensus effect</em>, a tendency to overestimate how popular one’s opinion is.</p>
<p>However, a more insidious and destructive effect is <em>pluralistic ignorance</em>. This is where people privately reject an opinion but incorrectly think others accept it. For example, when Australians are asked to estimate the percentage of Australians that deny climate change, the average answer is at least 20% - around three times the actual amount.</p>
<p>Similarly, there is a significant gap between public perception of scientific consensus and the 97% reality. A <a href="http://environment.yale.edu/climate/files/Climate-Beliefs-September-2012.pdf">2012 survey</a> found that 57% of Americans either disagreed with or were unaware of the fact that most scientists agree global warming is happening. This matters because <a href="http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10584-013-0704-9">perceived consensus is a strong predictor of support for climate policy</a>. When people think the scientists agree, they are more likely to support climate action.</p>
<p>Unfortunately, mainstream media outlets are perpetuating the misconceptions. One way they achieve this is by <a href="http://abs.sagepub.com/content/57/6/796.short">granting outlier voices disproportionate visibility in the public arena</a>, creating misleading and counterproductive debates. </p>
<p>For example, ABC’s Q&A regularly features public figures who reject climate science (but are rarely climate scientists). While the back-and-forth generates much heat that arguably makes for entertaining television, such displays reinforce the myth of disagreement among the climate science community.</p>
<p>The public need to recognise that contrarian voices that deny the scientific consensus are a minority among the general public. More importantly, the public need to correctly perceive that scientists who reject the consensus are a vanishingly small minority in the climate science community, which shows an overwhelming and strengthening consensus.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/20314/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>John Cook does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>A recent US “survey of surveys” by Stanford University Professor Jon Krosnick has analysed public opinion on climate change in 46 of USA’s 50 states. Krosnick found to his surprise that, regardless of…John Cook, Climate Communication Research Fellow, The University of QueenslandLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/198432013-11-11T06:08:11Z2013-11-11T06:08:11ZWe’ve woken up to climate change but we’re not tuning in<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/34690/original/5hwm5h6c-1383827602.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Programme makers are wary of turning off viewers with climate change.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Till Krech</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>A report from the International Broadcasting Trust has argued that more investment should be made to get environmental issues covered on television.</p>
<p><a href="http://www.ibt.org.uk/reports/environment-tv/">Environment on TV</a> is based on interviews with people working in the media, including programme commissioners. It offers a rare insight into the state of industry thinking. And feeling in the industry appears to be that issues such as climate change and biodiversity loss may be some of the greatest challenges facing humanity, but they make for programmes that are about as watchable as a pension scheme sales pitch. High levels of environmental concern don’t translate into high viewing figures for programming on these issues: TV commissioners believe we find it dull, dismal and depressing.</p>
<p>Broadcasters told the report’s authors that audiences won’t tune in to programmes tagged as “environmental” but that they sense an obligation to cover them, and that there is a need to invest and take risks in programming of this kind. </p>
<p>The report points to TV shows in a range of areas where viewers do turn up and engage. <a href="http://www.fishfight.net/">Hugh’s Fish Fight</a>, in which chef Hugh Fearnley-Whittingstall railed against the damage done by fishing quotas in the European Union, showed how it is possible to punch through to public attention, even with an apparently “dull but worthy” subject. </p>
<p><a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00mfl7n">Frozen Planet</a> also displayed a deft touch. The jaw-dropping images and compelling stories gathered a mass audience. Along the way they would pick up insights into the latest natural science research on environmental change in the polar regions. And careful editorial judgements can allow high-rating shows such as Countryfile and The One Show to tell environment related stories with a sure-footed understanding of audience appetites and aversions.</p>
<p>That said, the report warns that programmes often focus on nature rather than climate change or biodiversity loss and that there is an absence of long-form programming dealing with these subjects head on. This is particularly true of climate change. The report notes the virtual absence of drama programming on a topic of very broad social significance. </p>
<h2>Waiting for a Brian</h2>
<p>There are a couple of things that need clearing up, however, for environmental research to be better represented in the media. First is to question the way the heavily worked term “scientist” is deployed. The world would be a better place if the media stopped using the word “scientist” as a stand-alone term, and talked instead of “researchers” when they have only room for just one word.</p>
<p>If they have room for two words, why not tell us more about who they are and what they do. It would help build understanding and trust to know that a particular claim is being made by “an environmental economist”, “a soil scientist” or “a climate modeller”.</p>
<p>Quite apart from being accurate, this subtle move would also make more space for environmental research to be just plain interesting. We’ll never see a Brian Cox of environmental change while the research effort is so closely allied in the minds of broadcasters and the public with recycling and energy bills.</p>
<h2>Beyond politics?</h2>
<p>Some comments from media people in the report seem to imply that it would be better if environmental issues were “beyond politics” and that they become tainted for broadcasters when they become politicised. The truth is, they have always been political. One classic definition of politics is, after all, “access to decisions about resources”.</p>
<p>It is more accurate to say that environmental issues are intrinsically linked to politics, but have never been dominated by one tradition. To suggest that the discourses around environmental change issues have been inherently left-dominated is just bad history. Some of the founding figures of conservation and biodiversity movements rooted their work in references to preservation and the retrieval of a prior order. I don’t know Prince Philip’s precise politics, for example, but I sense that he isn’t “of the left”.</p>
<p>The fact that it is political shouldn’t be an obstacle to broadcasters: it is an opportunity. This is the stuff of good current affairs television.</p>
<h2>Embracing the new</h2>
<p>The media is not necessarily to blame for the absence of these stories on our televisions. Researchers and policymakers have tended to work with a simplistic model of communications – and NGOs continue to recycle a very narrow emotional and cultural repertoire. Phrases like “the science is finished” and drumbeats-of-fear narratives don’t accurately summarise the issues and appear to have worn people out.</p>
<p>Global environmental change research presents the public and media with difficult new knowledge that cannot be tidily organised into a fixed agenda. Changes in the media could prove to be very significant in telling such layered stories about an interdependent world. Interactions between digital, online and social media, and new media forms – including interactive documentary – will help to communicate something of the huge body of imagination and effort that is going into understanding and acting on environmental change issues.</p>
<p>But it may in any case be a serious mistake to bundle these issues together as “environmental”, “green” or “sustainable”. It feels more accurate, but also more inviting, to think of them as big features of the landscape of the next chapter of the human story.</p>
<p>The environmental research community should work harder to weave these issues into mainstream conversations about our ambitions for ourselves, our communities, our economies, or our species as a whole. The environment then stops being a dull-but-worthy subcategory, attended to by media and viewers with a feeling of guilty obligation rather than excitement. Then there is a chance of seeing that at the heart of these issues are some of the most important questions humans ever ask themselves: What is a good risk? What is a good life? What is “fair”? How can the future be better than the past? Attempts to answer these questions could make very watchable, let alone important, programmes.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/19843/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Joe Smith has consulted for the BBC on a range of projects over the last fifteen years. He currently receives funding from the AHRC for a project Earth in Vision. He is a trustee of Tipping Point and works with the Ashden Trust on issues around culture and climate change.</span></em></p>A report from the International Broadcasting Trust has argued that more investment should be made to get environmental issues covered on television. Environment on TV is based on interviews with people…Joe Smith, Senior Lecturer in Environment, The Open UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/197272013-11-01T01:23:58Z2013-11-01T01:23:58ZBig Australian media reject climate science<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/34199/original/szghmhtm-1383264656.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">A new study finds a third of Australian newspaper articles reject climate science. </span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Flickr/pasukaru76</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Australia has the most concentrated press ownership in the world. What does that mean for significant issues such as climate change? </p>
<p>In 2011 and 2012 we at the Australian Centre for Independent Journalism at University of Technology, Sydney collected data on climate science coverage in ten Australian newspapers. We published the results yesterday in a report: <a href="http://sceptical-climate.investigate.org.au/part-2/">Sceptical Climate: Part 2</a>. </p>
<p>We found that Australia’s concentrated newspaper ownership has a significant effect on how climate science is covered. One third of articles in Australia’s major newspapers do not accept the consensus position of climate science: that human beings are contributing to climate change. </p>
<p>That’s a very high level of scepticism when you consider that these stories are rejecting findings that <a href="https://theconversation.com/its-true-97-of-research-papers-say-climate-change-is-happening-14051">over 97%</a> of the world’s climate scientists support. Recently the International Panel on Climate Change <a href="https://theconversation.com/ipcc-fifth-assessment-report-more-certainty-not-much-news-18509">found</a> there was 95% certainty that people were contributing to climate change. </p>
<h2>How did we decide what was sceptical?</h2>
<p>The core of the study was a content analysis of all articles in ten major Australian newspapers between February and April in 2011 and 2012. We found 602 articles referred to climate science in total, with a 20% drop from 2011 to 2012. </p>
<p>But how did we decide what was sceptical, and what was not? </p>
<p>We measured scepticism as the articles that rejected the scientific consensus position of climate science: that humans are contributing to climate change. To start with we asked: does the article agree or disagree with the consensus position? </p>
<p>We later realised this was too simplistic, and created four categories for articles:</p>
<ul>
<li><p>Accepted: these articles communicated acceptance of the consensus position either explicitly or implicitly.</p></li>
<li><p>Rejected: these articles outright rejected the consensus scientific position on anthropogenic global warming, for example, by calling it a hoax.</p></li>
<li><p>Suggested doubt: these articles communicated doubt by suggesting, for example, that there was insufficient evidence for, or substantial debate in the scientific community about the existence of anthropogenic global warming.</p></li>
<li><p>Unable to discern: we weren’t able to allocate the article to one of the other categories (very small number of articles).</p></li>
</ul>
<p>The level of scepticism was then measured as a proportion of the articles that “rejected” or “suggested doubt” about the consensus position.</p>
<h2>What were the major findings?</h2>
<p>As with most content analysis, we had to explore deeper to see where the real problem lies. We looked at circulation, ownership, and genre of articles.</p>
<p>Australia’s two biggest newspapers by circulation, News Corp’s <em>Daily Telegraph</em> and <em>Herald Sun</em>, were more than 60% sceptical about anthropogenic climate change.</p>
<p>Australia’s largest circulation newspaper, the <em>Herald Sun</em>, is its most sceptical. 67% of the paper’s coverage of climate science did not accept the scientific consensus.</p>
<p>When we look further at ownership, we can start to map out the landscape of scepticism in Australia. </p>
<p>Fairfax Media, owners of <em>The Age</em> and <em>Sydney Morning Herald</em> accepts the consensus position and published very few articles that communicated doubt about anthropogenic climate change. While the <em>West Australian</em> had a very low amount of coverage, it was also not sceptical.</p>
<p>Five News Corporation publications, <em>The Australian</em> (48% of coverage was sceptical) , <em>Daily Telegraph</em> (63%), <em>Herald Sun</em> (67%), <em>Adelaide Advertiser</em> (28%) and the <em>NT News</em> (42%) accounted for <a href="http://sceptical-climate.investigate.org.au/part-2/findings/scepticism/">most of the scepticism</a>. The other two News Corp papers <em>The Mercury</em> and <em>The Courier Mail</em> were not sceptical.</p>
<p>While the News Corp tabloids tend to outright reject the consensus, the national newspaper <em>The Australian</em> is more likely to suggest that climate science is a matter of debate.</p>
<p>We can also break down the figures by genre of articles. News Corp produced a much higher proportion (51%) of comment articles on climate science than Fairfax (27%). In the <em>Herald Sun</em> 97% of comment articles were sceptical. </p>
<p>This is largely due to <em>Herald Sun</em> columnist Andrew Bolt, who wrote over half of all the words on climate science in the paper. Bolt plays a significant and strategic role in the production of climate scepticism in Australia and is syndicated in metropolitan and regional publications around Australia. He is heard almost daily on Sydney’s right wing radio station 2GB and presents <em>The Bolt Report</em> on Channel 10.</p>
<h2>So what does this mean?</h2>
<p>As Tom Morton the Director of the Australian Centre for Independent Journalism, which published the study, said yesterday:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>If you believe that the main obligation of journalists is to the public right to know, the results of this study are truly alarming. Journalism is about reporting contemporary events as accurately as possible. There could be no better example of the importance of this than the reporting of climate science.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Readers of sceptical papers receive almost no information that would enable them to understand the complexities or likely impacts of climate change domestically or internationally. The research findings of climate scientists are largely rendered invisible for News Corp audiences. Its tabloid publications produce no critique of the sceptic position.</p>
<p>News Corp’s coverage seems to be more about production of ignorance than informing people so they can participate in debates about solutions. If people are confused or ignorant about potential threats, they cannot be expected to support action to confront them.</p>
<p>It is not surprising therefore that levels of acceptance of anthropogenic climate change have dropped in Australia, where we have the highest emissions per person in the world. The public is paying a heavy price for having News Corp as the dominant player in the most concentrated press in the developed world.</p>
<p><em>Sceptical Climate: Part 2 is the second part in a research project from the Australian Centre for Independent Journalism. You can read about the first part on newspapers and climate policy <a href="https://theconversation.com/carbon-pricing-policy-in-the-media-3746">here</a>.</em> </p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/19727/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Wendy Bacon does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Australia has the most concentrated press ownership in the world. What does that mean for significant issues such as climate change? In 2011 and 2012 we at the Australian Centre for Independent Journalism…Wendy Bacon, Professorial Fellow, Australian Centre for Independent Journalism, University of Technology SydneyLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/191122013-10-14T14:01:21Z2013-10-14T14:01:21ZGive us practical climate solutions, not more problems<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/33011/original/pjs3j5xr-1381752370.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">It's too late for this ship, but practical strategies for tackling climate change are needed fast.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Staecker</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Scientists have hammered home <a href="https://theconversation.com/global-warming-unequivocal-and-unprecedented-ipcc-18711">once again</a> the message that climate change is very real and very important. Climate scientists have been saying this for decades, yet carbon emissions worldwide continue to soar. It’s easy to blame governments for not taking stronger action, but this is unfair: many want to go further, but are deterred by political obstacles.</p>
<p>The most obvious is political obstruction in national legislatures. The US government has been completely shutdown for two weeks now due to Republican opposition to Barack Obama’s budget. Similarly, in the past Republican opposition in Congress blocked Bill Clinton’s carbon tax, and <a href="http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/newsdesk/2013/07/the-kochs-and-the-action-on-global-warming.html">continues to block</a> Obama’s emissions trading legislation today. This obstacle does not exist everywhere, but where it does governments are powerless.</p>
<p>There is also a fear of voter retaliation for higher energy prices. Almost all forms of low carbon energy – renewables and nuclear – are more expensive than energy derived from fossil fuels, at least at present. This means that an increase in the proportion of energy from low carbon sources must lead either to an <a href="http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/9f6e8aa4-3427-11e3-8f1d-00144feab7de.html">increase in energy prices</a> or, if subsidies are used to prevent this, to steadily increasing public spending and ultimately higher taxes. Neither are popular.</p>
<p>Opposition within government stems in large part from claims that strong climate measures increase costs for business and therefore threaten national competitiveness and economic growth and development. Industries might even relocate to countries that are not increasing business costs in this way. Fostering economic growth is everywhere central to what governments and citizens think governments should do. Governments that fail to keep growth on track are generally punished at the polls by voters concerned about their jobs and living standards.</p>
<p>An obstacle in developing countries in particular is a sense of injustice: developed countries have already <a href="http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=how-much-coal-can-poor-countires-burn">reaped the economic benefits</a> of using fossil fuels, they point out, and are responsible for most of the greenhouse gases emitted so far, but still refuse to make deep cuts in emissions unless developing countries do too.</p>
<p>Other political obstacles are of lesser importance. Climate sceptics, for example, have little real influence despite the attention they are given in the media. It is not belief or otherwise in climate change that can be an election issue, but rather the effects of policies designed to reduce emissions. And in any case, most people believe that climate change is real - even in <a href="http://environment.yale.edu/climate-communication/files/Climate-Beliefs-April-2013.pdf">the US</a> where parties are polarised on the issue. Action may also be discouraged by the knowledge that, China and the US aside, no single country can make a difference.</p>
<p>So what can be done? <a href="http://www.amazon.co.uk/Climate-Clever-Governments-Tackle-Elections-ebook/dp/B007BO4BFS/ref=tmm_kin_title_0/278-6025265-7511327">Political strategies for activist governments</a> that enable them to take more effective action against climate change without incurring significant political damage. We should not expect governments in either <a href="http://www.amazon.co.uk/Turning-Down-Heat-Politics-Democracies/dp/0230202055">developed</a> or <a href="http://www.palgraveconnect.com/pc/doifinder/10.1057/9780230374973">developing countries</a> to implement policies that might endanger their prospects of staying in office.</p>
<p>Many of <a href="http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-923X.2009.02070.x/abstract">these strategies</a> are already widely known. Obama’s use of existing <a href="http://www2.epa.gov/carbon-pollution-standards">legislation</a> to strengthen national emissions standards after Congress rejected emissions trading, for example, shows how legislative blocks may be circumvented. Factual information on climate change is complemented by moral appeals and glowing descriptions of the opportunities that decarbonising the economy will create. In countries such as Britain the policy path has been smoothed by combining energy and climate policy in a single ministry.</p>
<p>One underused strategy is to pursue global, industry-level agreements on climate policy. The idea here is to eliminate the possibility that key industries will abandon countries with strong climate policies by ensuring that all countries have these policies. The strategic advantage is that industry-specific agreements should be easier to reach than global agreements of broader scope.</p>
<p>New, more vivid, engaging and plausible stories with more arresting images and metaphors are needed to strengthen the portrayal of climate policies as positive, necessary, attractive and inevitable. A case in point is the effort in the US to liken the required action to the <a href="http://www.bluegreenalliance.org/apollo">Apollo moon program</a> of the 1960s in order to reframe climate policy as a heroic effort that draws on what is best about America to achieve something that has never been done before.</p>
<p>And progress on equipping fossil fuel-fired power stations with the capacity to capture and store the carbon dioxide they produce, which is stymied at the moment by the failure of energy companies to invest, could be facilitated by governments buying stakes in these companies and installing managements committed to building this type of power station. This may seem politically risky, but <a href="http://www.powerengineeringint.com/articles/2013/09/poll-reveals-huge-support-for-nationalising-uk-energy-firms.html">opinion polls</a> show that in at least some countries voters support public ownership of electricity utilities - which is hardly surprising in view of popular anger over rising energy bills.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/19112/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Hugh Compston does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Scientists have hammered home once again the message that climate change is very real and very important. Climate scientists have been saying this for decades, yet carbon emissions worldwide continue to…Hugh Compston, Professor of Climate Politics, Cardiff UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/151972013-06-18T04:21:19Z2013-06-18T04:21:19ZAustralian media failures promote climate policy inaction<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/25736/original/5ccfw3qs-1371526082.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Australia's media culture gets in the way of asking politicians serious questions about climate change.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">AAP Image/Dean Lewins</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Four months ago, the big media proprietors were fighting proposed <a href="https://theconversation.com/topics/media-reform">federal government press reforms</a>, arguing that “the press” needs freedom if it is to defend the public interest. But these arguments were raised only to defend the media’s system of self-regulation. What was absent then, and since, was any demonstration that Australia’s news media hold politicians morally accountable on the public issues that really do matter. The most pressing example is climate change.</p>
<p>The science is clear. <a href="http://www.pnas.org/content/107/27/12107">Over 97% of climate scientists</a> and every major national <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change#Statements_by_scientific_organizations_of_national_or_international_standing">science academy</a> agree that the planet is warming due to human activity. Leading public health organisations and prestigious peer-reviewed journals have recognised that “<a href="http://download.thelancet.com/pdfs/journals/lancet/PIIS0140673609609351.pdf?id=5bbe37e152166496:-2811610:13a06538a1b:-55d61348727260360">Climate change is the biggest global health threat of the 21st century</a>”.</p>
<h2>Why are they getting away with it?</h2>
<p>In our <a href="https://theconversation.com/your-mp-doesnt-believe-in-climate-change-ask-the-tough-questions-13432">previous</a> <a href="https://theconversation.com/your-mp-wont-act-on-climate-change-ask-the-tough-questions-14758">articles</a> we focussed on the (un)ethical position of politicians who don’t accept the science of climate change, or won’t act on it. But what about the journalists who should be holding them to account?</p>
<p>You would think most journalists would be forensically questioning any politician who denied the science or failed to devise and support adequate policies to <a href="https://theconversation.com/your-mp-wont-act-on-climate-change-ask-the-tough-questions-14758">address</a> this threat.</p>
<p>Unfortunately very few, if any, of our mainstream journalists have ever really challenged climate-science-denying politicians.</p>
<p>In fact the opposite has been true. <a href="http://www.quarterlyessay.com/issue/bad-news-murdochs-australian-and-shaping-nation">According to research</a> by Robert Manne, many major media outlets - notably the Murdoch media, and particularly The Australian - have <a href="http://www.australasianscience.com.au/article/issue-november-2011/newspaper-biased-against-climate-change.html">actively created doubt</a> about the science. They have misreported the science and supported inaction among politicians who should be developing climate policies and offering national and international leadership on the issue. </p>
<p>The news media have largely failed to cover the science and the solutions to the problems it raises. A <a href="http://www.acij.uts.edu.au/pdfs/sceptical-climate-part1.pdf">report</a> on coverage of the carbon price by the Australian Centre for Independent Journalism (University of Technology, Sydney) said that some major Australian newspapers were “so biased in their coverage that it is fair to say they ‘campaigned’ against the policy rather than covered it”. </p>
<p>The number of environmental journalists in Australian newspapers has declined, leaving the ABC and pockets of Fairfax as the only outlets to tackle climate change politics and science. This is a significant problem in Australia that has broad implications for national and international efforts to combat dangerous climate change.</p>
<p>Recent analyses of the statements made by our federal politicians have found that a large number of <a href="http://uknowispeaksense.wordpress.com/election-2013/">MPs</a> and <a href="http://uknowispeaksense.wordpress.com/election-2013-senate/">Senators</a> have publicly denied the findings of climate science. Around half of all coalition MPs and over two thirds of coalition Senators have publicly denied the science. Because the overwhelming majority of the science-deniers are from the Liberal and National parties, the failure of the press to hold them to account becomes a major political and anti-science bias by the media. </p>
<p>More insidious than outright denial of the science is a new form of denial where the science is accepted but where the need for carbon pricing and government intervention and regulation is denied. This appears to be the current position of the <a href="http://theconversation.com/climate-action-under-an-abbott-government-13953">Federal coalition</a>. Again this goes almost completely unchallenged. This is media bias in the form of silence and failing to adequately scrutinise politicians’ claims. Why aren’t journalists scrutinising politicians when they claim that they “support the science”? Why aren’t they assessing the ability of climate policies to do what the political proponents claim they can do and whether they are capable of being scaled up to deliver the emission reductions that are required to prevent dangerous climate change?</p>
<p>Can you imagine if we had a large group of politicians who accepted the science supporting the life-saving benefits of vaccination programs but denied the role of governments in legislating for child vaccination?</p>
<p>Given that they have a duty to ensure public policy is based on scientific evidence, why is it that journalists haven’t <a href="https://theconversation.com/your-mp-doesnt-believe-in-climate-change-ask-the-tough-questions-13432">questioned</a> and challenged climate science-denying and policy-free politicians to explain their positions on scientific and ethical grounds?</p>
<h2>The culture of Australian media</h2>
<p>That such positions can be held but not defended while the science itself is attacked in Australia says much about the culture of commercial media in this country. </p>
<p>As in the US (according to <a href="http://www.poynter.org/latest-news/mediawire/189819/pew-tv-viewing-habit-grays-as-digital-news-consumption-tops-print-radio/">Pew</a>) most Australians get their news from commercial TV (see page 9 of the <a href="http://www.dbcde.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0007/147733/Convergence_Review_Final_Report.pdf">Convergence Review</a>). This format is suited to reporting live events, violence and conflict but not to the background needed for understanding big, global issues like climate change. Even when extreme weather events are covered, the dramatised suffering of individuals - rather than big-picture science - is highlighted. </p>
<p>This kind of news is all that politicians feel obliged to respond to, as they do their routine overflights of disaster zones and give nationalistic speeches about how Australians always pull together in a crisis.</p>
<p>In Germany, by contrast, where newspapers (in print or online) have traditionally been the most important news source, climate change policy features much more than it does in Australia and the US.</p>
<p>The enormous concentration of media ownership in Australia limits the diversity of reporting needed to cover climate change in depth. One company - News Ltd - controls 72% of capital city newspaper circulation. The same commercial values that legitimate this kind of monopoly in news (which also exists in the coal and energy industries) are unlikely to be challenged by journalists.</p>
<p>For example, business editors at News Ltd have long run the line that Australia’s coal industry (its associated jobs and balance of trade) would be hurt if politicians allowed climate change science to govern investment regulation. In the face of this, it has taken an international social movement like 350.org to initiate a <a href="http://campaigns.gofossilfree.org/">divestment campaign</a> in Australia, rather than the issue being chased by the media.</p>
<p>As the level of global emissions continues to increase and the urgency for real change grows, the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide has gone <a href="http://climate.nasa.gov/400ppmquotes/">above 400 parts per million</a> for the <a href="http://www.uq.edu.au/news/index.html?article=26164&utm_source=feedly">first time in millions of years</a></p>
<p>Yet Australia continues to avoid committing to the <a href="http://www.bris.ac.uk/cabot/events/2012/194.html">steep reductions</a> in greenhouse gas emissions that are required to avoid dangerous climate change. The current bipartisan national emissions reductions targets (e.g., 5% by 2020) mean that Australians will use <a href="http://www.climateinstitute.org.au/verve/_resources/TCI_OperatingInLimits_PolicyBrief.pdf">four times as much</a> of the <a href="http://www.economist.com/news/business/21577097-either-governments-are-not-serious-about-climate-change-or-fossil-fuel-firms-are">carbon</a> <a href="http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/global-warmings-terrifying-new-math-20120719">budget</a> as the average global citizen, making us a nation of <a href="https://theconversation.com/another-budget-in-massive-deficit-14407">emissions bludgers</a> and hurtling the world ever closer to climate disruption.</p>
<p>What will future generations think about the climate science-denying media bias of today and the failure of Australia’s journalists to seriously challenge the group of science-denying leaders and politicians?</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/15197/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>David Holmes receives funding from Monash University Faculty of Arts for research into climate change communication.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Brad Farrant and Mark G Edwards do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Four months ago, the big media proprietors were fighting proposed federal government press reforms, arguing that “the press” needs freedom if it is to defend the public interest. But these arguments were…Brad Farrant, Adjunct Research Fellow in Early Childhood Development, The University of Western AustraliaDavid Holmes, Senior Lecturer, Communications and Media Studies, Monash UniversityMark G Edwards, Assistant Professor, The University of Western AustraliaLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/121842013-04-27T03:24:30Z2013-04-27T03:24:30ZBeyond light bulbs: individual responsibility and climate action<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/21689/original/w6xr74rs-1364181513.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Most people struggle to do more than the basics when it comes to climate change action. What pushes others to really take on the challenge?</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Province of British Columbia</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>International negotiations have failed to give us strong global commitments on climate change. Nations are falling short on their commitments for greenhouse gas emission reductions. Forget top-down solutions: it’s time to shine a light on what community action can achieve.</p>
<p>After 20 years of deliberation, the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change has brought us no closer to keeping global temperature rise to two degrees. Global trajectories of increasing carbon emissions have not been stymied nor have nations successfully reined in their emissions (even where strong climate policy exists, such as in the UK). Since the Copenhagen Climate Conference in 2009, there has been a significant decline in citizens’ interest and belief in global solutions. </p>
<p>But countries are still calling on their citizens to change their lives to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Even back in 2007, the Howard government was hectoring Australian families to “<a href="http://www.news.com.au/features/federal-election/be-climate-clever-families-told/story-e6frfln9-1111114424243">Be climate clever</a>”. Similar examples can be drawn <a href="http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/wycd/home.html">from the USA</a>, UK and <a href="http://www.climatechange.eu.com/">European Union</a>. </p>
<p>These calls for individual responsibility have largely failed to shift citizen action beyond what they can do within their personal resources – small, simple steps such as changing lightbulbs, buying energy efficient appliances and making minor changes in consumer and personal behaviours.</p>
<p>Al Gore, amongst others, has called for an uprising of civil action that would force political change on climate change in the same way as the Arab Spring has done for democracy. However in Western nations where government leadership on climate change is failing, citizens’ trust in politicians and governments continues to plummet and hopes for a global climate movement are not being realised. </p>
<p>My research with Australian Climate Action Groups suggests that such strategies will continue to fail until we overcome the social and institutional barriers stopping individuals from making more significant changes.</p>
<p>I identified three barriers: </p>
<ul>
<li>disempowerment</li>
<li>lack of trust in politicians and political institutions</li>
<li>inability to reflect on the root causes of climate change (in effect, our systems of production and consumption that have ignored nature’s limits). </li>
</ul>
<p>Only a small proportion of the community chooses to take forms of collective political action but this seems to be changing. <a href="http://100percent.org.au/">100% Renewables</a>, made up of about 100 local community-based groups, is one group that is strengthening every day. They join a growing and diverse array of community-based groups becoming more vocal and politically active around their community concerns related to coal exploration, mining and export and the need for renewable energy alternatives. How have they overcome the barriers above? </p>
<p>It is true to say that only certain people join community-based collectives. For the most part they are middle class, highly educated professionals, often freed up from immediate family responsibilities who have higher levels of risk-perception regarding climate change. While their initial motivation for action may be rooted in their understanding of climate change science, they are motivated to join with other, like minded people based on a sense of moral outrage and responsibility.</p>
<p>They understand for their action to be effective that it needs to be politically focused, collective and conducted in the public arena. The group facilitates their action – providing individual members with a supportive and safe environment for testing their convictions through riskier forms of activism. Members develop trust, learn and act together. In this way they forge a group identity which provides authority, legitimacy and authenticity to their collective action.</p>
<p>People who join together to take political action on climate change have got over their feelings of powerlessness and distrust. Involvement in the group bolsters individual members’ confidence around their voluntary actions. In coming together they develop and apply political and advocacy skills. In the process of group dialogue and deliberation, they practice democracy. </p>
<p>Members of these groups have breached the gap between their personal concern and moral obligation around climate change and their ability to take action on a political level. </p>
<p>People who come together voluntarily in local groups to take action on climate change become increasingly confident and skilled in their action. They now provide a real political alternative for climate change action. But it is larger advocacy groups, such as national environmental organisations, who tend to have the ear of governments and politicians. Instead, they need to harness these groups of knowledgeable, empowered and politically astute citizens.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/12184/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span> My doctoral research was conducted through the Institute for Sustainable Futures which is a member organisation of the Climate Action Network Australia (CANA). I undertook research with Australian Climate Action Groups for my PhD and I've attended several forums where Climate Action Groups have been active such as Climate Action Summits and Climate Camps. I have also volunteered with several groups based in Sydney. I attended the 2009 Copenhagen Climate Conference as a representative of the University of Technology Sydney.</span></em></p>International negotiations have failed to give us strong global commitments on climate change. Nations are falling short on their commitments for greenhouse gas emission reductions. Forget top-down solutions…Jennifer Kent, Senior Research Consultant, University of Technology SydneyLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/133262013-04-12T01:02:38Z2013-04-12T01:02:38ZChasing Ice bewitches eyes but won’t change minds<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/22235/original/3xzpt3jn-1365488075.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Chasing Ice is trying to get us out of the climate change hole we've dug for ourselves.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">EPA/Baard Ness</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Science seems to be failing to change the minds of those who are sceptical about the reality of anthropogenic climate change. <a href="http://www.chasingice.com/">Chasing Ice</a> - a film by Jeff Orlowski, playing in Australia currently - tries instead to change minds through dramatic images. The aim is laudable, and the film beautiful, but the message narrowly misses the mark.</p>
<p>Central to this film is the belief that we cannot divorce civilisation from nature. This vision is rendered in <a href="http://www.jamesbalog.com/">James Balog</a>’s extraordinary photographs of ice and his compilation of video footage of glaciers melting at an unnatural rate. The film argues that global warming promises to transform sublime beauty to sublime horror.</p>
<p>Chasing Ice is a significant film. It is exciting to the mind and visual imagination of anyone who accepts climate change as a reality. But its narrative is not riveting, and probably not persuasive to most climate change sceptics.</p>
<p>The film tells the story of evidence overwhelming disbelief: once, Balog himself did not take climate change seriously. But in his fascination with photographing ice he found that when he returned to many glaciers they were receding at a remarkable rate. </p>
<p>He was shocked at what he saw. He had not believed that human beings had the power to bring about changes of this magnitude. To make his findings public, he and his team placed 30 video cameras in Greenland, Alaska, Montana and Iceland. </p>
<p>The intention was not only to “record a powerful piece of history unfolding”, but also to provide visual evidence to a public that does not want to hear statistics. His video footage does indeed show glaciers coming to an end; it shows how in a two year period physical features of glaciers disappearing, breaking apart, and literally melting into the sea.</p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/eIZTMVNBjc4?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
<figcaption><span class="caption">The film includes some incredible footage of glaciers.</span></figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Chasing Ice’s limitations as an argument are due to its diluted narrative. </p>
<p>The film should have focused on how the video evidence, taken over a period of two years, demonstrates the fact of climate change. Instead there are three narratives, two of which should have fed the main thesis rather than vied for attention. Balog’s <a href="http://www.jamesbalog.com/portfolios/extreme-ice-survey/">beautiful images of ice</a>, and the drama of his battling obstacles against the odds in securing his evidence, could have been woven into the film more successfully: cameras breaking, problems with the timer, batteries exploding and foxes eating into cables, cables becoming dislodged and buried in snow and Balog’s problems with his knees could not compete with the film’s prime message. </p>
<p>These story lines deflect attention away from the main argument: the significance of the unusual calving of glaciers. Successfully visualising this calving is of supreme importance. Science education to date has failed to communicate the urgency of the need to counteract climate change: maybe art <a href="https://theconversation.com/can-art-change-minds-where-science-cant-5320">can fill the gap</a>.</p>
<p>The film opens with a sequence of sceptics proclaiming climate change is based on an invalid argument, nonsensical and exaggerated. I expected the film would subvert this disbelief (and of course in many ways it does). </p>
<p>So why do I harbour reservations about this film? It will gain instant support from those already persuaded that climate change is real. But I was disappointed the film did not confront the climate change deniers with their findings. When we see James Balog introduced to a forum of interested parties, I doubt there were any sceptics in the audience. There was a sense of converting the converts. </p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/c-hvbvPMyjg?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
<figcaption><span class="caption">The director explains what he was trying to do with Chasing Ice.</span></figcaption>
</figure>
<p>The film would have been more powerful if disbelievers had an opportunity to voice their objections. Certainly the film predicted the opposition and provided charts and graphs “proving” that changes in glaciers could not be explained by natural causes. There was the canny inclusion of an insurance broker whose business offered policies allowing people to insure against the impact of climate change. He declared himself an ex-climate change sceptic who now, after having to do the research for business reasons, was a “believer”. Imagine how provocative it would have been to include in this film a debate between experts with conflicting views.</p>
<p>But this is a film not to be missed - mostly because of Balog’s obsession with ice and they way his love of photographing its sublime beauty alerted him as if, by chance, to physical changes in the glaciers. In the first instance he celebrated the beauty of ice; his veneration of nature led him to the awareness that our civilisation was destroying its own source of being. </p>
<p>Balog’s photographs are works of art and they are breathtaking. The film is a powerful tool for changing perceptions, perceptions which science education has failed to shift. Chasing Ice’s visualisation of the problem is a means of overcoming disinterest and ignorance. I do, though, hope for a sequel in which disbelievers are written into the script. It would be fascinating to observe their stance and perhaps even witness a conversion.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/13326/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Ann McCulloch does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Science seems to be failing to change the minds of those who are sceptical about the reality of anthropogenic climate change. Chasing Ice - a film by Jeff Orlowski, playing in Australia currently - tries…Ann McCulloch, Professor, School of Communication & Creative Arts, Deakin UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.