The news about the most recent survey on public opinion about climate change didn’t go unnoticed by science communicators. According to the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press, there’s been a decline over the past year in the percentage of Americans who say there is solid evidence that global temperatures are rising. This doesn’t mean that the evidence itself is less solid, or that there is no longer a consensus among scientists on the subject. It means that for some reason, the public’s belief in climate change is slipping.
At EarthSky, we frequently discuss how scientists have struggled for decades to get the point across that human activities are irreparably impacting the planet, and that the consequences are dangerous. It’s only been recently that scientists, generally speaking, have keyed in to the importance of communicating their results in a way that’s understandable to the public. It’s not just about publishing the data, it’s about making sure people understand what the data means. And as science communicators, it’s our job to explain what climate change means, the science behind it, and why you should care about it. But judging from the Pew poll results, this job has not been done in a media environment that’s crowded with constantly changing information and opinions.
That’s the reason for “The Psychology of Climate Change Communication,” published in November 2009 by the Center for Research on Environmental Decisions (CRED) of Columbia University. It’s a guide for effectively communicating about climate change, for scientists, journalists, educators, and anyone else who wants to read it for free on the internet. It reinforces the idea that most people are confused about the science and the implications of climate change. It begins, “Research shows that most Americans do not feel a personal connection to climate change… In fact, despite scientists’ calls for urgent action, climate change has slipped to the bottom of the list of American priorities.”
How’s that for a sense of failure? (Fortunately, the book features some clever cartoons that lighten the mood somewhat.) The authors discuss some common missteps: For example, using jargony terms to describe climate science lead to a lack of interest in the subject. Meaning, the phrase “385 parts per million” is kind of a snooze, rather than a call to action for most people. Too often, the guide says, using unclear or vague language to describe scientific uncertainty – always a factor in science – can cause confusion among a lay audience about how confident scientists are in their results. Also, using graphs and charts, despite their sometimes alarmingly clear appearances, doesn’t directly translate to a desire to change one’s personal behavior.
The need for changes in personal behavior – replacing light bulbs with CFLs, commuting on a bike or public transportation rather than a car, and supporting public decisions based on climate change science, for example – is the basis of the psychology of climate change.The guide offers some interesting explanations as to why people haven’t changed their behavior. People seek out or absorb only the information that confirms what they already believe about an issue, which may cause them to misinterpret scientific data. People also have a limited capacity for worrying about issues, which is why climate change gets bumped down to the bottom of the worry list when an economic recession threatens their jobs. On the other side of the coin, if people get overexposed to doomsday messages about climate change, they may become numb to it.
The psychology of climate change is based on human nature, and that’s why it’s so difficult. The human mind isn’t wired to objectively weigh future consequences against immediate concerns. Nor do we particularly welcome major change to our lifestyles. If you think it’s tough to convince a friend to quit smoking, imagine trying to convince a global economy to quit fossil fuels.
Meanwhile, as we mull this over, the pace of climate change continues to accelerate. I’m always wondering, “Is it too late?” Is it too late to save countless species, to protect areas from sea level rise, to conserve our natural resources? And now I wonder, is it too late for people to really understand what’s happening, and want to act on it? That’s still the first step.
There’s been tremendous effort by science journalists and many scientists to inform the public, and we do our part here, everyday, at EarthSky. Although “The Psychology of Climate Change Communication” offers many valuable tips on communicating in certain situations, it doesn’t provide a path to navigating a infinitely complicated and changing media environment, in which decisions about climate change are inextricably tangled.
I often wonder if we have been genetically imprinted by the many cataclysms that Homo sapiens have experienced since our beginnings? Could this make us, even today, responsive only after we are threatened or hit with a serious natural disaster? Problem is, climate change is a sort of creeping cataclysm that is sneaking up on us while withering away our environment. It is also inconsiderate of the lifestyle of most of us, especially the decision makers and money counters. A very complex and multifaceted psychology.
Dear Friends,
Perhaps necessary change is in the offing. As currently structured, the global economy appears not to be working well and could be fast approaching a point in human history when the manmade “economic colossus” becomes too big not to fail because of its unsustainability in the finite and frangible world we inhabit.
Although many of you appear to be correct in so much of what you report, I have held onto hope for more, much more intellectual honesty, moral courage and bold action from leaders in my not-so-great generation as a way of responding ably to the global challenges that have emerged in my lifetime. Perhaps there is still time available to reasonably acknowledge and sensibly address the converging global challenges that loom before humanity now. At least one of these ominous global challenges, the human overpopulation of Earth, is clearly visible for all to see if not for the willful blindness, hysterical deafness and elective mutism of many too many leaders and experts. Their disregard of the best available science as well as their specious ideological presumptions, the ones derived from the culturally extolled virtue of unbridled greed on one hand and the endless global growth of human production, consumption and propagation activities on the other, appear to be directing the children down a short, patently unsustainable “primrose path” to an unimaginable confrontation with some sort of colossal ecological wreckage, I suppose.
Thanks again to all for speaking out loudly and clearly.
Sincerely,
Steve
Another aspect of the psychology of climate change, which Thomas Friedman discusses in his book ‘Hot, Flat, and Crowded,’ is that our minds are not set up to deal with large, abrupt changes. Incremental, gradual changes we can easily adapt to, but the idea of climate tipping points at which things change quickly — rising sea levels, major droughts, big increases in precipitation — is one we can\’t really grasp.
Plus we never know exactly what\’s going to happen in the future. Yes, sea levels might rise 20 inches or more, but what if they don\’t?
For me, it all comes down to the idea of insurance. We know the warming is happening, that is very likely going to accelerate and lead to changes on the planet that will impact millions of lives. Do we take steps to minimize those impacts, or do we ignore the warming and cross our fingers? We have to take steps.
Voicing concensus rather than absorbing details is convenient in order to keep the majority of jobs that are highly dependent on cheap transport and waste. Subtle consumer preferences lead to major procurement habit changes favoring excessive reliance on hard to find, yet common details, like screws, plastics and spare parts overseas. Coupled with financial lobbies using lost public money, it isn’t difficult to see that there is too much noise and not enough clarity on both sides of this highly politicized issue.