Despite broad scientific consensus and tons of studies, climate change is still one of – if not the – most controversial issues of our time. One reason why the threat of global warming, this colossal challenge to many environments and livelihoods, is still mounting instead of being dealt with in a coordinated way is that we still haven’t quite understood people’s values and beliefs about climate change. This is problematic, as understanding this complex relationship is increasingly important for designing climate change policies and actions. A recent article in the Australian ECOS Magazine rightly calls for a stronger focus on emotional responses and issues of trust – both requiring an examination way beyond climate change technicalities. After all, be it sand storms over Sydney or global warming facts and figures conveyed through imagery of melting ice and glaciers; people are increasingly confused about who and what to believe.
Acording to a recent survey by CSIRO on emotional responses to climate change, “for those who believe that climate change is natural, the strongest emotional response is irritation. Irritation is likely to be a barrier to any attempt to communicate more information about climate change. Irritation will lead to a failure to engage with anything related to climate change, and generally to inhibit pro-environmental behaviours. These differences are strongly linked to people’s political preferences. Survey participants intending to vote Liberal, National or for Independents, were more likely to state that climate change is due solely to natural variations in Earth’s temperatures. Those who intended to vote for the Greens or Labor were more likely to state belief in human-induced climate change.”
Very interesting also survey responses related to the question of whom to trust. “While all respondents consider university scientists to be the best source of information, those who consider climate change to be natural tend to trust their friends and family, and even their doctors, for information on climate change. In contrast, those who consider climate change to be human-induced tend to favour information from environmental groups and environmental scientists. All groups listed government, car companies and oil companies as the least trustworthy for information on a changing climate.”
Read more via ECOS Magazine or check out the survey at www.csiro.au/resources/Climate-change-attitudes-online-survey.
Some more food for thought on climate change beyond technicalities:
Surely many of you (me included) have been wondering about the apparent interchangeability of the terms climate change and global warming in much of the discourse surrounding those issues. According to Independent columnist Johann Hari, “climate change” was invented by the Republican pollster Frank Luntz, when he discovered that focus groups found the phrase “global … Continue reading »
Yesterday I went up to Auckland University business school to attend Prof James Hansen’s public lecture on climate change and moral implications – or so was the official title. What he mainly presented to the hundreds of people who were fast enough to grab a seat in cramped the lecture theatre (they had to stream … Continue reading »
“There’s no such thing as right and wrong when it comes to tackling climate change“, says Mike Hulme, professor of climate change at the University of East Anglia. That’s why we need to stop looking for scapegoats and start engaging in honest discussion. “Rather than reducing climate change to arguments about how settled – or … Continue reading »
Humans are too stupid to prevent climate change from radically impacting on our lives over the coming decades, writes the Guardian. This is the stark conclusion of James Lovelock, the globally respected environmental thinker and independent scientist who developed the Gaia theory. It follows a tumultuous few months in which public opinion on efforts to … Continue reading »
Picture by natxoblogg (creative commons, Flickr)