Communicating Climate Change Effectively

A Q&A exchange in the 2011 Stanford Magazine's Sage column (read both the tabs--(1) Essential Answer; (2) Nitty-gritty) present key explanatory points and strategy in communicating climate change and citing X recent surveys and publications on the topic.

Why does it matter whether you, and others, care about creating a sustainable civilization and curbing global warming? Assuming you understand the scientific facts behind climate change and do believe it's happening, caring means being motivated enough to change something in your own life. Why don't more people care? Does it really make a difference if they do—and if so, how do we convince more people to care?

Together, the Q&A and associated publications form a set of the best thinking to date on the topic.

Why do people care or not? Why does it matter? What are the best ways to communicate and do in our capitalist democratic society? These are the key questions asked and answered.

Highlights.

So who really does care? In order to gauge the answer to this question, the Yale Project on Climate Change Communication (peak oil, pubic health, and climate change)conducted three nationally representative surveys of American adults (in 2008, early 2010 and mid 2010). The results have been compiled into several reports, including "Climate Change in the American Mind" and "Global Warming's Six Americas."

The studies found that 69 percent of Americans were at least "moderately" interested in global warming at the time of the survey. But this interest doesn't necessarily translate to caring—or taking action. Unfortunately, the percentage of people who are likely to care the most and to feel the most motivated to act to prevent global warming (the alarmed and concerned groups) dropped from 51 percent in November 2008 to 41 percent in June 2010. However, 37 percent of all people surveyed agreed that they could easily change their minds about global warming.

The answer to the "who cares" question seems to depend on the current cultural and political environment. Media does not tell people what to think, but in aggregate it influences what people care about at the moment (see NYT Dot Earth--Climate News Snooze?).

"Approximately 92 percent of people think that the United States should take steps to reduce global warming . . . [while] only 51 percent of people fell into the "alarmed" or "concerned" groups . . . seems to prove the 'easier said than done' phenomenon." But change won't happen if there are too few people who care enough to be doers.

"In his paper Harnessing Individual Behavior to Address Climate Change: Options of Congress, John Derbach shows two ways that individuals can direct change, through two possible roles: as citizens and as consumers. . . . individuals have direct control over about one-third of the total U.S. greenhouse gas emissions."

People have limited capacity to worry, is one concept developed in ". . . Columbia University's Center for Research on Environmental Decisions (CRED) is exploring this question, and they bring up quite a few salient points in their publication The Psychology of Climate Change Communication.

"Lastly, by and large our climate-change information comes from scientists who rely completely on analytical reasoning. However, according to"Psychology and Global Climate Change," a report from the American Psychological Association, risk perception is more strongly influenced by emotions than by our analytical side. In other words, while analytical reasoning is the right tool for studying climate risks, it tends to fall short when it comes to motivating people—to making them care—unless it's working in parallel with an emotional appeal."

Convincing More People to Care

This was the ultimate goal of the publication of The Psychology of Climate Change Communication. Their basic message is that "in order for science information to be fully absorbed by audiences it must be actively communicated with appropriate language, metaphor, and analogy; combined with narrative storytelling; made vivid through visual imagery and experiential scenarios; balanced with scientific information; and delivered by trusted messengers in group settings." You can read a prevous SAGE column on encouraging people to adopt more environmentally conscious behaviors.

Here are a few of their key points about communicating climate change:

Work around confirmation biases and mental modes—People absorb information more easily if it is consistent with what they already know or think. You can work around this by finding out what misconceptions they may have and then addressing those specifically.

Framing—Package the information you wish to convey in a way that will make it the most personal and relatable. This can be done through using approachable language and focusing on the aspects of climate change that will most directly affect your audience. For example, emphasize the changes they can expect in their local environment rather than broader scale issues.

Beware of overuse of emotional appeals—Emotional appeal may invoke an immediate response, but it is likely that it will be short-lived. Too much drama can also lead to emotional numbing . . . beyond a certain threshold of emotional turmoil, the prospect of climate change may feel too big and daunting to do anything about. Instead, emphasize what they can do and that, if we act now, we still have time to make a difference."