Just found a great source for information (with podcasts and transcripts) called Communicating Climate Change "Podcast conversations with social scientists, produced by Joe Cone".
.
Some highlights include:
.
.
Dr. Maibach is a professor in the Department of Communication at George Mason University and also the director of the Center of Excellence in Climate Change Communication Research.
.
.
Dr. Baruch Fischhoff of Carnegie Mellon University. A prominent national expert on risk analysis and communication
.
.
Dr. Moser is a research scientist with the Institute for the Study of Society and Environment at the National Center for Atmospheric Research. She discusses communication and social change.
.
.
Dr. Leiserowitz is director of the Yale Project on Climate Change and a research scientist who specializes in risk perception and decision-making.
.
I decided to write to the author of the communicating climate change blog and ask him about his interview with Anthony Leiserowitz.
.
Here is what I wrote:
.
Dear Joe Cone,
I was very interested to listen to your interview with Anthony Leiserowitz, especially when he was discussing the two groups within the naysayer group; (i) the religious white, conservative republican men and (ii) the non-religious white, conservative republican men. He suggests that climate change would be better framed in terms of "stewardship" or "a moral obligation to help the poor" for the religious group.
But, what would you suggest is the best framing of climate change for the non-religious naysayers? Given that they simply see the environment as 'resources' and believe that environmental laws causes the free market to be inefficient and see 'community' as a left wing idea that goes against the idea of the individual consumer (and their freedoms).
I can see that the business community is starting to see the opportunities of climate change; but I personally wonder if a greener market and ecological modernization will be a sufficient 'answer' to climate change or simply a not-green-enough-business-as-usual proposition?
This is because there are many problems that need to be overcome such as the lack of information (about emissions or on how the product was made) on products when consumers are making decisions (i.e. lack of labels). But what information do we need to put on labels and will people even read them and even if they do? Given the problems with the 'information deficit theory' itself which labels seem to be trying to follow, will people do the 'right thing' and change their behaviour? Or will they keep the information 'at arms length' psychologically speaking because it is painful to change or be made aware that you have made a mistake? A huge problem is what is the 'right thing' to do once you accept that climate change is happening?
The trouble seems to be that everyone has their own idea of what is right (and often think they are trying to do the right thing), but is this effort enough to protect the ecosystems of the Earth with our ever growing population? There is also the serious problem of green-wash and claims that are seen as "just marketing" or are misleading or worse (such as messages that encourage people to over-consume, be wasteful or present climate change as too big and nothing anyone can do).
I was very interested to listen to your interview with Anthony Leiserowitz, especially when he was discussing the two groups within the naysayer group; (i) the religious white, conservative republican men and (ii) the non-religious white, conservative republican men. He suggests that climate change would be better framed in terms of "stewardship" or "a moral obligation to help the poor" for the religious group.
But, what would you suggest is the best framing of climate change for the non-religious naysayers? Given that they simply see the environment as 'resources' and believe that environmental laws causes the free market to be inefficient and see 'community' as a left wing idea that goes against the idea of the individual consumer (and their freedoms).
I can see that the business community is starting to see the opportunities of climate change; but I personally wonder if a greener market and ecological modernization will be a sufficient 'answer' to climate change or simply a not-green-enough-business-as-usual proposition?
This is because there are many problems that need to be overcome such as the lack of information (about emissions or on how the product was made) on products when consumers are making decisions (i.e. lack of labels). But what information do we need to put on labels and will people even read them and even if they do? Given the problems with the 'information deficit theory' itself which labels seem to be trying to follow, will people do the 'right thing' and change their behaviour? Or will they keep the information 'at arms length' psychologically speaking because it is painful to change or be made aware that you have made a mistake? A huge problem is what is the 'right thing' to do once you accept that climate change is happening?
The trouble seems to be that everyone has their own idea of what is right (and often think they are trying to do the right thing), but is this effort enough to protect the ecosystems of the Earth with our ever growing population? There is also the serious problem of green-wash and claims that are seen as "just marketing" or are misleading or worse (such as messages that encourage people to over-consume, be wasteful or present climate change as too big and nothing anyone can do).
I feel the main problem is the lack of ecocentric focus within the business, economic or engineering 'solutions' being offered (this is obviously because of the anthropocentric bias within them all). But how do we get a more ecocentric focus included in our societies systems and institutions? And how do we stop people framing environmental problems in terms of jobs versus the environment (when this is misleading)? I was thinking that reframing it in terms of new green and clean jobs versus old brown and dirty jobs.
.
I will wait and see if he replies to my questions and report back if he does.
.
Please also check out:
.
.
.
.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment