A Random Man on Planet Earth

Six Americas - which one are you?

COMMENTS ALWAYS WELCOME !!

.
So please, tell us what you think.

Speaking to Americans about Climate Change

On the back of the report into the six different 'types' of Americans (when it comes to climate change), I found an article in the Huffington Post called Speaking with Americans about Energy and Climate: From the Think Tank to the Kitchen Table. [The report is by Drew Westen, Ph.D., who is Professor of Psychology and Psychiatry at Emory University; and Celinda Lake who is President and Founder of Lake Research Partners].

It examines a new report called "Climate Truths: Making the Necessary Connections".

It is based on research undertaken in collaboration and under the sponsorship and guidance of ecoAmerica and the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC). For a description of the complete study and results (entitled, Climate Truths: Making the Necessary Connections), contact meighen@ecoAmerica.org, or fkoe@nrdc.org.

It looks good, so I have asked for a copy of their report. Anyway, here is what the study found:

What we found is that when we talk in plain, values-oriented language, we solidly move people, motivate them to action, and beat the industry's well-crafted messages by 20-40 points. What resonates with people are not specific fuel standards or the mechanics of how a cap and trade system would work or the precise tonnage of carbon emissions per year. What moves them is a set of themes that bring the issue home to them: economic prosperity and jobs; energy independence and self-sufficiency; clean, safe, natural sources of energy that will never run out; getting pollution under control and making polluters pay for their own messes so we protect our health and the health of our children, preserve the majesty of our land, and reverse the deterioration of our atmosphere; harnessing American ingenuity and restoring American leadership; and protecting our legacy to our children the way our parents and grandparents protected their legacy to us. And we learned that one striking fact that gets people to sit up and take notice -- for example, that the 10 hottest years on record have all occurred since 1990 -- is worth a thousand policy descriptions.

So rather than trying to push 'scientific facts' at people and expect them to undergo some sort of amazing behaviour change. [Note: 'now they have the facts, they will see the light' does not work.] It is much better to use "plain, values orientated language" that "brings the issue home to them" if you want to achieve some real behaviour change.

They also have a lovely climate change narrative concept-map figure which looks at the often contradictory network of associations (blue positive and red negative) held by the public and illustrated below (see Figure 1 - below). So for solar power, the industry should be pushing the message that they are "clean", "safe", "never run out" and will "help build jobs for the future" rather than "will save x amount of CO2". Makes sense, as people often seem to just tune out when science or mathematics starts been discussed. Much better to include them in the conversation by making it about them, by using their values and what is important to them a part of the conversation.

Figure 1: Emotional connections and a possible climate narrative.

** If you enjoyed this post please also check out:

COMMENTS ALWAYS WELCOME !!
.
So please, tell us what you think.

Wednesday, May 20, 2009

Six Americas - which one are you?

A great new social science report has just been released that finds there are six different 'types' of Americas when it comes to climate change:

(i) Alarmed (18%)
(ii) Concerned (33%)
(iii) Cautious (19%)
(iv) Disengaged (12%)
(v) Doubtful (11%)
(vi) Dismissive (7%)

Here is the blurb (from the envirosoc listserve):

Just a quick note to let you know about a major report we just released today called, "Global Warming's Six Americas." Drawing on a scientific survey of American climate change beliefs, attitudes, policy preferences, and behaviors, our research has found that the public falls into six distinct groups – each of which currently engages (or not) with the issue in a unique way:

The report introduces the six groups by briefly describing each and highlighting how they differ from one another. As you know, one of the first rules of effective communication is to “know thy audience.” We hope the results are useful to you in your own efforts to constructively engage the public in this pressing issue. If you have any questions, please let me know.

Anthony Leiserowitz, Ph.D
Director, Yale Project on Climate Change
School of Forestry & Environmental Studies
Yale University

The report can be downloaded here:

http://environment.yale.edu/uploads/6Americas2009.pdf

** If you enjoyed this post please also check out:

New research (2010) Reframing climate change into a public health issue

COMMENTS ALWAYS WELCOME !!
.
So please, tell us what you think.

Thursday, May 14, 2009

UNEP plans to plant seven billion trees in 2009

Here is the blurb from the UNEP:

In the lead-up to World Environment Day, which will be celebrated on 5 June, the UN Environment Programme (UNEP) has set the new target to plant seven billion trees by the end of 2009, under the Billion Tree Campaign.
.

Currently, some 3.1 billion trees have been planted in 166 countries.
.
The World Environment Day global tree planting drive is the first in a series of mass participation events planned as part of the UN-led “Seal the Deal!” campaign in the lead-up the UN climate change conference to be held December 2009, in Copenhagen, Denmark.

** If you enjoyed this post please also check out:

Bill McKibben

COMMENTS ALWAYS WELCOME !!
.
So please, tell us what you think.

Friday, May 08, 2009

Clive Hamilton "Nordhaus' Carbon Tax: An excuse for more delay?"

This email came through today on the climate-l listserve. Clive Hamilton explains why a carbon tax is not the solution to climate change. Originally from the Australia Institute, he has written a number of books that critique capitalism and consumerism (see list below). Well worth a read.

Anyway, here is the email:

William Nordhaus is perhaps the most influential US economist in the global warming debate. While climate scientists are calling for urgent and strong action, he has been urging a cautious response, stressing the high costs of cutting emissions and the uncertainties associated with climate change. This paper argues that his latest proposal for a carbon tax, based squarely on neoclassical economic assumptions, contravenes agreed international principles, exposes the environment to risk, accords unwarranted privilege to private over public decisions and would result in more years of delay before the world responds.

To read the paper please go to

http://www.clivehamilton.net.au/cms/index.php?page=articles

Clive Hamilton
Senior Visiting Fellow
School of Forestry & Environmental Studies
Yale University

List of books by Australian author Clive Hamilton (source Wiki):

Affluenza: When Too Much is Never Enough (2005)
Capitalist Industrialization in Korea
Growth, Efficiency and Fixed Capital in Linkage Analysis
Growth Fetish (2003)
Human Ecology, Human Economy: Ideas for an Ecologically Sustainable Future (1997)
Running from the Storm: The Development of Climate Change Policy in Australia
Scorcher: The Dirty Politics of Climate Change (2007)
Silencing Dissent: How the Australian Government is Controlling Public Opinion and Stifling Debate (2007)
The Economic Dynamics of Australian Industry (1992)
The ESD Process: Evaluating a Policy Experiment
The Freedom Paradox: Towards a Post-Secular Ethics (2008)
The Mystic Economist (1994)
What's Left? The Death of Social Democracy (2006)

** If you enjoyed this post please also check out:

Bill McKibben

COMMENTS ALWAYS WELCOME !!
.
So please, tell us what you think.

Wednesday, May 06, 2009

Bill McKibben

Tonight I went to listen to Bill McKibben talk about climate change and his 350.org campaign. He is a good speaker and really got me thinking about several things. His approach seemed to be very inclusive (although perhaps lacking in specific focus on how to reach 350ppm). The 350.org website says:

How do we actually reduce carbon emissions to get to 350?
Make no mistake--getting back to 350 means transforming our world. It means building solar arrays instead of coal plants, it means planting trees instead of clear-cutting rainforests, it means increasing efficiency and decreasing our waste. Getting to 350 means developing a thousand different solutions--all of which will become much easier if we have a global treaty grounded in the latest science and built around the principles of equity and justice. To get this kind of treaty, we need a movement of people who care enough about our shared global future to get involved and make their voices heard.

There doesn't seem to be any mention of consumption, radical change or any specific technology or world-view offered as a solution. "A thousand different solutions" is really avoiding the detail (is it nuclear, reduced consumption, more science, economic solutions, technology, which technology, technology is the problem, bottom-up government, more experts, better laws, support local business, lifeboat ethics or in this together, the internet, NGOs or carbon taxes, etc, etc). He promotes the idea of community and vocal grass-roots action to generate real change.

Still it is great that he is trying to generate some political grass-roots action. I just wonder if it will work and this is the key question. Hopefully this action will add to the many other attempts that are been made.

He tends to use a story approach rather than technocratic science or powerpoint). The first story was set in Tibet (when he went to see a melting glacier for a story he was doing for National Geographic - when he asked why it was melting - he was told by a 17 year old villager "like he was from the planet dimwit" that it was "from global warming and too many factories") . The second is set in Bangladesh (you can have a listen if you want - he tells it better than I could here anyway). He uses lots of dramatic words and a common sense type of approach and keeps it very simple.

He finished by saying that he wasn't sure that we could solve the problem because of 4 reasons:

Carbon Dioxide isn't a trace gas (its an integral part of our economy).
Heavily defended industry (oil, gas, coal, etc).
Time is short (this is important).
Not enough people mobilized on climate change (this is where he thinks 350.org can help).

He suggested that instead of thinking about jobs versus environment, we should think of the laws of chemistry and physics versus our political and humans systems. The laws of nature bend for no committee or political process.

I will post the lecture when the link when it is put up.

[Update: Download video here)

** If you enjoyed this post please also check out:
.