Climate Change, Public Perceptions, And The F-Word

According to a new survey on global warming released by the Nathan Cummings Foundation and the Breakthrough Institute people are more concerned about the price of gas and electricity than they are about global warming. However, it also found support for climate-change solutions that are centered on achieving energy independence, reducing the cost of clean energy, and creating new jobs.

To summarize, The Nathan Cummings Foundation Global Warming Survey found that global warming continues to rank low as a priority for Americans, who continue to be extremely anxious about energy costs. Moreover, messages about the potential catastrophic effects of global warming do not increase support for government action. The survey divided the sample to observe the effects of various "psychological primes" on global warming public opinion, including using specific consequences of global warming expressed by the environmental community, such as the Academy Award-winning documentary An Inconvenient Truth. Telling voters about these consequences did not increase their desire to take action on global warming.

Which really should not come as much of a surprise to readers. Decades of social marketing have demonstrated that information alone is insufficient to change behavior. Indulge me in an anecdotal aside. I consider myself to be a moderately intelligent individual. I know about heart disease, cholesterol, diabetes, and that regular exercise should be a part of my life. Yet I'm probably 40 pounds overweight. I lost a father and mother to heart-related issues complicated by high blood pressure, yet that awareness didn't stop me from eating that stack of Oreos while watching Family Guy last night. Information alone is insufficient.

While voters polled in both surveys expressed initial support for a variety of potential government actions--with support for an "Apollo-type" investment strategy scoring the highest, referring to the 1960s program that placed a man on the moon--when told of the potential of such programs, support dropped precipitiously. Only the Apollo-type investment proposal retained support from a majority of voters.

"This poll demonstrates that getting the policy right means getting the politics right," said Lance Lindblom, president of the Cummings Foundation. "Elegant policy prescriptions that cannot generate the political support necessary won't do anything to effectively address the challenges of global climate change."

Which brings us to the F-word: Framing. Emperor Palpatine and his young Sith Lord Matt Nisbet and Chris Mooney have been recently heating things up in the scientific community over this issue,

Issues at the intersection of science and politics, such as climate change, evolution, and embryonic stem cell research, receive considerable public attention, which is likely to grow, especially in the United States as the 2008 presidential election heats up. ... scientists must learn to actively "frame" information to make it relevant to different audiences. Some in the scientific community have been receptive to this message. However, many scientists retain the well-intentioned belief that, if laypeople better understood technical complexities from news coverage, their viewpoints would be more like scientists', and controversy would subside.

In reality, citizens do not use the news media as scientists assume. Research shows that people are rarely well enough informed or motivated to weigh competing ideas and arguments. Faced with a daily torrent of news, citizens use their value predispositions (such as political or religious beliefs) as perceptual screens, selecting news outlets and Web sites whose outlooks match their own. Such screening reduces the choices of what to pay attention to and accept as valid.

The recent Cummings and Breakthrough reports in part support this position. But the current dilemma does not appear to be focused on convincing people that climate change is a reality. Polls seem to indicate that we may be over that hump. What remains a challenge is framing the issue in such a way as to move climate change higher on the public (and policy maker's) perception of priority issues requiring immediate attention. And here it may be less of a framing issue than it is one of demonstrating vision.

Not to get all Phil Plait here, but the Apollo-type investment strategy that so resonates with voters is a telling example. The Apollo space program was many things: a spectacular marriage of science and engineering, a Cold War space race, a demonstration of human determination, and some may say a tremendous waste of resources. I could go on. But the vision it demonstrated and the potential applications and investments in the future, from computer technology to Tang, captured the public attention, interest, and buy-in. As a result, it commanded the attention of policy makers as well.

It's true that the lions share of resources have been dedicated by conservation and environmental groups to demonstrate to the public that the scientific community is in agreement around the reality of climate change. But have we inadvertently created a vacuum for taking meaningful action? Where is the "Apollo Mission" as an answer to climate change or an exit strategy from a warming future? Vision certainly requires visionaries. But it also requires effective messaging (or framing?) to inspire action.

I hope it doesn't take a heart attack to get me to pay more attention to my health. Likewise, do we need a catastrophe to wake us up to take action on an ailing planet?