You're My Hero

I’ve talked pretty extensively about framing, and how it helps to tailor messages to the individual. Capturing a particular message on climate change which attracts specific attention and can help make the problem understandable. Now the issue with framing is that given the multiplicity of the public you can end up with hundreds of different frames, and should a person encounter more than one in a short space of time this could be confusing or overwhelming. So is there a frame that can reach everyone?

Jones 2014 has used a message as old as civilization itself. Stories, that is a tale with a setting, plot, characters (both good and bad) and a moral or solution have been successful in various fields but especially advertising (Matilla 2000). Just take a look at the Christmas adverts this year with John Lewis’ Monty the Penguin or Sainsbury’s war time fable.

Across the entire political spectrum, turning climate change into a story had a great impact on understanding and willingness to act. However it was not the setting, nor the moral or even the bad guys. The biggest factor in inspiring change; The Heroes of the story. In nearly every case respondents identified with the heroes of the story, be them concerned NGOs, Individualistic Capitalists, or scientists. Even more interesting was the control group, who were left to interpret the IPCC executive summary without any framing.

Leonardo DiCaprio helps narrate this video by Green World Rising. Will his contribution help reach more people, greater influence those it does reach, or both? Is his lavish lifestyle hypocritical. Role model involvement in climate change poses numerous ethical and logistical questions.

Putting climate change into a media that humans have always used has the potential to be beneficial across politics and beliefs. We identify with those we believe to be good or knowledgeable but only when speaking in a medium we understand. This explains why respondents scored higher when scientists were heroes in the story rather than the people behind a bland IPCC report. I think the issue of heroes has even more leg room, celebrities such as Leonardo DiCaprio have become increasingly involved in the climate change movement, both narrating for NGOs and speaking directly to the UN. Ignoring his use of numerous private jets for a moment, his ability to play the hero both on an off screen has great potential for reaching wider audiences but also helping them to engage with the topic. Even if he is used to speak pure science people are more likely to respond than coming from a face they cannot recognize as a force for good.

Next Period - Science (Or is it Politics)

I’ve mentioned before the difficult situation climate science finds itself in, research as part of the 6 Americas project tells us that increasing levels of scientific literacy do not positively affect peoples willingness to act on climate change. In fact the opposite is true with greater understanding of the issue potentially creating greater political polarization (Kahan 2012). This is due to our formation of worldviews, subsequently rather than adapt this view in the face of new evidence we attempt to twist the evidence in favour of what we already believe. (This is both skeptics and believers guys so remember to hold on to your scientific integrity!). I’ve shown how a variety of tools may help address this inaction; narratives, framing of the problem, ignoring it all together in favour of talking about other issues e.g. clean growth or greater stakeholder engagement but a recent paper from the USA (Stevenson et al 2014)has pointed in another direction.

Did they come to these conclusions themselves? Courtesy of the Guardian (An art project about climate change and sustainability by year 3 pupils at Ambleside primary school, Cornwall. Photograph: Ashley Cooper/Alamy Ashley Cooper/Global Warming Images/Alamy) [Accessed 18/12/2014]

Children are yet to form worldviews (Vollerberg et al 2001), they learn, question and change opinions far better than adults do. Increasing their scientific literacy then may not dictate their risk perception in quite the same way as adults. Stevenson found increasing both the amount and quality of earth sciences education led to children more concerned about climate change in later life.

Whilst this on the face of it seems positive it’s a treacherous area. Firstly the school system in the US is a very politicized arena. Wars have been waged in senate and congress over the teaching of evolution and to introduce climate change into that fray is not easy. The second, a point raised by George Marshall when I asked him about the topic, is that we must be careful not to use children as propaganda tools. Whilst an excellent scientific education is of course brilliant, introducing the politics behind it, either directly or indirectly isn’t something children should be subjected to. I’m all for increased levels of education but this should give children the analytical skills to come to their own conclusions, and help them to be better scientists, not prescribe a worldview either way.

Is Paris better than Copenhagen?

Ah Paris, home of arts, croissants and love, and with any luck the future of our planet. September 2015 sees the next stage in Global Climate talks head to the French Capital. For many the last major talks in Copenhagen 2009 where a let down, plagued by petty fighting a lack of concrete policy, the Accord represents ‘little more than the lowest common denominator’ (Falkner et al 2010). So why should next year be any different? A recent lecture at the Grantham Institute co-run by the French Embassy gives us reason to hope. If you’ve got a spare hour it’s worth watching but if not read on.

Economics have changed

The first point raised was economic. 2009 was only a year after the world was plunged into recession, we’ve seen earlier how when unemployment and GDP are suffering people are less concerned about climate change (Brulle et al 2011) and as government policy and action reflects public opinion, impetus for spending on mitigation was extremely low in 2009. Although real wages are still suffering the economy is recovering, Britain in particular is on the up and was able to pledge £720million ($1.13Billion) to the Green Climate Fund. The price of renewables also continues to fall solar is energy is now cost competitive WITHOUT subsidies in many locations with the price on track to drop 400% since the 2009 (Candelise et al 2013). Even with the UK removing the Renewable obligation support, solar will be cheaper next year than this, and that money can help mitigate in other areas. Just take a leaf through Lord Stern’s new report on the New Climate Economy, it certainly provides a lot more hope for green growth than in the past.

Global Agreement

In 2009 China viewed climate change as something that happened elsewhere, it was caused by, and affecting the West but China itself was just fine. America meanwhile did not have Congress approval for a legally binding treaty, China then used this as their out, they wouldn’t sign unless the US did. But just last week both countries have reached a climate agreement. In a joint statement America promised to reduce by 26-28% whilst China will increase energy from zero emissions sources by 20%, at a time when for the first time ever Chinese Coal consumption and production are falling in response to air quality. The legality remains a critical part of negotiations, but increasingly in Obama’s final years he’s relying on executive action, this move could prove crucial with a Republican Congress and Senate and helps create a much more positive atmosphere heading into Paris.

http://www.sbs.com.au/news/sites/sbs.com.au.news/files/styles/full/public/20141112001059908383-original_us_china_climate_deal_app.jpg?itok=8uWs_jBp&mtime=1416183181 

Climate Change is here

China is finally addressing its air quality, David Cameron has attributed flooding in the Somerset Levels to Climate Change, and most importantly wine production in Bordeaux is on its way down. The last few years have seen a spate of examples which may or may not be attributed to climate change but can certainly help sway political action. Although Myers et al (2013) found that personal experience of climate disasters is only likely to reaffirm your position on climate change, visual effects such as flooding or pollution at least inspire action on a local level which can help support national pledges.

There are still ten months until Paris, first we have the Climate Change Conference in Lima next month which will see each nation commit to commit a reduction. A roundabout method but this is how international politics work. There should be great hope following talks in Peru, but for now there is a positive air surrounding the next year of Climate negotiations.

WARNING: This might not work

San Francisco County are proposing putting this sign on petrol pumps, like warnings on cigarette packets or alcohol, it highlights the damage of fuel consumption. The idea of drawing attention to the damage of fuel is admirable but I think it's going to go the other way; first of all the idea is abstract, a quantifiable amount of carbon dioxide isn't something people can picture. It's summed up nicely at the end but I don't think it makes it any easier for the public to link actions and consequences. The other is that cars and freedom of mobility is an engrained value to the American Right. This could be viewed as an encroachment on their freedom and rights further shutting them off to the idea of environmental protection.

Whilst the transport sector is hugely problematic to mitigating climate change there are better ways to tackle it. Improving vehicle efficiency, making public transport more affordable or encouraging cycle routes will have a much better impact than demonising individual actions. People do not react well to being told off or to making personal sacrifices. There are certainly gains to be made on the individual level but they need to be encouraged as a way of improving lives not making the public the enemy of the planet.

The More the Merrier: A Move Towards Open Climate Science

Technology has, and always will, change the way the world works. In the context of climate change talk focuses on big technology like clean energy and geoengineering. But the more mundane, phones, emails etc. could have a huge impact on mitigation strategies.

Citizen science involves data collection, monitoring or analysis by amateurs and volunteers. The growth of the smartphone, open data and our ability to share and access information has revolutionized science. Whether it is stargazing for the Galaxy Zoo project or snapping backgarden animals for Project Noah citizen science offers an opportunity to engage a whole new audience with specific questions and issues.

There are issues with citizen science, research with these methods can find it difficult to be reviewed and published in mainstream journals, due to data quality concerns (Bonney et al 2014). It may though purely be a lexical issue, with long-term volunteer monitoring projects such as the Christmas Bird Count featuring in hundreds of papers without any mention of ‘citizen science’ (Silvertown 2009). Bonney et al also note two particularly successful projects, Zooniverse and eBird, have combined featured in over 140 peer-reviewed journals and book chapters. Whilst data-quality issues are often addressed through high quality computing of statistical or measurement error. Even the recent seminal paper by Cook et al (2013) highlighting the 97% consensus on climate change was conceived as a citizen science project. 

So with a rich history in other environmental sciences how can crowd research aid climate science. A major issue behind the Climate Change problem is the multiplicity of stakeholders and their lack or contrasting engagement. Increased channels to access or contribute can only be positive. It is more however the effects citizens are having on science than vice versa which have been in the news recently.

ESRI App Challenge

In tandem with the White House Climate Data initiative earlier this year ESRI hosted an app challenge. Using GIS data the competition was posed to any potential developer to build ways in which people better see, understand or prepare for future climate change. The top 3 included a site-suitability analysis for solar panels, a Flood forecasting and communication project and a rainwater saving tool. With a whole host of runners-up offer personal engagement with specifics of a vast topic.

Climate CoLab

Climate CoLab is a website allowing the public to put forward their idea to combat climate change. According to the website they now have a staggering 32,000 members from 120 countries. This community then offers feedback on other projects and can support or join proposals. The list of 34 winning proposals in numerous categories from adaption to youth action makes for fascinating reading.

The Harvard Clean Energy Project meanwhile opened up a huge database to citizen contributions leading to the discovering of 35,000 new photovoltaic materials that have the possibility to double solar efficiency. When you begin exploring Kickstarter or Indiegogo you see how much work is being done outside of traditional academia. IBM also offer free cloud space to any project tackling climate change, professional or otherwise. Even the UK government hopped on the bandwagon over the summer opening the draft version of their global calculator to the public for testing and to provide initial findings.

More and more I find these posts being drawn back to a singular argument; that the more people you involve in discussion the more options you present to find a solution. Academia provides a technical basis for understanding and framing climate change but by offering data, or the chance to contribute, to a wider audience you create whole new dimensions for dealing with a problem outside of traditional policy. 

Rewiring the Brain - George Marshall speaks to UCL

Last night the UCL school of Public Policy hosted a talk by George Marshall, author of Don’t even think about it: Are our brains wired to ignore climate change, and founder of the Climate Outreach Information Network (COIN). His role is not as a climate scientist but to explore the way Climate Change is communicated. He raised a number of interesting points all of which can be found in his book; whether climate change needs an enemy, the moral license of companies and individuals, and the social narratives through which climate change exists and should/will continue to prevail.

The section that most stood out for me was how the balance of our left and right brain, a deep survival instinct, plays against action to mitigate climate change. The left side of our brains is where we evaluate risk using rationale and analytic reasoning. The right draws on proximity, social values and past experience to then prioritize threats. This explains why when people are asked ‘are you concerned about climate change’ they answer predominantly yes (Leiserowitz et al 2014), but when asked ‘list your top 5 concerns’ climate change very rarely takes centre stage. The left side recognizes climate change as a risk but the right gives it low prioritization. Marshall explains this is why threats such as ISIS or Ebola are much more prominent, they are immediate, they play into cultural fears and are easily identifiable.

So how do we change our narrative to combat this in the climate sphere. Firstly climate change impacts do exist here, rather than narratives of stranded polar bears western countries need to be shown evidence of flooding, storms, heatwaves and so on, which while not necessarily directly attributable to anthropogenic warming can elucidate on the impacts. Whilst impacts are hitting the developed world more power needs to be given to the voices of those worst hit in places such as the Pacific Isles. Recent contributions from to the Green Climate Fund by major nations is a great way to start this, I worry though about the rhetoric of people seeing this as protecting others ahead of themselves. The public (and even parliament) need to be shown that reducing emissions worldwide is self-preservation as well as aid. Prioritization makes the human race naturally cost averse, and from an economics point of view discounting prevents ever seeing climate change as worth paying for now. The idea of insurance, and insurance companies, need to get on board and get the message to the public of certainty. People insure their homes and cars for massively more uncertain odds and it’s this risk that needs to be demonstrated in clear numbers to the public.

Marshall presents climate change as the perfect problem from wherever you view it, be economics and market failure, cognitive and self-preservation or cultural and racial. He notes though that often we reframe climate change to make it the perfect problem, putting it in the distance and future to avoid it. The talk, and book, are truly fascinating and I’d urge all interested in how we communicate climate science to take heed.