If you only read one post, read this one.
I’ve written a lot about the problems plaguing public engagement with climate
science, and what we might do to boost it. This post sums up the conclusions
from my work, various studies and lectures mentioned over the past three
months.
The
Problem
There exists a gap between the needs of
society and the current role of climate science (Rapley & Meyer 2014). The
science isn’t engaging, and despite the scientific consensus and increasing
certainty, a large proportion of the public either do not believe in climate
change, do not believe in human forcing, or do not consider the problem big
enough to warrant action (Leiserowitz et al 2014).
Solutions
1)
Framing: discussions of climate
change should be tailored and targeted to specific audiences. Doing away with
scientific complexity to make the problem identifiable and understandable.
Examples: Stories, Benefits orientated approach, removing enemies and selecting
heroes, economic framing, health framing, human ingenuity, technological
advancement....
2)
Recognize that climate change
is here and now to combat the economics of discounting and appeal to the side of the brain that
prioritizes threats.
3)
Credible, transparent and
regular information from scientists, government and communicators. Perhaps
mediated by a new formal institution that not only provides scientists with
communicative skills, improving the impact of journals, but helps build a
social marketing campaign.
4)
A single party government
intent on ‘out-greening’ the opposition, with will to make individual beneficial
choices easier and financial impetus for large capital.
5)
Engage all stakeholders for
climate change (which means EVERYONE) to help educate, deliberate and incentivize
action.
There are obviously many many more
potential avenues for improving societies engagement with science. I find that
more and more scientific evidence isn’t helping, we know that climate change is
a problem, what we need now is to see a) the potential effects and how we can
mitigate against them and b) how to inspire action. A radical shake-up is
needed and perhaps as Naomi Oreskes says it is time to disband the IPCC and
repurpose their funding to help people recognize
the work that’s been done, because at the moment the fact that the IPCC drafts
are being used in control groups for the understanding of climate change isn’t
exactly helping.