Cyclists ride along Memorial Drive in Cambridge, Mass. (Mary Knox Merrill / The Christian Science Monitor)
How to spur action on climate change
Behaviorists weigh in on how to motivate change. A green-themed soap opera, perhaps?
By Moises Velasquez-Manoff | Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor/ November 7, 2008 edition
Staff writer Moises Velasquez-Manoff discusses how changing people's attitudes about global warming could help slow or even stop climate change.
Staff writer Moises Velasquez-Manoff
New York
Not-so-great news about the planet arrived apace in October. The US government released its Arctic Report Card for 2008. The compilation of observations by 46 scientists from 10 nations concluded that arctic temperatures were 9 degrees F. higher this fall than normal. (Last year was the warmest ever recorded in the Arctic.) Shrubs are colonizing what was once permafrost. Snow geese are expanding their range northward. Receding sea ice – this year’s loss was second only to last year’s record melt – may be hurting animals like walruses and polar bears that rely on it.
Many see the news as evidence of an ongoing environmental disaster. But while “green” has become an all-too-common prefix, meaningful action is scarce. Has the environmental movement failed to win hearts and minds?
Now behavioral scientists are joining environmentalists to address the problem of climate change and human attitudes toward it. Maybe it’s time, they say, to refocus the global-warming debate on solutions rather than causes, to design more “opt out” conservation programs, and maybe to promote a soap opera or two with a green theme.
Later this month, the second annual Behavior, Energy, and Climate Change Conference will convene in Sacramento, Calif.
“We have a pretty serious challenge ahead of us,” says Linda Schuck, conference chair and an adviser in the office of the president of the University of California in Oakland. “We need to use all the tools that we have available.”
Experts tend to point to several examples of the kind of effort needed to tackle the climate challenge: the mobilization of an entire society during World War II; the long and sustained effort represented by the cold war; the simultaneous bottom-up and top-down efforts of the civil rights movement; and the decades-long antismoking campaign. Some also point to the adoption and spread of recycling programs in recent decades.
The good news: Humanity can, and has, altered its behavior en masse before. The not-so-good news: The current climate challenge is unprecedented.
“Humanity has never experienced a situation in which the entire world is placed at risk because of human activities,” says Bob Doppelt, director of the Climate Leadership Initiative at the University of Oregon, Eugene, and author of “The Power of Sustainable Thinking.” “Humans are basically in charge of the climate, and we’re not doing a very good job.” Meeting the challenge calls for changing the way we think, he says. To do this, policymakers need to understand how people change their minds, and determine where people’s thought is along the continuum that leads to meaningful action.
Invested in the status quo, people begin their journey by not caring to change – or not wanting to, Mr. Doppelt says. As the necessity for change sinks in, they begin deliberating. During this second phase, helping people understand the cost-benefit ratio is critical, he says. If benefits don’t outweigh costs by 2 to 1, people generally don’t commit to change. (People aren’t convinced of this ratio now, he says.) In this phase, information goes a long way.
Once they’re done deliberating, people design a plan to change behavior and then implement it. Here’s where relapse becomes worrisome. Whereas incentives didn’t make much difference at earlier stages, they can now greatly reinforce the new behavior.
Resistance can also be avoided by framing the issue differently, says Ted Nordhaus, managing partner at American Environics in Oakland, Calif., a firm that brings psychological and cognitive science to bear on social-change strategies.
For example, stressing the idea that human activity is behind global warming can be counterproductive, he says. It can provoke retrenchment and backlash.
“When [Al] Gore says this is a moral issue, what people hear is that ‘my lifestyle is immoral,’ ” Mr. Nordhaus says. “People don’t respond well to people telling them that their life is immoral.”
Simply treating global warming as an on-the-ground fact while avoiding discussion of causation can skirt this pitfall, he says. Once people accept climate change as a reality, that’s the time to talk about addressing possible causes, like human activity, he says.
“We need to stop telling people that they’re immoral – stop trying to win an argument we don’t need to win about whether it’s caused by human activity – and move on to solutions,” says Nordhaus.
Others stress the importance of design in changing human behavior.
For example, great differences in participation exist between “opt in” and “opt out” programs. If driver’s licenses automatically include the driver in organ-donation programs (one must “opt out” to not participate), 80 to 90 percent will participate. If the driver must “opt in,” only 20 percent choose to. The same holds true with retirement-savings programs and “green” energy programs offered by utilities. If participation is the default choice, many more people will participate.
“If we want to realize the energy efficiency gains that are possible, it will take acknowledging that the problem is a design failure, not a people failure, and fixing this,” writes K. Carrie Armel, an energy-efficiency research associate at Stanford University in Palo Alto, Calif., in a presentation.
Simple feedback measures help, says Dr. Armel. When consumers can visualize their electricity use, they tend to use less. Having a meter centrally located inside one’s house can reduce energy consumption by 10 to 14 percent.
The Energy Monitor in the hybrid Toyota Prius – a simple representation of the car as battery, engine, electric motor, and tires – also improves efficiency. Able to visualize energy use, drivers routinely achieve 60 miles per gallon, she says.
In Mexico, soap operas that touch on family planning are credited with reducing the country’s population growth rate by one-third between 1977 and 1986. Twenty-five countries now use television dramas to tackle social problems like HIV and domestic abuse. Why not energy use and climate change?
“If you’re trying to have people learn things, it’s much easier to get them to change behavior when they can observe somebody they have some positive feelings for change,” says University of California’s Schuck.
( More stories )
Comments
2. David Erickson | 11.08.08
Personally, I find comments like the above funny and kind of pathetic. The “alarmists” evidently include The National Academy of Science, the American Geophysical Union and the World Meterological Organization to name a few. Here is from the AGU website:
“Human activities are increasingly altering the Earth’s climate. These effects add to natural influences that have been present over Earth’s history. Scientific evidence strongly indicates that natural influences cannot explain the rapid increase in global near-surface temperatures observed during the second half of the 20th century. ”
Here is from the National Academy of Science most recent publication called “Understanding and Responding to Climate Change”:
“Climate Change Science: An Analysis of Some Key Questions (2001)concluded that “changes observed over the last several decades are likely mostly due
to human activities.” Additional evidence collected over the past several years has increased confidence in this conclusion.”
Interesting, the Bush Administration asked the NAS to produce these studies. So the appeal mentioned above to “rational-thinking people” is not based on actual scientific arguments. The “observational science” mentioned above is non-peer reviewed, non-mainstream, low quality, politically and ideologically motivated distortion, self-published by a few individuals who have established themselves as professional contrarians.
So go to “joes blog” as suggested above if you wish to look at comic relief. If you want hard science, go to the NAS, the AGU or the IPCC. For a response from genuine climate scientists to the latest tripe being put out by the denialists, go to http://www.realclimate.org
3. Mike Higgins | 11.09.08
David’s comments above are typical of those who support human-caused global warming. Instead of discussing the science, they always attack the scientists and their research, even when they have no sound basis to do so. They do this for the same reason stated in the article - they can’t support their theory with empirical science. All they have to lean on are the easily manipulated computer models. The real science contradicts their theory. They can show no empirical evidence that supports their theory,
As the science shows that Earth’s temperature has always varied and that the current temperature is in no way out of the norm, the burden of proof for human-caused global warming rests with those who make the claims. I, and many other rational-thinking people, eagerly await that explanation. If this theory is so widely supported as David claims, certainly a understandable explanation exists that can be supported by real science, instead of the “science” of personal destruction practiced by its advocates.
See http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FOLkze-9GcI for some real science.
4. somo | 11.10.08
lol i hope mike you are not insinuating that over 4000 scientist from all over the world (IPCC) are all here to mislead the world.
5. Ed | 11.11.08
Mike, your comments are laughably incorrect, and easily proven wrong by spending five minutes on the web or in a library. But, I suppose such actions are too difficult to be done by someone who has attached them so strongly to the conspiracy-nuts that they are completely blind to how ridiculous they sound…..
6. Mike Higgins | 11.11.08
Somo, the actual number of climate scientists involved with the IPCC is about 100, not 4,000. Dr. Fred Singer, a nationally-known atmospheric physicist at George Mason University and founder of the Science and Environmental Policy Project, a think tank on climate and environmental issues, explains:
“Let me say something about this idea of scientific consensus. Well, you really shouldn’t go by numbers. I think it’s significant to straighten out misconceptions. One misconception is that 2,500 IPCC scientists agree that global warming is coming, and it’s going to be two degrees Centigrade by the year 2100. That’s just not so. In the first place, if you count the names in the IPCC report, it’s less than 2,000. If you count the number of climate scientists, it’s about 100. If you then ask how many of them agree, the answer is: You can’t tell because there was never a poll taken. These scientists actually worked on the report. They agree with the report, obviously, in particular with the chapter that they wrote. They do not necessarily agree with the summary, because the summary was written by a different group, a handful of government scientists who had a particular point of view, and they extracted from the report those facts that tended to support their point of view.”
See the excellent PBS interview at http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/warming/debate/singer.html for more details.
The IPCC is part of the United Nations, which is a political organization, not a scientific organization. That is why the IPCC is called the “Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change.” Their job is to assume that climate change is predominantly caused by humans and develop policy recommendations for governments to enact policies to reduce the amount of CO2 emissions, which they assume is the primary cause of the current global warming trend. Their conclusions are almost entirely derived from computer models. They have been unable to support their theory with any empirical evidence.
7. Kevin | 11.11.08
Boys, I think Mike is kicking your behinds. When has the UN done anything good? I guess AL Gore is a scientist and creator of the internet.
9. Mike Higgins | 11.12.08
Besides the fact that current arctic ice melting in the summer has occurred to similar extents twice before in the 20th century, proving that the current melting is not unusual in recent history and thereby unrelated to the rise of CO2 in the atmosphere, as claimed by global warming alarmists, the following iovservations Dr. William Floyd are very revealing.
“The Arctic has shown a warming of about 1C since 1995 and there has been some reduction in ice coverage. A recent NASA study found the warming was probably due to changed ocean currents carrying greater amounts of warm water into the Arctic basin from the Pacific and Atlantic.”
However, recently there has been yet another change in ocean circulation patterns and Arctic ice is once again close to average values for this time of year. It remains to be seen whether this Arctic cooling trend will continue.”
Furthermore, if one is to use the summer melting of sea ice at the north pole (Arctic) as a barometer of global warming, one would also have to consider temperatures and sea ice at the south pole (Antarctica).
“The Antarctic has shown no general warming trend in the past 30 years, whether one uses ground station records or satellite or weather balloon data, nor is there any evidence of diminishing sea ice extent. In 2007, the Antarctic winter sea ice maximum was at an all-time high and 2008 levels have been consistent with the long-term average.”
The reality is, “The climate industry relies on alarmism to maintain a steady flow of research grants and financial contributions but none of its apocalyptic visions are coming to pass. Politicians should take note.”
See http://news.scotsman.com/opinion/39Proof39-we-are-causing-polar.4656302.jp for further details.
Visit http://omniclimate.wordpress.com/2008/10/31/arctic-sea-ice-animation-of-thirty-years/ to watch an animation of satellite pictures showing of how little the amount of Arctic sea ice has changed over the past thirty years.
10. Ryan M. | 11.13.08
Reading the previous comments leaves me deeply troubled. Not only is there a right-wing fringe that uses disinformation campaigns to advance their narrow, destructive agenda (i.e. profiting ExxonMobil, etc.) but now they invent “science” to support their claims.
–> Ask yourself: is Mike Higgins in the pay of the oil corporations?
To the average person, these “science” claims seem legitimate, and are unfortunately given equal time by the media and presented as another rational viewpoint. (Journalists are NOT physicists; they don’t know the difference between junk “science” and reality, so they report on “both sides” of the issue, when in reality there really is only one correct side.)
As a physicist, the greenhouse effect is blindingly simple. Here it is, in a few sentences. This is basic physics, and indisputable; (Watch–paid-propagandist Mike Higgins/ExxonMobil won’t be able to dispute this; that’s why they rely on “oh the ice caps aren’t melting look at the data” arguments)
1) Have you ever noticed how hot your car gets when parked in sunlight? That’s the greenhouse effect–visible light shines in the windows, but hot air can’t escape. Our planet works in a similar way, but instead of a glass window, we have the atmosphere; here’s how it works:
2) Different gases in the atmosphere each absorb/re-emit different frequencies of light. Like the glass windows of your car parked in the sun, our atmosphere is transparent to visible light (obviously!). However, nitrogen and oxygen, the two principal components of our atmosphere, do not absorb significantly in the infrared (heat) portion of the spectrum. Water vapor and carbon dioxide do absorb infrared light, though.
3) Increasing the amount of carbon dioxide and water in the atmosphere is just like rolling up your car windows on a sunny day. The visible light from the sun still shines through, heating the Earth, but the heat (re-radiated infrared) can’t shine through the carbon dioxide and water in the atmosphere, so the Earth retains the heat. More carbon dioxide = more heat retained (”global warming”). Yes, the output of the sun,etc,etc, do influence the planet’s temperature, but it is a FACT that CO2 and H2O block the re-radiation of heat back into space.
It’s that simple.
11. Mike Higgins | 11.14.08
Thank you, Ryan M., for your quite accurate explanation of the greenhouse effect. I have no dispute with your explanation. However, as you know, you have left out the most important factor. You failed to point out that the real argument is not about whether the greenhouse effect actually exists, but how efficient the glass (greenhouse effect) is in trapping heat. This, as you know, is called climate sensitivity.
The most recent scientific studies show that the greenhouse effect in the Earth’s atmosphere is NOT very sensitive at all to changes of CO2 in the atmosphere. The only place that we find high sensitivity of CO2 in the atmosphere is in the climate models, which have proven to be very unreliable over the past 20 years. Therefore, even significant increases of CO2 in the atmosphere can not cause dangerous catastrophic warming of the earth.
See http://www.weatherquestions.com/Climate-Sensitivity-Holy-Grail.htm for further details.
Regarding your criticism of “looking at the data” instead of believing everything claimed by certain “computer models,” I plead guilty, as I would expect any rational-thinking person to do when confronted by claims that are not supported by empirical science. If I were to claim that my computer model determined that a devastating earthquake was going to hit Seattle next week, any rational-thinking person in Seattle would want to know what the previous record of the computer model was before determining whether to take it seriously or not.
I am simply advocating that the same caution should apply to the claim that increases in CO2 can cause dangerous global warming. Currently, the only supporting evidence for this theory comes from computer models with a very poor track record. Is that such an unusual position to take?
BTW, I don’t receive any money from any corporation or interest group for sharing my opinions, unlike many scientists, who have become dependent on crises to secure research funds from the federal government and sympathetic foundations which have pre-determined points of view. I depend on reason and published research to arrive at my conclusions, free from commercial or political influence.
12. Alex | 11.17.08
While I support and practice conservation, I’m suspicious of the hype around the global warming theory because it’s being used by certain interests to influence behavior, introduce legislation, exert political leverage and affect economies… this in spite of the fact that it is still *only* a theory which is questioned by many respected scientists. It’s also become a catch-all, with every possibly climate-related problem interpreted in light of its supposed influence.
Solar and volcanic activity have far more immediate and severe impact on climate than human activity, as do the cyclic changes in the Gulf Stream. The recent dearth of solar activity will result in some global cooling. If it continues long enough, will we be exhorted to use more energy to warm the earth??
Trackbacks/Pingbacks
Leave a Comment
We do not publish all comments, and we do not publish comments immediately. The comments feature is a forum to discuss the ideas in our stories. Constructive debate - even pointed disagreement - is welcome, but personal attacks on other commenters are not, and will not be published.
Tip: Do not write a novel. Keep it short. We will not publish lengthy comments. Come up with your own statements. This is not a place to cut and paste an email you received. If we recognize it as such, we won't post it.
Please do not post any comments that are commercial in nature or that violate copyrights.
Finally, we will not publish any comments that we regard as obscene, defamatory, or intended to incite violence.
1. Mike Higgins | 11.08.08
For those not familiar with some of the terms used in this article, “behavioral scientists” mean propagandists.
Although the global warming alarmists have done a very good job of persuading innocent school children and easily persuaded adults that man is responsible for the recent global warming trend, they haven’t yet been able to convince enough rational-thinking people to vote against their own self interest and place higher taxes on the consumption of fossil fuels.
What’s their solution? … “Simply treating global warming as an on-the-ground fact while avoiding discussion of causation.” The reason global warming alarmists need to avoid discussion of causation is that their theory that recent global warming is predominantly caused by humans and not primarily by natural variability can not be supported by observational science. Instead, they support their theory with computer models that any self-respecting computer programmer knows can be easily manipulated to produce any desired result. Computer models of the climate also have shown to be very poor predictors of temperature for the past twenty years.
When you look at the science behind the human-caused global warming theory, any rational-thinking person can see that greenhouse gases could not be responsible for the recent global warming. The science shows a very strong correlation between the temperature and the sun, as well as a strong influence from multi-decadal ocean cycles. It also shows that past warm periods have historically been associated with prosperous times, not catastrophic weather-induced events. Finally, increased CO2 in the atmosphere has been shown to accelerate the growth of plants and reduce the amount of water they require to grow.
In short, even if global warming continues at its recent pace, it is more likely to be a good thing, not a bad thing. On, by the way, have you noticed that the Earth has been cooling for the past six years?
See http://icecap.us/index.php/go/joes-blog/is_this_the_beginning_of_global_cooling/ for more details.