RSS
by Jeff Swenerton
Environmentalists spend a lot of time discussing the best way to change the minds of the 82% of Americans who do not consider themselves green. The most-discussed techniques are those that focus on adapting the language and arguments to what the audience cares about the most. If you start with the Dark Green environmentalists and gradually fade to the light greens, the messaging shifts from treehugging to babyhugging, though the takeaway is the same—make lifestyle changes that reduce your use of fossil fuels, or else.
We learned years ago not to use the words “global warming” because a warming planet is a far-off concern for most people, whose interests radiate outward from the hot center like concentric circles, starting with themselves in the middle and growing outward to encompass family, job, house, neighborhood, extended family, “future generations,” others in their socioeconomic cohort, gas prices, retail prices, national security, interest rates, when Mad Men is going to start again, and then, possibly, the environment—but only if environmental action doesn’t cost more or require a separate trip. In fact, while nearly a third of people say environmental factors are important when weighing which products to buy, retailers and marketing execs have long known that people will choose green products only if they cost exactly the same and don’t require bending over to find them. And even then, green products account for a slimming sliver of sales.
Communications people, and to a lesser extent journalists, are always talking about ways of making environmentalism sexy to an increasingly bored and skeptical public. Despite our increasing efforts, the number of people who believe that climate change is happening has actually dropped over the last few years, from 72% in 2008 to 58% in 2010. So what has changed? Countless studies have been released that enumerate in grim detail our morphing planet, and first-time-in-recorded-history weather patterns would seem to reinforce this longstanding consensus in the scientific community. And yet, the ranks of skeptics has bloomed. (They’re especially skeptical of climate change during cold weather—recent record snowstorms caused respondents in a Yale survey to question the reality of climate change based on what they saw out their window.)
But do we need these climate-change deniers on our side at all? If you place a red apple in a man’s hand, and he continues to insist his hand is empty, how much effort do you expend convincing him? In my line of work, we appeal to facts. But I am told that a reliance on facts to form opinions is not the way many people think, and those who live comfortably with their beliefs do not feel the logical strain of placing their full faith in science on the one hand (pharmaceuticals, GPS, voyages to the moon, iPads) while deftly excising the inconvenient parts (climate change, dwindling fossil fuels, toxic pollution) from their belief system. Decision-making isn’t about weighing the facts to find truth or trusting the experts—instead truth is “truth,” a complex amalgam of cultural biases, linguistic differences, swooning narratives, and frames of reference.
As non-scientists, we can be much more confident in our beliefs in part because they are so rarely challenged. We listen to talk radio that we agree with, watch TV shows that reinforce our beliefs, and have friends that share our interests, background, and rough socioeconomic level. The advantage of having a thousand channels at our fingertips is that we can avoid alternate perspectives so completely that eventually, like the tree falling in the forest, we may forget they exist. And so we speak often of certainties and absolutes, something scientists do not. This is where we run into trouble. I am as certain of climate change as I am of evolution or gravity, and yet both are referred to as theories by scientists. Maddeningly, scientists continue to speak of likelihoods, not certainties. Ranges of probabilities, not absolutes. Because of this perceived uncertainty, laypeople act like terminal patients who have just been given a month to live, wildly overestimating the margin of error and grasping at small discrepancies in the data that scientists freely admit to and refuse to completely discount. We cling to this rounding error and declare the issue still debatable. When the scientists have gone back to work, we are left with our own interpretations and “points of view.”
But my point of view is irrelevant. I have absolutely no scientific background or training, so I bristle a bit when asked to make up my own mind about climate change. I am not a scientist, which is why I defer to experts on matters of science. I will gladly offer my opinion about chocolate vs. vanilla, but since I have never taken a core sample of paleolithic ice in Antarctica or measured albedo in higher-latitude forests myself, I defer to the scientific establishment, which, say what you will about the practical drawbacks of peer review, does not suffer from a lack of rigor. Incorrect conclusions don’t stay uncorrected for long. Scientists tend to keep each other accurate and apolitical.
Who’s to blame? Ourselves first, for choosing to bury ourselves in a warm cocoon of ideology that acts as a kind of sensory-deprivation chamber, insulating us from the harsh and ever-shifting winds of data whistling ominously around and under us. But the press must also assume some responsibility, for reporting loudly on minor, and often routine, disagreements among scientists in an effort to appear balanced. The result is a windfall for marginal views trying to be heard. If three percent of researchers disagree with the other ninety-seven percent (as is the case in climate science), they often get the headline and half the coverage—an arrangement that draws eyeballs, perhaps, but is ultimately dishonest. Journalism is hard, but the profession has no licensing program. And with no way left to pay for itself, we are left with decimated newsrooms emptied of reporters who once successfully navigated ethical minefields, and thousands of allaboutme.blogspot.commers who show up routinely in news aggregators, much to their own delight. (And yet the vast majority of twittered links [requisite mention of social media, check] are to traditional media.)
And so I ask, should we keep trying to convince the unbelievers? A survey from Public Agenda found that over half of Americans couldn’t correctly identify a renewable energy source like wind or solar and 39 percent couldn’t name a fossil fuel. Never mind the renewable energy—over a third of Americans scratched their heads, thought for a moment, and still couldn’t answer “gas”? If so many Americans are unaware that petroleum products power their lives and bring them every single object they eat, sit on, wear, drive, or watch, it might be too much to teach them why we need alternatives to this magical mystery fuel. I am fully committed to abandoning the losing fight of trying to “re-frame the science” or “tell the story” in a way that appeals to this unreachable minority. Imagine all the time we’ll save if we can stop spinning the importance of clean energy and reduced fossil fuel use into personalized just-for-you narratives that resemble nothing more than patronizing versions of Mad Libs: “If you care about your family and its health, you should buy renewable energy and ride a bike because your neighbor is doing it too!” Focusing on solving problems is a much better use of our time, and it will eliminate the scattershot and ultimately futile approach to finding Messaging That Works.
This does not mean we stop educating people about the importance of environmental action—in fact we have barely begun that task. I’m proposing instead abandoning those who have seen the evidence, know the issues exist, but still deny that climate change is happening and that we are the cause. Those without a scientific background who say they do not “believe” in something accepted as fact in the scientific community deserve to be left at a windswept crossroads with their hunched forebears still carrying on about geocentrism, phrenology, astrology, and the flat earth. I imagine it is a lonely place, and am amazed that each generation produces willing representatives of the pseudoscientific fringe to send there, but once again, here we are. They may say whatever they wish, but science is always right in the end. And it brings pictures.
There will always be those with entrenched views, who through ideology or inertia can’t or won’t see the story in the numbers. Instead of expending our energy trying to get them to see the apple in their hand, I propose we abandon them to their beliefs, and instead focus on advancing the science about our effect on the planet, and the technological and policy solutions that can bring us back into alignment. It’s important not just for the planet, after all, but for the health and financial well-being of you, your family, and future generations.
Jeff Swenerton is the communications director at CRS, and has flown 11,457 miles so far in 2011, effectively negating all the commuting to work by bicycle he has done since 1997.
Good article (and very well written). I would only question whether “giving up” would make it harder to implement the policy solutions that you tout. Can we afford to stop recruiting? Can we address climate change without having most or all people on board? People that can’t see apples in their hands still pollute, they also vote, and that’s why we need them. I would also just point to the history of the environmental movement. The champions of the movement were in fact able to find “messaging that worked” and bring broad-scope awareness to the problems. And as it turned out, broad-scope awareness was what was necessary to address those problems. Granted that these were different problems, mostly about clean air and water, and they had direct health impacts to point to, nevertheless the champions of that era were still able to tap into something common that inspired diverse peoples to take broad, lasting action to address problems which didn’t necessarily impact each individual equally right then. So if we can’t convince them, but can’t succeed without convincing them, where are we? Gotta convince ‘em right?
You are a fool. All this talk about facts is a fraud. The facts support the conclusion that there is nothing out of the ordinary happening with the weather. It is the climate change true believers who need to wake up and look at the facts. This whole climate change thing is a big (and sadly successful) fraudulent exercise in making the absurd seem believable and the believable seem absurd. For god’s sake, wake up and smell the roses – there is no evidence for it. We are surrounded by morons.
Is that John Edwards’ out of wedlock baby moma doing the crazy climate denier thing?
In any case, she doesn’t know the difference between climate and weather.
nuff said.
Thanks. Todd already addressed my immediate thought: does stopping trying to convince the masses make the job of implementing solutions more difficult? While we’re trying to implement new technologies and ways of thinking, the mass is too busy to listen because they’re working too hard to make a few more bucks by coming up with ways to screw things up even worse (e.g. hydraulic fracturing).
This is an awesome article. It very much captures all of our frustration with the 42% of the population that doesn’t believe in climate change, when the apple is big and heavy and sitting in their hand. Maybe if we threw the apple at their face they’d recognize it better. But then again you have instances like Katrina which was certainly a hit to the face and while climate change was mentioned in the media, it quickly fell under the radar in the broader conversation.
While I agree with your frustrations about this segment of the population, I also agree with Todd’s comments that you’re not going to get broad change without a broad movement. While fascism has its flaws, in a fascist state if only a small minority understood the implications of climate change, the leaders could easily implement sweeping change at the drop of a dime, without popular support.
But in our country we don’t have this. We have a democracy (or some facade of one.) It’s driven by two things, people voting, and corporation’s interests. Unfortunately, among these two, voting takes a huge depressing backseat to corporate interests. So that means in order to have sweeping change we have to attempt to influence the corporate sphere, using the only power we have: consumer demand. If the large majority of consumers decide that they will no longer purchase X product and will only support Y product (think renewables v. fossil), we will see a sudden change of tune in the energy industry, and soon after, we will see the policies needed to support that industry-shift.
That’s why we have to do what we can to educate. Now here’s my two cents. As you mentioned in the article people’s version of reality is more often based on opinions than fact. If I were told the world was going to blow up tomorrow and there was nothing I could do about it, I would either take the day off and do something fun, or not believe it. Now if I was told that the world will blow up but I’m given the code to defuse the bomb I will certainly do my best to find and defuse the bomb.
The distinction I’m making is this. In order for people to accept the facts about climate change, which have HUGE implications for their lifestyle, you have to provide them with a way to incorporate the new information into their worldview, by giving them a feasible means to do something about it. Otherwise its just easier to ignore climate change than to to try and wrap your brain around how everything you do is killing the world and you’re best bet to save future generations is to live in a cave.
I agree with you that beating someone over the head with facts is not going to make them change their mind and is definitely a waste of time. The better strategy is to present the facts AND present meaningful solutions that give them a sense of having the ability to address the problem. This is what Green-e does, and god help us all if we don’t reach enough people with this important message in the time we have.