Cautionary Advice for Climate Communicators
Earlier this week, an informal email group I belong to generated a burst of fascinating exchanges after I listed my post on the Yale Cultural Cognition paper. This group consists of journalists, climate scientists, and social science scholars, among others.
At the end of the back-and-forth, David Ropeik, a former journalist turned risk expert, posed a provocative question that deserves greater airing. (That will follow in a minute.) I met Ropeik at a Society of Environmental Journalists conference some years ago, when he talked about how ill informed and sensationalistic his own TV reporting once was. I have since found his books and numerous articles particularly useful. Here’s a recent piece–directed to journalists.
On the issue of climate communication, I often find Ropeik’s observations spot on. And during this latest email exchange, he asked a question that’s been nagging at me since I attended a symposium in the Spring, part of an ongoing initiative called the Climate, Mind, Behavior project (which I wrote about here).
Ropeik has given me permission to post this passage from his email:
What’s the goal of risk communication about climate change? To get people to “˜believe’? To see the issue the way the communicator wants them to? To get people to do what the communicator wants them to do? Or is it just to impart information so people can make up their own minds…which, frankly, sounds wonderfully moral and democratic and all, but…let’s be honest here…is less than what the people concerned about climate change really want. A lot of this conversation is about finding ways to get people to believe in climate change, and care about it enough to help promote change and progress and solutions. To the extent THAT is the goal, there are two HUGE hurdles. First, as I’ve written, because of its affective/emotional characteristics, even among those who believe in climate change, the issue just doesn’t worry people enough to get them to act. Second, risk communication that feels manipulative usually fails. People resist being manipulated. We are more willing to change than BE changed. So the risk communication challenge, even using Mental Models, is, to not only inform, but do so in a way that accounts for how the issue feels to folks, AND which doesn’t make people feel like they are being encouraged/pushed/manipulated to reach a particular conclusion.
This strikes me as sound cautionary advice that climate communicators would be advised to heed.
I think Ropeik sums the situation up well.
And, on the personal level, as someone who grew up during the Cold War, just the idea that you were living next to a place that is a major nuclear weapons target, well, it gave you this really uneasy feeling. Something that sea level rise predictions uniformly fail to deliver.
Does someone really think that global warming spells the end of the world?
Dave Ropeik is to Keith Kloor as Robert Brulle is to … 🙂
Not even a comparison. So would you like to take issue with anything Ropeik says in this passage or elsewhere, or just take potshots?
Jarmo
I think you, your family and neighbors reactions to being near a prime target would be interesting to examine of course depending on when and how long you where at the location.
Did the risky location factor in economic decisions? What behavioral changes were influenced by your location? Were there differences of reactions or sentiments depending on how closely related people where to the facility?
My questions go more to risk awareness and perception than communication but it does get into why and how to make people CARE .
Ease up Keith, I’m just teasing! I don’t disagree with Dave’s view of the challenges at all, but it does make me wonder what the practical implications are. IOW what would an effective communications strategy look like compared to an ineffective one?
Jarmo, your mention of the Cold War and nuclear fears brings back memories. I remember being in Europe in the mid-80s during the protests against Reagan and Thatcher. Fun times.
Odd, isn’t it, that here we are today with North Korea nuked up and trying hard to build a good missile to launch them and Iran frantically trying to build a bomb and all the groups who led the fight against nuclear weapons in the 80s are … well, either silent or supportive of Iran. I mean, how could Iran be scarier than Ronald Reagan? Oh and remember when all the rage was the “science” behind “nuclear winter”? Reminiscing is fun.
Well, nevermind. Ropeik mentions that its a bad idea to try to manipulate an audience with politically opportunist scare stories. He may be on to something.
Jeff #4
I’m a Finn so I’m speaking of the Russian facilities next to Finland and of course Leningrad and Kola peninsula (home bases of Soviet missile subs and long-range aviation). Altogether there must have been hundreds of MIRVs and ALCM’s aimed at those.
Most people were kind of fatalistic: if it happens, well, that’s the end. Some people went on anti-nuke marches or protests. Nobody believed that you could survive all-out nuclear war and nobody believed in a limited “nuclear exchange”. I don’t remember anybody talking about proximity as an issue except as a possible “short round” that would land in Helsinki.
Marlowe,
An effective communications strategy was discussed several months ago here and at Bart’s under the general heading of variety of reasons. it involves recognizing that climate is but one of several equally valid reasons to engage in energy transformation. It focuses on finding common ground for specific actions rather than arguing over irrelevancies. It understands that sincere, intelligent people looking at the same set of facts can come to different conclusions about their meaning and importance.
Jsrmo, I’m with you my friend. I live near the Norfolk Naval Base- a definite target during the cold war. The interesting thing is how a legit scare – a nuclear detonation – has many uses. There were groups who used the fear of the bomb as a political tool against Reagan/Thatcher, but never the USSR or its allies. These groups professed to care passionately about nuclear weapons -not politics – but they lost all interest in nuclear weapons the moment they lost their use as a political tool (Iran? Nukes? Shrug.)
Some of us fear the same will happen with AGW. As long as it is an excuse for a tax hike/more regulation, they will be passionate about it. If it’s an excuse to build nuclear power plants… well, nevermind.
@8
It seems to me that virtually all climate advocates already do what you suggest. When Waxman Markey was released people didn’t just talk about the climate benefits. they also talked about energy security, health, jobs, etc. The idea that this is a ‘new’ strategy as you’ve framed it is false IMO.
” intelligent people looking at the same set of facts can come to different conclusions about their meaning and importance.”
while undoubtedly true, I wonder how one moves forward in this situation and this is what I was hinting at in my question to Keith. if you think that the earth is cooling and i think it is warming one of us is right and one of us is wrong. if i say we need to invest in clean energy research, implement efficiency standards, impose border adjustment tariffs, etc. and you say no, we need small government and less regulation…how exactly are we going to bridge the divide? IOW where exactly is the nexus in shared values that allows meaningful policy to move forward?
jeffn # 9
I’m just really glad that the nuclear threat as we knew it is gone. I got three kids and I wish they will never have to think that their lives might end like that playground scene from Terminator II.
Marlowe @ 10,
Are you married?
Asked in all sincerity.
If so, then that should be a base to start to answer your questions. Life is mostly made up of comprimises. In a good relationship, the ability to meet in the middish area and accept the others’ needs and point of view are the main factors.
As I commented on RC recently, it appears that that site along with some of the more strident pro sites (not Joe’s) are starting to turn down the rhetoric and actually try to help people like me understand what they have learned. It works. Even today, Dr. Gavin would not allow a commentator to get away with the questionable ploy that CC is a causitive effect of earthquakes. The conversation is starting to turn, like a huge super tanker, slowly. But turning it is, to a more constructive theme and hopefully a better understanding of the trueth as it may finally be known.
Jarmo
Thanks for responding. I would have to agree along the lines of JeffN points that the threat was largely ignored and facilities acknowledged as a net benefit until it could be presented as a possible near term danger by certain factions whichtemporary heighted awareness but rarely had any meaningful actions by the public at large. I also agree that it is great that the threat as we knew it is gone.
Marlowe
Invest in clean energy research, implement efficiency standards, impose border adjustment tariffs, small government and less regulation are not values but are actions or policies that express a value.
A value would be efficient and effective regulation. A Clean environment is a value, Investing in technology is a value, not sure how to express tariffs. If both sides express what they value then you might be able to see a nexus.
As an experiment express tariffs as a value (worth of importance) and I expect to have a similar value but not necessary on the same level of importance but who knows. The next step would be finding an action that will represent both of our values and agree on the level of importance without conflicting with any of our other expressed values.
@ 10
if you think that the earth is cooling and i think it is warming one of us is right and one of us is wrong
This is quite an ignorant statement. Hint: you need to consider time frame, magnitude and statistical significance.
how exactly are we going to bridge the divide?
I don’t know but getting honest is certainly a prerequisite.
“if you think that the earth is cooling and i think it is warming one of us is right and one of us is wrong.”
Earth is always warming AND cooling, depending on the time scale. Example:
the last 20.000 years – warming
the last 10.000 years – cooling
the last 1000 years – cooling
the last 500 years – warming
the last 200 years – warming
the last 100 years – maybe some warming
the last 70 years – flat
the last 50 years – warming
the last 30 years – warming
the next 30 years – cooling (very likely)
And so on.
And of course, as Sashka says, not only time scale but magnitude and significace.
“Or is it just to impart information so people can make up their own minds”¦which, frankly, sounds wonderfully moral and democratic and all, but”¦let’s be honest here”¦is less than what the people concerned about climate change really want.”
How to push without being felt? Ahhhh yes, that is the question. Those who wish to keep lemmings near the edge from falling off the cliff into the sea have it a little more dangerous than those in the back of the bunch who are working to push all of them over the brink; I mean they themselves are closer to the edge than those they are wanting to save, right? But, really, those at the back of the mob are many more times as likely to become frustrated and resort to extraordinary means and rhetoric. Why? Have you ever tried to push 7 billion lemmings over a cliff?
@12
Yes I am. What I’m trying to understand is what a meaningful compromise would actually look like between #16 (very likely earth is cooling) and me (we are rapidly approaching ‘dangerous interference’).
@14
tariffs express the value that domestic jobs are worth higher prices. efficient and effective regulation is an ideal not a value.
“The next step would be finding an action that will represent both of our values and agree on the level of importance without conflicting with any of our other expressed values. ”
Precisely.
“We are more willing to change than BE changed.”
There is much debate about to what degree we are changed due to various tactics. It comes up a lot wrt advertising. It comes up wrt what people eat and why they eat that. It comes up enormously with kids and sex and violence on TV and in movies and video games.
If you have some kind of advocacy goal and you think that the _other side_ is manipulating people (whether or not people know they are allegedly being manipulated), then you have to decide whether to flight fire with fire or feel good about yourself and get nothing accomplished.
Virtually anybody with advocacy goals faces some form of this dilemma.
So I think figuring how climate communicators respond to the question you posed also requires addressing whether people’s desire to change but not BE changed recognizes reality on their part. Companies spend billions on advertising that tells nothing about the product they are selling. They wouldn’t do that if they didn’t think it works. The same applies to those with advocacy goals.
I posted the same quote from Ropeik over at Climate Etc., with very different types of responses. Aint the blogosphere interesting.
http://judithcurry.com/2011/07/09/motives-for-communicating-climate-science/
Marlowe
I agree domestic jobs are very worthy. I also agree that tariffs would result in higher prices for the consumer but also think they result in less access to products and technology. So are low prices and more choices less valuable than jobs, I think right now the answer would be hell yes. Regardless, if someone questions that higher worth you just cannot dismiss them as wrong, uncaring or incompetent of understanding the complex economic benefits that would result in tariffs. You acknowledge the persons concerns are valid, ask questions on what products or tech they are most sensitive about, and then propose solutions around those concerns.
There are also a lot of questions that go into the implementation and effects of Tariffs that will also raise value questions that proponents cannot just dismiss out of hand. Like Denihilist suggested you have to be willing to accept the others’ needs and points of view in order to be able to come to a mutual agreeable decision.
Dean
If you have some kind of advocacy goal and you think that the _other side_ is manipulating people (whether or not people know they are allegedly being manipulated), then you have to decide whether to flight fire with fire or feel good about yourself and get nothing accomplished.
You are coming dangerously close to saying the ends justify the means.