We need to figure out how to really reach people -- how to get them to not just change what they do (i.e., make better choices with respect to GHG emissions), but to change their ways of thinking about things so they make better choices without even knowing they are doing it.
Can we create some messages that are so unavoidable, so compelling, so "sticky" -- and yet, so non-threatening -- that people will pick up on them?
Years ago there was a campaign for a local bond election that featured a grandmotherly woman (gesturing with an umbrella for emphasis) asserting, "I'm voting FOR the bonds."
Picture a slightly overweight man proudly boasting, "I walk to work every day. (Well, OK, I don't have enough time to walk ALL the way, so I hop a bus to get there quicker.)"
Ron, you are talking about social engineering. Phelps sent a summation out on a 300 page book that focuses on this exact subject. It's called Americans and Climate Change. Closing the gap between science and action, a synthesis of insights and recommendations from the 2005 Yale F&ES Conference on Climate Change.
It is in PDF form, and I can send it to you if you want, but it might be easier to review Phelps' summary, which isn't exactly short.
KCCP Participants,
¥ou may be well aware of the recommendations from Americans & Climate Change. After wading through 221 pages, I found the following excepts quite illuminating. I share them below, along with the recommendations summary, because I think they can help as we determine our next steps.
Phelps Murdock
Excerpts From
Americans & Climate Change
Closing the Gap Between Science and Action
Recommendations from 005 Yale F&ES Conference on Climate Change
³Humanity already possesses the fundamental scientific, technical, and industrial know-how to solve the carbon and climate problem for the next half-century. A portfolio of 64 technologies now exists to meet the world¹s energy needs over the next 50 years and limit atmospheric CO2 to a trajectory that avoids a doubling of the pre-industrial concentration. Every element in this portfolio has passed beyond the laboratory bench and demonstration project; many are already implemented somewhere at full industrial scale...It is important not to become beguiled by the possibility of revolutionary technology. Humanity can solve the carbon and climate problem in the first half of this century simply by scaling up what we already know how to do² (Science, Vol. 305, No. 5686:968).
Many at our Conference, including major donors and foundation representatives, said that environmental organizations have simply not done a good enough job of working in partnership with each other on climate change whether combining resources or crafting a common, mutually reinforcing, message on the issue. (p. 67)
The recommendation recognizes, however, that there are also dozens of profit and not-for-proit entities already retailing ³carbon offsets² or green energy produced from renewables. Some analysts have raised concerns about unevenness in the verification standards and quality of these offsets. (p. 70)
So while there is no shortage of emerging certification and logo efforts, there may be an opposite problem: too many of them, which diffuses resources across many initiatives rather than concentrating them on one or a few that could break through to attain consumer awareness. This proliferation of initiatives can simply be confusing to the consumer. (p. 71)
Those working to promote societal action on climate change need to do a better job of formulating goals that are capable of promoting convergent strategies by dispersed and often uncoordinated actors, and commensurate with a real solution to the problem. In order to guide and motivate needed actions, these goals should be generated collaboratively, scientifically calibrated, quantifiable, trackable and easily expressible. They should include not only emissions targets but also, given the crucial importance of ³public will,² attitudinal targets. (p. 80)
It is difficult to create urgency about avoiding something unknown and unknowable and to craft communications that motivate action on this diffuse basis. And yet, as far as we know, we may be currently and inadvertently crossing thresholds we do not recognize entraining irreversible consequences. (p. 83)
One leader in the ³carbon finance² arena described a private meeting with an elected official who is active in the legislative maneuvering on climate change. In the course of that conversation, the official had an epiphany that intensified his sense of urgency. The turning point was the financier¹s mention of ongoing plans to construct nearly 120 traditional pulverized coal-fired power plants in the U.S. alone over the coming years (sending U.S. coal use up at least 40 percent over the next twenty-plus years). China reportedly has plans to construct four to five times that number. These plans create a surprisingly narrow window of opportunity to act if one wants to reduce emissions. (p. 84)
³Achieving climate targets that account for, say, the risk of disintegrating ice sheets (Oppenheimer, 1998; Hansen, 2003; Oppenheimer and Alley, 2004) or for large scale extinction risks (Thomas et al., 2004) almost certainly requires substantial and near term emission reductions. For example, to constrain global-mean temperatures to peaking at 2° C above the pre-industrial level with reasonable certainty (say > 75%) would require emission reductions of the order of 60% below 1990 levels by 2050 for the GWP-weighted sum of all greenhouse gases...If the start of significant emission reductions were further delayed, the necessary rates of emissions reduction rates were even higher, if the risk of overshooting certain temperature levels shouldn¹t be increased (den Elzen and Meinshausen, 2005;Meinshausen, 2005).
Meanwhile, in interpreting the authors¹ bracing conclusion, it is worth noting that even the +2° C (+3.6° F) global average warming ceiling cited here may prove too lenient to prevent ice sheet melting, widespread coral bleaching, ecosystem disruption, agricultural losses and other adverse consequences. That +2° C rise, incidentally, would be over three times the warming experienced in the 20th century. (p. 92)
Some find that while agriculture, terrestrial ecosystems and forests may yield interim productivity gains up to some difficult-to-estimate temperature threshold before turning negative, other sectors like coastal and marine ecosystems are more likely to experience damages even during initial temperature increases. (p. 93)
The variable that turns out to have the greatest impact on an individual¹s belief about the national seriousness of climate change is the ³certainty² with which he or she holds the other beliefs (i.e., how certain are they of the existence of global warming, the role of human causation, the efficacy of remedial steps). This suggests that a potential civic engagement strategy might invest less in persuading those who don¹t believe that global warming exists, and relatively more in strengthening the ³certainty² with which those who already believe some aspect of climate change, perhaps through provision of accessible scientific information. (p. 96)
The facts of climate change cannot be left to speak for themselves. They must be actively communicated with the right words, in the right dosages, packaged with narrative storytelling that is based rigorously on reality, personalized with human faces, made vivid through visual imagery and delivered by the right messengers. Doing this will require that climate change communications go from being a datapoor to a data-rich arena. Social science methods have not been adequately applied to date and that must change, given the stakes. (p. 97)
If Americans perceive their reference point to be the status quo of a fairly stable, hospitable climate, these findings could be interpreted to posit, subject to testing, that they would be less likely to invest in costly emissions reductions efforts with a higher probability-adjusted payout in the future than to take what they regard as a sure gain (i.e., keep the money they would have otherwise invested in emissions reductions). If, on the other hand, they can be induced to recognize that we are already in a domain of losses by virtue of past emissions and the adaptation ³overhang² they have created, then Americans may be more inclined to invest in more intensive emissions reductions efforts that hold out the chance of stabilizing greenhouse gases at a non-dangerous level in the atmosphere. (p. 102)
Science Recommendations
Recommendation #1: Create a new ³bridging institution² to actively seekout key business, religious, political, and civic leaders and the media anddeliver to them independent, reliable and credible scienti€c informationabout climate change (including natural and economic sciences). (p. 110)
Recommendation #2: Reorient research priorities on climate change to be more responsive to society¹s information and decision-making needs, including greater emphasis on impacts, local consequences, timing, nonlinear risks, adaptation, and solutions. (p. 115)
Recommendation #3: Strengthen citizen-science initiatives on climate change so as to build greater public engagement with the conduct of climate change science. (p. 116)
Recommendation #4: Identify and execute feasible, high-level actions that could modify the financial and reward structures within academia most responsible for inhibiting: a) interdisciplinary and problemoriented research on large-scale, urgent issues like climate change; and b) faculty and PhD student engagement in public communication, policy-making and other public service arenas. Recruit key influencers to meet with university presidents, university funders, and other influencers in furtherance of this objective. (p. 118)
Recommendation #5: Identify mechanisms to preserve and advance the integrity of the publicly-funded scienti€c research enterprise, especially on climate change. Shine a public spotlight on the process by which the federal science agenda is developed and funding choices are made. (p. 119)
Recommendation #6: Convene one or more dialogues free of economic and political compromises to undertake a fundamental redefinition of the climate change challenge in light of its urgency. (p. 119)
News media Recommendations
Recommendation #7: Educate the gatekeepers (i.e., editors). In order to improve the communication of climate science in the news media, foster a series of visits and conferences whereby respected journalists and editors informed on climate change can speak to their peer editors. The objective is to have those who can credibly talk about story ideas and craft reach out to their peers about how to cover the climate change issue with appropriate urgency, context, and journalistic integrity. (p. 126)
Recommendation #8: Enhance the scientific competence of journalists. (p. 127)
Recommendation #9: Initiate a climate change weekly column. Find a newspaper willing to devote a weekly column to the issue of climate change and help them syndicate it to others or work with one of the large newspaper chains to provide a larger multi-newspaper platform. Recruit a talented and ambitious writer and give him or her, in effect, a virtually unlimited budget to pursue the story. (p. 129)
Recommendation #10: Invite the media in. (p. 129)
Religion & Ethics Recommendations
Recommendation #11: Religious leaders and communities must recognize the scale, urgency and moral dimension of climate change, and the ethical unacceptability of any action that damages the quality and viability of life on Earth, particularly for the poor and most vulnerable. (p. 136)
Recommendation #12: Religious leaders and communities should establish or expand religious coalitions on the environment and convene dialogues to develop common understandings and resources specifically on the climate change issue across different religions and moral
traditions. (p. 136)
Recommendation #13: Religious leaders should reach deep into their memberships to communicate the scale of the problem and the vital moral imperative of addressing it. (p. 137)
Recommendation #14: Religious leaders and communities should communicate their concern for urgently addressing climate change to the nation¹s political leadership and broader public. (p. 138)
Recommendation #15: Recognizing that business leaders are well positioned to promote receptivity to climate change messages among certain religious constituencies, create new opportunities for dialogue on climate change between business and religious leaders and communities. (p. 138)
Recommendation #16: Establish religious outreach efforts on climate change tailored specifically to certain regions of the United States and their own religious traditions, especially the U.S. South. (p. 139)
Recommendation #17: Continue to develop and expand the field of Religion and Ecology, and its ability to unearth the commonalities across religions on matters of ecology and to supply language, concepts and textual support to religious leaders who want to articulate environmental issues to their constituencies (see www.environment.harvard.edu/religion.) (p. 139)
Recommendation #18: Reach out to seminaries and other religious training institutions and encourage them to incorporate climate change into their curricula for new religious leaders. Provide education on climate change to current clergy via continuing education and other means. (p. 139)
Recommendation #19: Establish religion-science and religionenvironmentalist partnerships on environmental issues. (p. 140)
Politics Recommendations
Recommendation #20: Design and execute a ³New Vision for Energy² campaign to encourage a national market-based transition to alternative energy sources.Harness multiple messages tailored to different audiences that embed the climate change issue in a larger set of co-benefit
narratives, such as: reducing U.S. dependency on Middle East oil (national security); penetrating global export markets with American innovations (U.S. stature); boosting U.S. job growth (jobs); and cutting local air pollution (health). (p. 149)
Recommendation #21: Recast climate change as a moral and faith issue, not a scienti€c or environmental one. Catalyze a broader coalition of allies around this moral common ground. (p. 151)
Recommendation #22: Increase the emphasis on adaptation and preparedness for climate change, both because it is warranted based on climate change we are already committed to, but also because it could be a back door to a more reality-based dialogue about mitigation. (p. 152)
Recommendation #23: Recruit a group of party elders from both parties who are less ensconced in the gridlock of today¹s Washington, D.C., and would be more able to work together to promote constructive action on climate change among the incumbents in their party. (p. 152)
Recommendation #24: Convene a group of political scientists, elected officials (and their staffers), and campaign operatives to conduct an analysis and dialogue about the connections between systemic problems in democratic governance in the United States and climate change. For example, how do campaign €nancing, redistricting and the lack of competitive seats and other factors in€uence policy performance on climate change? (p. 153)
Entertainment & Advertising Recommendations
Recommendation #25: Create a new overarching communications entity or project to design and execute a well-financed public education campaign on climate change science and its implications. This multifaceted campaign would leverage the latest social science findings concerning attitude formation and change on climate change, and would use all available media in an effort to disseminate rigorously accurate information, and to counter disinformation in real time. (p. 159)
Recommendation #26: Undertake systematic and rigorous projects to test the impact of environmental communications in all media (e.g., advertising, documentary, feature film) on civic engagement, public opinion and persuasive outcomes. Use these to inform new creative work on multi-media climate change communications. (p. 161)
Recommendation #27: Embed messages about climate change into a variety of existing communications channels, such as weathercasting and entertainment vehicles. (p. 162)
Education Recommendations
Recommendation #28: Improve K-12 students¹ understanding of climate change by promoting it as a standards-based content area within science curricula and incorporating it into other disciplinary curricula and teacher certification standards. Use the occasion of the state reviews
of science standards for this purpose, which are being prompted by the states¹ need to comply with the Fall 2007 start of high-stakes science testing under the No Child Left Behind Act. (p. 169)
Recommendation #29: Organize a grassroots educational campaign to create local narratives around climate change impacts and solutions, while mobilizing citizen engagement and action. Kick the campaign off with a National Climate Week that would recur on an annual basis. (p. 171)
Recommendation #30: Identify and execute opportunities to incorporate climate change content into instructional technologies, devices and software products, including video games and educational simulations such as SimCityTM. (p. 173)
Recommendation #31: Create a variety of academic and non-academic competitions centered on climate change, or harness existing competitions by introducing climate change as a topic. (p. 174)
Recommendation #32: Following the trend toward niche channels and narrowcasting, create a TV show or entire channel dedicated to educational and engaging coverage of all dimensions of climate change, ranging from the natural sciences to policy developments in the United States and abroad. (p. 174)
Business & Finance Recommendations
Recommendation #33: The Business & Finance working group at the Conference composed an eight-principle framework, and proposed that it be disseminated broadly to trade associations and individual business leaders (especially at the CEO and board level) as a set of clear and feasible actions that businesses can and should take on climate change. (p. 181)
Recommendation #34: Create and fund an R&D organization to undertake and disseminate credible and independent studies of the economic impacts of climate change on business sectors and specific businesses at a level of detail sufficient to affect decision-making. The organization would complement this data by also offering credible information on available solutions, especially energy efficiency investments with rapid paybacks and high rates of return. (p. 185)
Recommendation #35: Launch a certification program and logo signifying climate-friendly products and services, or rationalize such efforts already in existence in order to concentrate consumer awareness and purchasing power on behalf of climate change mitigation objectives. (p. 186)
Environmentalists & Civil Society Recommendations
Recommendation #36: Create a broad-based Climate Action Leadership Council of 10-12 recognizable and senior eminent leaders from all key national sectors and constituencies to serve as an integrating mechanism for developing and delivering a cohesive message to society about the seriousness of climate change and the imperative of taking action. The Council would include leaders from business, labor, academia, government, the NGO sector, the professions (medicine, law, and public health) and community leaders. They would be chosen on the basis of their credibility within their respective communities, but also across
society at large. (p. 192)
Recommendation #37: In order to scale up and bring in the required resources, expand the number of donors who understand the urgency of climate change and work with them to identify action-oriented grants consistent with their funding mission and style. (p. 195)
Recommendation #38: Create an environmental corps of college students to lead research and action on climate change. This would range from promoting greenhouse gas reduction pledges by their respective colleges and universities to undertaking action beyond their institutions. (p. 195)
Recommendation #39: Create one or more competitions among the 200+ U.S. mayors who pledged to voluntarily ful€ll the Kyoto Protocol target, whereby their cities would seek to best one another on some specific and measurable climate change-related metric, such as the most
compact €uorescent light bulbs installed within a year. (p. 195)
I haven't read through Katie's entire post -- didn't get past the first paragraph, actually -- but let's please not talk about "social engineering."
While that term might be technically accurate, more often than not it's used in a pejorative way by people who have a vested interest in not implementing positive change.
In everything we say and write we need to be very sensitive to the "connotative" meaning of words as well as the "denotative" meaning. That's Semantics 101.
Thanks for letting me know, and pardon me! I had no idea it was a prejorative term, I just thought it was descriptive! I think there are at least a few people in this group who know I'd be the last person to want to offend anyone. Hopefully my ignorance and "insensitivity" won't put anyone else off reading the rest of this post, which is from Phelps. The information is probably some of the most important I've read during my masters program, and Phelps seems to concur. I wll not use the word again. That being said, getting people to change their values, priorities and behavior, even in their own self-interest, is often thought to be invasive and angers the very people who need to be reached, lending a negative conotation to the term, and requiring delicate skills in the task itself. However, I am not aware of the term's exclusive use by those who would suppress positive change.
You must log in to post.