How Culture Shapes the Climate Change Debate - Summary, Sintesi del corso di Geografia

Scarica How Culture Shapes the Climate Change Debate - Summary e più Sintesi del corso in PDF di Geografia solo su Docsity! HOW CULTURE SHAPES THE CLIMATE CHANGE DEBATE – ANDREW J. HOFFMAN 1. We all use cognitive filters: scientists do not have the final word in public debate, people validate their statements through their own worldviews. We relate to climate change through our prior ideological preferences, personal experiences and knowledge 2. Our cognitive filters reflect our cultural identity: we tend to have opinions similar to the ones held by people with which we identify, and our opinions on issues like climate change tend to be influenced by those of the people that surround us. Positions on controversial topics like climate change become part of our cultural identity 3. Cultural identity can overpower scientific reasoning: when the belief or disbelief in climate change becomes connected to our cultural identity, contrary scientific evidence can actually make people more resolute in their disbelief. Evidence show that increased knowledge tends to strengthen our position on climate change, regardless of what that position is (if we believe in it, we believe more, if we don’t, we are even more skeptical). So, increasing information won’t necessarily bring more awareness on climate change. 4. Our political economy creates inertia for change: there are strong economic and political interests that are challenged by the debate on climate change, so strategies are adopted to polarize the debate and protect those interests. In order to change the cultural view on climate change we also need to change the economic and political institutions of our society. Scientific consensus vs lack of social consensus over climate change The demographics for climate change belief mirror the traditional demographics for environmental concern: more female than male, more young than old, more liberal than conservative, more college educated than less educated, more affluent than poor, more urban than rural, more in coastal areas than in internal areas. Of these variables, party affiliation is the strongest correlate to belief in climate change -> visible sign of the cultural dimension of climate change belief. Six Americas (Yale PCCC) - Alarmed: most worried about climate change and see it as a personal threat. Moderate to liberal democrats, active in their communities, likely to be women, older middle-aged (55- 64), college-educated, upper income, egalitarian values, favoring government intervention to ensure the basic needs of all people - Concerned: they believe that climate change is happening but see it less as a personal threat. Moderate democrats - Cautious: they believe climate change is happening, but the belief is weak and open to changes. Moderate democrats and republicans, traditional religious values, low civic engagement - Disengaged: not at all sure climate change is happening, most likely to change their minds, they hardly think about the issue and do not consider it personally important. Moderate democrats politically inactive - Doubtful: they don’t know if climate change is happening or not and don’t see it as a personal threat. Generally male, older, better educated, high income, white, republican, strong individualistic values, average civic engagement - Dismissive: they’re sure climate change is not happening and are not worried about the issue at all. Generally high-income, well-educated, conservative, white, male, strong religious beliefs, active civic participation, individualistic values, opposition to government intervention CHAPTER 2 – SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY AND THE CLIMATE CHANGE DEBATE Motivated reasoning: employment of ideological filters influenced by our belief system when approaching a topic. It’s an emotionally biased reasoning through which people take or justify decisions in accordance with their belief system Cultural cognition: influence of our referent group on our values and opinions We naturally tend to endorse the positions most in accordance with our pre-existing values and with the values shared by our referent group. We have an innate desire of maintaining consistency within ourselves and within our community. Once the process has begun, our belief system becomes increasingly stable and resistant to change, we tend to give more credit to arguments in accordance with our position (confirmation bias) and less credit and attention to arguments in opposition. In this process, facts become less important than the political and ideological affiliation of the source of the facts, “partisanship and group identification” are more relevant than facts. Consequently, we also tend to filter our information sources in accordance with our belief system. Bounded rationality: we are limited by the type and amount of information we can access and by our cognitive ability to process it. Cognitive misers (avari): we focus our time and energy on issues and topics that are most important to us. We cannot be informed and understand every issue we face, so we turn to trusted sources to summarize them for us. 4 forms of distrust that animate the climate change debate 1. Distrust of the messengers: distrust of environmentalist, democratic politicians and scientists alleged attempt to interfere in the market or to dismantle capitalism. Idea that climate change is just an agenda for other hidden interests (democratic politicians). Distrust of scientists both because of the common idea that universities are dominated by democrats and because of their relevance in the decision-making processes and their (alleged) distance from faith 2. Distrust of the process that created the message: distrust of the scientific process and research, of peer-reviewing and reject of the idea that there’s consensus over climate change (and if there is it’s because there is an agenda and scientists are corrupted). 3. Distrust of the message: people don’t believe that the world as they know can or will drastically change due to climate change, both because they perceive it as something stable (just-world theory) and both because they avoid thinking about possible tremendous consequences (terror-management theory). For many religious people also the idea that humans can influence the climate goes against their belief in god. 1. Are GHG concentrations increasing in the atmosphere? Yes 2. Does this increase lead to a general warming of the planet? Yes 3. Has climate changed over the past century? Yes 4. Are humans partially responsible for the increase in GHG emissions? Yes, but based on scientific judgment rather than on measurements 5. What will be the environmental and social impact of such change? That’s the question on which scientists have less certainties but they can assign probability to different outcomes It is important to avoid cataclysmic scenarios and hyperbolic language because the possible outcomes of climate change fall along a distribution curve, there are not only the extremes. Also, this kind of language deactivates people, leaving them without a sense of hope for a solution. Moreover, the darker imagery of climate change has also a significant psychological toll, with considerations on death and mortality. It is important to separate the problems from the solution: research shows that people tend to react dismissively to information that lead to conclusions which are threatening to their cultural values. Many people probably refuse climate change as they’re opposed to more governmental control and restraint on the market, not on the issue itself. So, arguments for the acceptance of climate change should be kept separate from discussions on solutions to address it. ➢ Choose messages that are personally accessible: people tend to respond most to what is salient and personal and thus it’s been difficult to convey the issue of climate change. The emotional impact of the concretization of abstract risks motivates actions way more than analytic understanding (i.e., people who experienced extreme weather events are more concerned over climate change). On this aspect we should be mindful of motivated reasoning, which happens mostly among people who are already highly engaged on the issue; since 40% of Americans appear to be disengaged there’s room for experimental learning. it’s also important to tailor messages on climate change to a specific medium and audience, considering their varying values and concerns. Importance of choosing the right words since some terms are ideologically or politically connotated. ➢ Present solutions for a commonly desired future: too much emphasis on negative consequences, restraint, and sacrifice scare people away rather than motivating them to action. Climate change solutions instead should be focused on our capacity to innovate, on an optimistic and attractive future, and should overcome the left-right divide by addressing the issue in ways that fit the values of both of the sides (more focus on the preservation of the status quo for conservatives, for example). There is a need for scientists to step outside their usual venues and directly engage the climate debate. Many consider this not part of their domain, but to convey scientific facts in an easily accessible way is of utmost relevance in today’s society. Doctoral studies also should adapt to this need. CHAPTER 5 – HISTORICAL ANALOGIES FOR CULTURAL CHANGE Climate as the ultimate “commons problem”: everyone has an incentive in emitting GHG to improve his standard of living but the costs of this activity are diffused among many → to solve climate change we will need a cultural change and a shift in our ethics around collective responsibility. Two historical analogies: 1. The debate over cigarettes-smoking and cancer → difference between scientific consensus and social consensus: scientific evidence highlighted a nexus between cigarettes smoking and cancer since the 1950s, but it wasn’t until 1998 that restrictions on the marketing of tobacco were established. It took almost 40 years to reach a social consensus on the need for restrictions to tobacco because science does not have the final word in the public debate and because there was ideological (fear of increasing control by the government) and economic resistance. A social consensus was established also thanks to the judiciary sentences that established that scientific evidence was right 2. The debate over the abolition of slavery → magnitude of the cultural shift CHAPTER 6 – THE FULL SCOPE 3 central points for the public discourse on climate change 1. Focus on the middle: we tend to focus a lot of attention on the extremes, transforming the discussion in an ideological debate. Instead, we should aim for a consensus-based path focusing on people who are willing to listen. Less attention to the small minority of active deniers and more focus on the “vulnerability of the majority to their influence” 2. Employ the radical flank: ideas of social movements are viewed in contrast to others, so extreme positions can make other ideas and organizations seem more reasonable to movement opponents (i.e., the ideas of Martin Luther King were considered extreme until Malcom X arrived and made them appear more moderate and reasonable) 3. Never waste a good crisis: the occurrence of personally salient events might precipitate cultural change, for example the monetization of climate change consequences: the increase in extreme weather events is becoming more and more costly every year. This increase could provoke a shift in public consciousness over the issue of climate change (it needs to be an event that triggers the affluent 20% of society who uses 86% of the world’s resources) Anthropocene (Crutzen, Stoermer): new geological epoch in which human activities have a significant impact on the earth’s ecosystems. It began with the industrial revolution but became more acute with the “Great Acceleration” in the 1950s. A relevant cultural shift is needed to fight climate change, one with a magnitude similar to that of the Enlightenment. More science will not by itself change people’s minds and create the collective will to act. Those who disbelieve the science will not be compelled by yet another scientific report. The debate over climate change is not just a scientific one, but it is about competing worldviews and cultural beliefs SCHEMES SIX AMERICAS - Alarmed - Concerned - Cautious - Disengaged - Doubtful - Dismissive TYPES OF DISTRUST - Distrust of the messenger - Distrust of the message - Distrust of the process - Distrust of the solutions SUGGESTIONS - Importance of the messenger: having “climate brokers” in sensitive sectors - Address the process by which the message was created: focus on the scientific consensus around climate change - Avoid cataclysmic scenarios and hyperbolic language - Separate the problem from the solutions - Choose messages that are personally accessible - Need for scientists’ engagement in the public debate - Focus on the middle: convincing disengaged people rather than contrarians (→consensus- based path) - Employ the radical flank to make your arguments seem more reasonable - Trying to overcome the left-right divide CCS (Carbon Capture and Storage) are examples of artificial carbon sinks. Their aim is to capture CO2 and to store it underneath the earth surface in order not to pollute the atmosphere. A CCS project to be implemented in Ravenna is currently under scrutiny, but it is being heavily criticized as an expensive project that does not distance itself from the production of CO2 in the first place.