Global Warming Scare Tactics
By TED NORDHAUS and MICHAEL
SHELLENBERGER APRIL 8, 2014 (NY Times)
OAKLAND, Calif. — IF you were looking
for ways to increase public skepticism about global warming, you could hardly
do better than the forthcoming nine-part series on climate change and natural
disasters, starting this Sunday on Showtime. A trailer for “Years
of Living Dangerously” is terrifying, replete with images of
melting glaciers, raging wildfires and rampaging floods. “I don’t think scary
is the right word,” intones one voice. “Dangerous, definitely.”
Showtime’s producers undoubtedly have
the best of intentions. There are serious long-term risks associated with
rising greenhouse gas emissions, ranging from ocean acidification to sea-level
rise to decreasing agricultural output.
But there is every reason to believe
that efforts to raise public concern about climate change by linking it to
natural disasters will backfire. More than a decade’s worth of research
suggests that fear-based appeals about climate change inspire denial, fatalism
and polarization.
For instance, Al Gore’s 2006
documentary, “An Inconvenient Truth,” popularized the idea
that today’s natural disasters are increasing in severity and frequency because
of human-caused global warming. It also contributed to public backlash and
division. Since 2006, the number of Americans telling Gallup that the media was
exaggerating global warming grew to 42 percent today from about 34 percent.
Meanwhile, the gap between Democrats and Republicans on whether global warming
is caused by humans rose to 42 percent last year from 26 percent in 2006,
according to the Pew Research Center.
Other factors contributed. Some
conservatives and fossil-fuel interests questioned the link between carbon emissions
and global warming. And beginning in 2007, as the country was falling into
recession, public support for environmental protection declined.
Still, environmental groups have known
since 2000 that efforts to link climate change to natural disasters could
backfire, after researchers at the Frameworks Institute studied public
attitudes for its report “How to Talk About Global Warming.” Messages focused
on extreme weather events, they found, made many Americans more likely to view
climate change as an act of God — something to be weathered, not prevented.
Some people, the report noted, “are
likely to buy an SUV to help them through the erratic weather to come” for
example, rather than support fuel-efficiency standards.
Since then, evidence that a fear-based
approach backfires has grown stronger. A frequently
cited 2009 study in the journal Science Communication summed up
the scholarly consensus. “Although shocking, catastrophic, and large-scale representations
of the impacts of climate change may well act as an initial hook for people’s
attention and concern,” the researchers wrote, “they clearly do not motivate a
sense of personal engagement with the issue and indeed may act to trigger
barriers to engagement such as denial.” In a controlled laboratory experiment
published in Psychological Science in 2010, researchers were able to use “dire
messages” about global warming to increase skepticism about the problem.
Many climate advocates ignore these findings,
arguing that they have an obligation to convey the alarming facts.
But
claims linking the latest blizzard, drought or hurricane to global warming
simply can’t be supported by the science. Our warming world is, according to
the United
Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, increasing heat
waves and intense precipitation in some places, and is likely to bring more
extreme weather in the future. But the panel also said there is little evidence
that this warming is increasing the loss of life or the economic costs of
natural disasters. “Economic growth, including greater concentrations of people
and wealth in periled areas and rising insurance penetration,” the climate
panel noted, “is the most important driver of increasing losses.”
Claims
that current disasters are connected to climate change do seem to motivate many
liberals to support action. But they alienate conservatives in roughly equal
measure.
What
works, say environmental pollsters and researchers, is focusing on popular solutions.
Climate advocates often do this, arguing that solar and wind can reduce
emissions while strengthening the economy. But when renewable energy
technologies are offered as solutions to the exclusion of other low-carbon
alternatives, they polarize rather than unite.
One
recent study, published by Yale Law School’s Cultural Cognition Project, found
that conservatives become less skeptical about global warming if they first
read articles suggesting nuclear energy or geoengineering as solutions. Another
study, in the journal Nature Climate Change in 2012, concluded that
“communication should focus on how mitigation efforts can promote a better
society” rather than “on the reality of climate change and averting its risks.”
Nonetheless,
virtually every major national environmental organization continues to
reject nuclear energy, even after four leading climate scientists wrote
them an open letter last
fall, imploring them to embrace the technology as a key climate
solution. Together with catastrophic rhetoric, the rejection of
technologies like nuclear and natural gas by environmental groups is
most likely feeding the perception among many that climate change is
being exaggerated. After all, if climate change is a planetary
emergency, why take nuclear and natural gas off the table?While
the urgency that motivates exaggerated claims is understandable,
turning down the rhetoric and embracing solutions like nuclear energy
will better serve efforts to slow global warming.
Ted Nordhaus is the chairman and Michael Shellenberger is the president of the Breakthrough Institute, an environmental research organization.
Rolando T. Dy, Ph.D.
Professor
School of Management
Executive Director
Center for Food and Agri Business
University of Asia and the Pacific
Pearl Drive, Ortigas Center
Pasig City, Philippines 1605
Tel: +632 634 2819
Fax: +632 633 8349
Email: rolando.dy@uap.asia
No comments:
Post a Comment