What you will find on this page: knowledge vs understanding (video); when facts are not just facts (video); PLEASE stop talking about the environment (video); book excerpt – why we are wired to ignore climate change; book trailer (video); How to talk to a climate change denier (video); ideas for digging our way out of this hole; but what do climate scientists say? (video); Climate Access publication -The Preparation Frame; New Guide: Communicating effectively with the centre-right; human psychology and why don’t “they” get it?; door-knocking on climate guide; talking to the right (video); election guide; engaging centre-right; religious leaders speak out; brightsiding; echo chambers; latest news; latest opinion poll; key information & resource sites
Complexity of turning knowledge into understanding
For a person to change their behaviour a critical light bulb moment is needed when knowledge becomes understanding. Watch this video for an excellent example of why knowledge does not necessarily equal understanding, and why it may be so hard for people to change their inbuilt biases.
Source: Smarter Every Day
When the facts are not just the facts!
9 August 2019 RealClimate: Gravin Schmidt: In the wake of the appalling mass shootings last weekend, Neil DeGrasse Tyson (the pre-eminent scientist/communicator in the US) tweeted some facts that were, let’s just say, not well received (and for which he kind of apologised). At least one of the facts he tweeted about was incorrect (deaths by medical errors are far smaller). However, even if it had been correct, the overall response would have been the same, because the reaction was not driven by the specifics of what was said, but rather by the implied message of the context in which it was said. This is a key feature (or bug) of communications in a politicized environment, and one that continues to trip up people who are experienced enough to know better. Why bring this up here? Two reasons: First, I still come across scientists active in public communications in the climate realm that insist that their role is simply to give ‘just the facts’ and that they do so in a completely objective manner. Second, I often see people using ‘facts’ rhetorically to distract, diminish and devalue arguments with which they disagree without ever engaging with the arguments substantively. Thus it’s worth picking apart what is happened to Tyson with an eye to improving self-awareness on how ‘facts’ are received by the public and to help recognize, and maybe defang, the rhetorical use of irrelevant ‘facts’ as distractions. It should go without saying that, of course, I support basing discussions on truth, but any real discourse is far more than a mere recitation of facts. Access more here
8 June 2015, The Guardian, John Oliver can make global warming funny, but climate comedy is still hard. The problem when it comes to making comedy about climate change is that it’s about the world falling into an open sewer, and it’s too impersonal. Comedy = tragedy plus time. That’s the equation to make ha ha’s happen. You may not know it, but all us lot in the comedy production line just hang out riffing maths formulas and that’s how we come up with the gold. Simples. (Winky face.) So I’m not that great at math(s) – NB I do like to keep in with the Yanks. But I can still do the sums when it comes to melting all the ice caps away with our long baths; destroying Mr P Bear’s ice house with our Trip Advising globe trots; and finishing off the fossil fuels by blow drying our hair to bits. Once we’ve done all that it’ll be too late. There’ll be no time left for the punchline: set up and then just tragedy. The laughter will be stranded and left for dead, marooned like one of those polar bears balancing on a singular floating block of ice.Yes, climate change banter has been a thing since forever … well I did a project on it in Geography at school – so a while. But really it’s just hummed away quietly in the corner like a old fridge – not much of a stink has been made of it and certainly not in comedy quarters. That’s weird Holly, I hear you cry, I thought nothing was off limits in comedy – cause I’ve seen you set yourself on fire, be pelted by raw meat and berate audience members dressed as a lap dancing dog, chasing that elusive laugh. Surely that’s all much more offensive than gags about carbon footprints and solar panels? So why is there so little comedy about climate change and why’s it so hard? Comedy is truth, it’s about failure, it deals with the fall of man and the human condition – it helps us understand ourselves and the world we live in. So surely climate change is perfect fodder? Read More here see also “What climate scientists say” below
PLEASE Stop Talking About the Environment!
The dangers of framing climate change as an environmental issue and why this does not speak to peoples real concerns.
August 2014, Excerpt from Don’t Even Think About It: Why Our Brains Are Wired to Ignore Climate Change, George Marshall
Chapter 41: Why We Are Wired to Ignore Climate Change… “And Why We Are Wired to Take Action Through our long evolution, we have inherited fundamental and universal cognitive wiring that shapes the way that we see the world and interpret threats and that motivates us to act on them. Without doubt, climate change has qualities that play poorly to these innate tendencies. It is complex, unfamiliar, slow moving, invisible, and inter-generational. Of all the possible combinations of loss and gain, climate change contains the most challenging: requiring certain short-term loss in order to mitigate against an uncertain longer-term loss. Climate change also challenges and reverses some deeply held assumptions. We are told that the way of life that we associate with our comfort and the protection of our families is now a menace; that gases we have believed to be benign are now poisonous; that our familiar environment is becoming dangerous and uncertain. Our social intelligence is well attuned to keeping track of debts and favors, and ensuring equitable distribution of gains and losses. Climate change poses a major challenge here too, with all solutions requiring that rival social groups agree on a distribution of losses and thereafter the allocation of a greatly diminished shared atmospheric commons.” To read more access Climate Conviction website here
Trailer for Don’t Even Think About It: Why Our Brains Are Wired to Ignore Climate Change
How to Talk to a Climate Change Denier
To date 19,000 people have watched this twenty minute video on how to talk about climate change with someone who is still unconvinced (they are called a ‘denier’ because this is the standard search phrase). It draws on many of the arguments in the book, including the need to find common values and speak with respect. The evidence behind it is provided on the TalkingClimate website.
To access more video presentation featuring George Marshall go here
Another Excerpt: Chapter 42. In a Nutshell: Some Personal and Highly Biased Ideas for Digging Our Way Out of This Hole
To create proximity we need to EMPHASIZE THAT CLIMATE CHANGE IS HAPPENING HERE AND NOW. In particular, we should BE WARY OF CREATING DISTANCE…….. There is therefore a potential to express climate change as an opportunity to RESTORE PAST LOSS, whether it is social (lost community, values, purpose) or environmental (lost ecosystems, species, or beauty)….We are very well adapted to respond to immediate threats but slow to accommodate moving change. Climate change is a process, not an event, so it requires that we RECOGNIZE MOMENTS OF PROXIMITY that can demand attention….Sometimes the act of CREATING THE SYMBOLIC MOMENT is far more important than its overall relevance……… the best option for building conviction lies with providing the information for trusted local communicators to OPEN UP A CONVERSATION ABOUT LONG-TERM PREPAREDNESS… we need to remember that not everyone wants to protect the status quo, especially if they are already struggling against economic and social injustice. So we need a NARRATIVE OF POSITIVE CHANGE…..People form their response to the narratives, not the science, and so it always needs to FOLLOW NARRATIVE RULES, WITH RECOGNIZEABLE ACTORS, MOTIVES, CAUSES, AND EFFECTS. People will be inclined to follow the most compelling narrative, so be careful: DON’T LET THE NARRATIVE TAKE OVER the way we think or talk about it….Most of the factors that enable us to ignore climate change derive from attempts to limit its meaning; that it is an environmental issue, a threat or an opportunity (but not both), a wellhead problem or a tailpipe problem (but not both). So, RESIST SIMPLE FRAMINGS and BE OPEN TO NEW MEANINGS…..We all need to ENSURE THAT A WIDE RANGE OF SOLUTIONS IS CONSTANTLY UNDER REVIEW — a process that planners call iterative risk management…. NEVER ACCEPT YOUR OPPONENT’S FRAMES — “don’t negate them, or repeat them, or structure your arguments to counter them.”… BE CAREFUL THAT ENEMY NARRATIVES DO NOT FUEL DIVISION…..for example CREATE A HEROIC QUEST in which the enemy may be our internal weaknesses rather than an outside group….Overall, we need to BUILD A NARRATIVE OF COOPERATION that can bring people together around a common cause. This should STRESS COOPERATION NOT UNITY … ACCEPT THE SPECTRUM OF APPROACHES with radical protesters, lobbyists, policy makers, and multiple different sectors, all pushing in the same direction if not with the same detailed objectives….In the way that we tell the climate change story, we need to BE HONEST ABOUT THE DANGER — but remember that this will only motivate people if they hear it from trusted communicators and can see opportunities for action and change. ENCOURAGE POSITIVE VISIONS, but remember that these may carry social cues that may repel others. The bright side technocratic future vision, for example, is elitist and materialistic, and alienates those who already feel disenfranchised…..” For the details and more suggestions access full excerpt here
But what do climate scientists say?
Climate Access publication: The Preparation Frame
A Guide to Building Understanding of Climate Impacts and Engagement in Solutions. A communications and engagement guide from Climate Access on how to break the manufactured scientific uncertainty debate with a focus on climate impacts and solutions. Access publication here This link will also provide other publications to peruse
March 2016, Climate Outreach, New Guide: Communicating effectively with the centre-right
Download the report NOTE: The above guide is from a British perspective but should relate well to the Australian context.
Human psychology or why don’t “they” get it?
“Societies must be motivated and empowered to adopt the needed changes. for that, the public must be able to interpret and respond to often bewildering scientific, technological, and economic information. …This guide powerfully details many of the biases and barriers to scientific communication and information processing. It offers a tool—in combination with rigorous science, innovative engineering, and effective policy design—to help our societies take the pivotal actions needed to respond with urgency and accuracy to one of the greatest challenges ever faced by humanity: global-scale, human-induced environmental threats, of which the most complex and far reaching is climate change.” —Jeffrey Sachs, Director, the earth institute, Columbia University. Click on booklet image to open
Talking climate change with conservatives: UK election 2015
The video above, comes from COIN (Climate Outreach & Information Network UK). George Marshall is the co-founder of COIN and I have found his perspective and balanced way of presenting an excellent resource in answering “Why they don’t get it?” and what to do about it. Even though the Election Guide has the UK election focus I thought it could easily be adapted to the Australian context.
The COIN Election Guide is intended for communicators and campaigners from across the political spectrum who would like to learn new ways of talking about climate change in ways that resonate with centre-right voters, particularly in the context of an election. I think it has value even with no elections in sight at present. It explores the following: What the centre-right thinks about climate change; Centre-right values and finding the right words; 4 narratives that can work with the centre-right; establishing communicator trust; what not to say; election tips. Access Election Guide here
Engaging with the centre-right
13 June 2013, COIN’s ground breaking report presents the evidence for more effectively engaging centre-right citizens around climate change. It argues that if climate change is to break out of its ‘left wing ghetto’, it must be communicated in a way that resonates with the values of the centre-right – and offers four narratives for bringing climate change into the mainstream. This report takes the first steps towards developing a better understanding of how to engage centre-right citizens on climate change. At the end of 2012, a roundtable meeting with some of the UK’s leading experts on communicating climate change to centre-right audiences was convened. In the words of one meeting participant, climate change must break out of its left-wing ghetto in order for a new, meaningful conversation with the centre -right to begin. Access Report here
Religious leaders finally speaking out
18 August 2015, The Carbon Brief, Islamic climate declaration calls for fossil fuel phase out. Islamic scholars from around the world have endorsed a declaration calling on nations to phase out greenhouse gas emissions and switch to 100% renewable energy. The Islamic Declaration on Climate Change will be seen as the religion’s major contribution ahead of the UN climate talks in Paris this December. Released during a two-day symposium on Islam and climate change in Istanbul, the declaration lays out why Muslims should be concerned about the planet, and sets out a series of demands to world leaders and the business community. It is the second major intervention to have emerged from the faith community this year, after Pope Francis released his encyclical on climate change and the environment in June. Writing the declaration. The process of drafting the declaration began around six months ago. A team of five Islamic scholars were involved in crafting the initial document. Read More here
18 June, The Guardian, The Pope’s encyclical on climate change: Eight things we learned from the pope’s climate change encyclical. From calling on rich countries to pay their social debt to his thoughts on GM food and UN climate talks, here are the top highlights. Pope Francis has called on global leaders and individuals to dedicate themselves to curbing climate change and ending policies and personal habits that are destroying the planet. Pope Francis has released an unprecedented encyclical on climate change and the environment. The 180-page document calls on rich nations to pay their “grave social debt” to poorer countries and lambasts the UN climate talks for a lack of progress. Here are eight things we learned: Read More here
15 July 2015, Climate News Network, Muslim scholars say climate change poses dire threat: Islamic declaration adds to growing pressure religious leaders are exerting on richer nations to reduce the burden they are putting on the Earth’s climate. Human beings could cause the ending of life on the planet, says a group of Islamic scholars − and countries round the world, particularly the rich ones, must face up to their responsibilities. Climate change, they say, is induced by human beings: “As we are woven into the fabric of the natural world, its gifts are for us to savour – but we have abused these gifts to the extent that climate change is upon us.” The views of the scholars – some of the strongest yet expressed on climate from within the Muslim community – are contained in a draft declaration on climate change to be launched officially at a major Islamic symposium in Istanbul in mid-August. Read More here
Brightsiding climate is a bad strategy: Is all “good news” and no “bad news” a good climate action and communications strategy? This analysis finds that the answer is a resounding “no”. “Always look on the bright side of life”: Bright-siding climate advocacy and its consequences. Most climate advocacy and campaigning appears to assume that as long as you tell a positive story and move “in the right direction”, it doesn’t matter if people understand or agree about the problem. It’s all about selling “good news” and not mentioning “bad news”. This is how the Obama administration, Australia’s Labor government, the Say Yes campaign and many national climate advocacy organisations worked in 2011. Click on image for more
An interesting “brightsiding example – Sustainia
Politicians living in echo chambers
27 May, Climate Progress: If You have Wondered Why So Many Politicians Deny Climate Change, Science Has Your Answer. Scientists have known for a long time what’s causing current climate change. What’s been less clear is why so many U.S. politicians are not listening. Sure, there’s been falsely balanced media coverage of climate science. And there are both financial and ideological incentives to deny that carbon emissions are causing the phenomenon. But according to new research published in Nature Climate Change, there’s at least one statistically proven reason why more than 56 percent of Congressional Republicans deny climate change: echo chambers. Read More here View full research article here
Latest News 12 July 2017, The Guardian, Commentators who don’t understand the grid should butt out of the battery debate. Criticising South Australia’s battery for not meeting peak demand is akin to raging at your smartphone because it can’t send a fax. he Australian electricity grid’s most recently announced extremity is a gargantuan battery system in South Australia, designed to bolster grid security. The facility has been met mostly with a warm welcome, interspersed with weird, interesting and tense hostility. Buried in the mix of reactions are clues about how a new phase of grid transition might play out, as we switch from the rapid build out of zero carbon power sources to building and integrating them into a system designed for fossil fuels.Before we interrogate the misunderstandings of South Australia’s new battery, we have to step back and look at the system as a single, electric organism. Read More here 11 July 2017, The Guardian, No wonder the government tries to hide its emissions reports. They stink. Last Friday, the Australian government finally released the latest greenhouse gas emissions report, showing emissions have risen in the past year. When excluding emissions from land use, 2016 saw Australia release a record level of CO2 into the atmosphere. It confirms the failure of the government’s environmental policy at a time when electricity prices – despite the absence of a carbon price – continue to rise at levels above inflation. The government has a history of being scared to release the greenhouse gas reports. Last year it released the March 2016 and June 2016 reports on the Thursday before Christmas – not exactly peak viewing time. It also meant the March report was released nine months after the March quarter had actually finished. And once again the government held off releasing the latest report. But in a level of coincidence equal to that of Bill Heslop running into Deirdre Chambers in the Porpoise Split Chinese restaurant, on the day that the Australian Conservation Foundation released FOI documents showing that the government had been sitting on the report for more than a month, the government released the latest report. And in an effort that rather stretches the meaning of “quarterly”, the government “incorporated” the September quarter figures into the December report. It says something about how poorly this government values the issue of climate change that over a month ago we had the figures on the entire production that occurred in Australia during the first three months of this year, and yet here we are in July and we still only know the level of greenhouse gas emissions up to December last year. The figures in the report quickly made it obvious why the government has held off releasing them. They stink. And as every report since June 2014 has shown, the end of the carbon price has led to an increase in emissions. The poor departmental officials try to paint a happy picture. The release leads with the line that “total emissions for Australia for the year to December 2016 (including Land Use, Land Use Change and Forestry) are estimated to be 543.3 Mt CO2-e.” They note that this is 2.0% below emissions in 2000, and 10.2% below emissions in 2005. Oddly, they don’t note that is it 1.0% above the emissions in 2015. The inclusion of land use, land use change and forestry is a fairly dodgy measure. Read More here 11 July 2017, The Conversation, Why a population of, say, 15 million makes sense for Australia. Population growth has profound impacts on Australian life, and sorting myths from facts can be difficult. This article is part of our series, Is Australia Full?, which aims to help inform a wide-ranging and often emotive debate. Neither of Australia’s two main political parties believes population is an issue worth discussion, and neither currently has a policy about it. The Greens think population is an issue, but can’t come at actually suggesting a target. Even those who acknowledge that numbers are relevant are often quick to say that it’s our consumption patterns, and not our population size, that really matter when we talk about environmental impact. But common sense, not to mention the laws of physics, says that size and scale matter, especially on a finite planet. In the meantime the nation has a bipartisan default population policy, which is one of rapid growth. This is in response to the demands of what is effectively a coalition of major corporate players and lobby groups. Solid neoliberals all, they see all growth as good, especially for their bottom line. They include the banks and financial sector, real estate developers, the housing industry, major retailers, the media and other major players for whom an endless increase in customers is possible and profitable. However, Australians stubbornly continue to have small families. The endless growth coalition responds by demanding the government import hundreds of thousands of new consumers annually, otherwise known as the migration intake. The growth coalition has no real interest in the cumulative social or environmental downside effects of this growth, nor the actual welfare of the immigrants. They fully expect to capture the profit of this growth program, while the disadvantages, such as traffic congestion, rising house prices and government revenue diverted for infrastructure catch-up, are all socialised – that is, the taxpayer pays. The leaders of this well-heeled group are well insulated personally from the downsides of growth that the rest of us deal with daily. A better measure of wellbeing than GDP The idea that population growth is essential to boost GDP, and that this is good for everyone, is ubiquitous and goes largely unchallenged. For example, according to Treasury’s 2010 Intergenerational Report: Economic growth will be supported by sound policies that support productivity, participation and population — the ‘3Ps’. If one defines “economic growth” in the first place by saying that’s what happens when you have more and more people consuming, then obviously more and more people produce growth. The fact that GDP, our main measure of growth, might be an utterly inadequate and inappropriate yardstick for our times remains a kooky idea to most economists, both in business and government. Genuine progress peaked 40 years ago Read More here 10 July 2017, The Conversation, As an historic nuclear weapons treaty is reached, G20 leaders miss the mark on North Korea. Over the weekend, more than 120 countries adopted a treaty at a UN conference that prohibits the production, stockpiling, use or threatened use of nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices. Australia was a notable absentee. So were the nine countries that possess nuclear weapons. While the UN conference was taking a major step toward the elimination of nuclear weapons, the US and its allies – notably Japan, South Korea and Australia – were hoping to use the G20 summit in Hamburg to focus attention on the danger North Korea’s nuclear ambitions pose. However, the declaration issued at the end of the G20 does not even mention the issue. We can now expect a UN Security Council resolution that condemns North Korea’s latest missile test and applies slightly tougher sanctions. The glaring contradiction between the boycott of the nuclear ban negotiations and the preoccupation with the North Korean nuclear threat does not seem to have dawned on the US and its allies….Why the treaty? Nothing said at the G20 summit will resolve the North Korean crisis, for it is but a symptom of a deeper ailment. The US and Russia, which between them account for 92% of the world’s nuclear weapons, are clearly intent on preserving and modernising their nuclear arsenals. They and other nuclear-armed countries have steadfastly resisted repeated calls for nuclear disarmament – even though Article 6 of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty requires them to do just that. The nuclear weapons treaty that has just emerged is a direct response to the morally and legally culpable inaction of the nuclear-armed countries – something the G20 summit did not and could not do. Put simply, the treaty is a comprehensive effort to bring the rule of law to bear on all aspects of the nuclear assault on the planet. It designates a nuclear-weapon-free world as “a global public good of the highest order”, on which depend: … human survival, the environment, socioeconomic development, the global economy, food security and the health of current and future generations. The treaty’s provisions are robust and thorough. In addition to prohibiting production, possession and deployment, each party to it undertakes never to test, transfer or receive from any recipient any nuclear weapons or explosive devices, and never to assist anyone or receive assistance from anyone to engage in any such activity. Read More here End Latest News To view opinion poll results go here: countries doing enough on climate change; carbon emissions; Key Information and Resource Sites CLIMATE OUTREACH (formally known as COIN – Climate Outreach & Information Network UK: Their work on climate change communication gathers the best research evidence and translates it into practical guides. With a comprehensive and frequently updated database of academic papers, a regular newsletter, and a blog featuring comment and analysis from climate change communication experts, it is the gateway which ensures academics and practitioners get the most from climate change communication research.To access their resource page go here Australian Religious Response to Climate Change: ARRCC is a multi-faith, member-based organisation of people from around Australia who are committed to taking action on climate change. We bring together representatives from all the major faith traditions to work together in addressing climate change. Climate Denial: This is George Marshall’s blog that explores the topic of the psychology of climate change denial – with observations and anecdotes about our weird and disturbed response to the problem. It seeks to answer a question that has puzzled me for years: why, when the evidence is so strong, and so many agree that this is our greatest problem, are we doing so little about climate change? George is the founder of COIN above. DeSmog Blog Project: A Canada based and began in January 2006 and quickly became the world’s number one source for accurate, fact based information regarding global warming misinformation campaigns. If you’re looking for information on noted climate change skeptics, or on the use of PR techniques and spin by politicians, scientists, and in the media, this is the place to go. They encourage using their media centre to full advantage for your own reporting. To access their media centre go here Psychology for a Safe Climate (Aust): Through workshops, presentations, and publications we contribute by: Increasing understanding of the psychology behind the challenges and difficulties of engagement with climate change; fostering psychological support and self care; and helping improve communication on climate change.