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 14 December 2015, Renew Economy, Hidden gem in Paris deal condemns coal to early demise. When France foreign minister Laurent Fabius brought the gavel down on Saturday night and declared the Paris Agreement on climate change action was sealed, the reaction was almost immediate. Within the conference hall it was greeted with cheers, hugging and great emotion. Outside, the agreement to cap temperature rises “well below 2°C” and as low as 1.5°C signalled a remarkable achievement that had one major implication: the end of the fossil fuel era is nigh. ….But if that is what the fossil fuel industry and the Coalition government are really thinking, then the evidence suggests that they are kidding themselves. One little gem, alerted to me by the Potsdam Institute’s Malter Meinshausen (on the dance floor of the COP after party of all places) puts the agreement in a new perspective. It is this paragraph, article 17, in the decisions text of the deal: “Clause 17. Notes with concern that the estimated aggregate greenhouse gas emission levels in 2025 and 2030 resulting from the intended nationally determined contributions do not fall within least-cost 2 ̊C scenarios but rather lead to a projected level of 55 gigatonnes in 2030, and also notes that much greater emission reduction efforts will be required than those associated with the intended nationally determined contributions in order to hold the increase in the global average temperature to below 2 ̊C above pre-industrial levels by reducing emissions to 40 gigatonnes or to 1.5 ̊C above pre-industrial levels by reducing to a level to be identified in the special report referred to in paragraph 21 below”; OK, now for a quick translation. The world currently emits around 50 gigatonnes of greenhouse gas emissions a year. Even if all the pledges put together by 186 nations before and during the Paris climate talks were enacted, these emissions would grow to around 55 gigatonnes of GHG emissions a year by 2030. But to meet the 2°C target, the world will need to reduce those emissions to 40 gigatonnes a year. And to reach that level, they are likely going to have to reverse direction before 2020. What’s more, if the world does move to that aspirational goal of capping temperatures to 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels, then it is going to have to move a lot faster, and a lot more dramatically than that. That trajectory will be outlined by a new IPCC report due in 2018. Read More here 14 December 2015, The Guardian, Pentagon to lose emissions exemption under Paris climate deal. Armed forces around the world – including US military – will no longer be automatically excluded from including their carbon emissions under national reductions targets. The US military and armed forces of countries around the world will no longer be automatically exempted from emissions-cutting obligations under the UN Paris climate deal, the Guardian has learned. Although the US never ratified the Kyoto protocol, it won an opt-out from having to fully report or act on its armed forces’ greenhouse gas emissions, which was then double-locked by a House national defence authorisation bill in 1999. Under the Paris agreement, countries would not be obliged to cut their military emissions but, equally, there would be no automatic exemption for them either. US officials privately say that the deal adopted on Saturday has no provisions covering military compliance one way or another, leaving decisions up to nation states as to which national sectors should make emissions cuts before 2030. Read More here 14 December 2015, Science Daily, Vegetarian and ‘healthy’ diets could be more harmful to the environment, researchers say eating lettuce is ‘over three times worse’ in greenhouse gas emissions than eating bacon. Contrary to recent headlines — and a talk by actor Arnold Schwarzenegger at the United Nations Paris Climate Change Conference — eating a vegetarian diet could contribute to climate change. In fact, according to new research from Carnegie Mellon University, following the USDA recommendations to consume more fruits, vegetables, dairy and seafood is more harmful to the environment because those foods have relatively high resource uses and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions per calorie. Published in Environment Systems and Decisions, the study measured the changes in energy use, blue water footprint and GHG emissions associated with U.S. food consumption patterns. “Eating lettuce is over three times worse in greenhouse gas emissions than eating bacon,” said Paul Fischbeck, professor of social and decisions sciences and engineering and public policy. “Lots of common vegetables require more resources per calorie than you would think. Eggplant, celery and cucumbers look particularly bad when compared to pork or chicken.” Fischbeck, Michelle Tom, a Ph.D. student in civil and environmental engineering, and Chris Hendrickson, the Hamerschlag University Professor of Civil and Environmental Engineering, studied the food supply chain to determine how the obesity epidemic in the U.S. is affecting the environment. Specifically, they examined how growing, processing and transporting food, food sales and service, and household storage and use take a toll on resources in the form of energy use, water use and GHG emissions. On one hand, the results showed that getting our weight under control and eating fewer calories, has a positive effect on the environment and reduces energy use, water use and GHG emissions from the food supply chain by approximately 9 percent. However, eating the recommended “healthier” foods — a mix of fruits, vegetables, dairy and seafood — increased the environmental impact in all three categories: Energy use went up by 38 percent, water use by 10 percent and GHG emissions by 6 percent. Read More here 14 December 2015, Energy Post, Paris emission cuts aren’t enough – we’ll have to put carbon back in the ground. With the Paris climate deal, the world has created the mother of all take-back schemes, writes Myles Allen, Professor of Geosystem Science at the University of Oxford. According to Allen, fossil fuel companies don’t necessarily have to stop producing CO2 – they just need to be required to ensure it doesn’t end up in the atmosphere. #takebackCO2 – start tweeting it now! Courtesy of The Conversation. I wonder how many of the delegates in Paris realise that they have just created the mother of all “take-back schemes”. As a consumer, you may have already come across this sort of deal: if you don’t want to dispose of the packaging of your new sofa, you can take it back to IKEA and it’s their problem. In many places, you can even take back the sofa itself when your kids have wrecked it. For the Paris climate deal to succeed something similar will have to happen, where companies that rely on fossil fuels will be obliged to “take back” their emissions. The agreement reaffirms a commitment to stabilising temperature rises well below 2℃, and even retains the option of limiting warming to 1.5℃ if possible. But it also confirms national targets that do little more than stabilise global emissions between now and 2030. Given those emissions, sticking to within 2℃ will require us to take lots of carbon out of the atmosphere and store it in the ground. The parties to the agreement are, in effect, saying “we’re going to sell this stuff, and we’re going to dispose of it later”. How do I know? Well, peak warming is overwhelmingly determined bycumulative carbon dioxide emissions. To stabilise temperatures at any level, be it 1.5℃, 2℃ or even 3℃, net carbon dioxide emissions must be reduced to zero. Most governments, environmental groups and business leaders now understand this. And it is acknowledged, albeit implicitly, in Article 4 of the Paris agreement, which calls for greenhouse emissions to be “balanced” by carbon sinks some time after mid-century. But we’re unlikely to hit “net zero” emissions before temperatures reach 2℃, and even less likely before they reach 1.5℃. Warming is currently at about 1℃ and rising by 0.1℃ every five to ten years. We could slow the warming by reducing emissions, of course. But if we fail to reduce at the required rate – and the inadequate emissions targets indicate this is the intention – then we will be left with no option but to scrub the excess CO2 back out of the atmosphere in future. 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.