The energy puzzle: Climate communication
Publicize or perish
The scientific community is failing
miserably in communicating the
potential catastrophe of climate
change. Joseph Romm urges
scientists to start engaging with
the public – now
The fate of the next 50 generations may
well be determined in the next few months
and years. Will the US Congress agree to a
shrinking cap on greenhouse-gas emissions
and legislation to achieve the transformation to clean energy? If not, you can forget
about a global climate deal. But even if the
bill passes and a global deal is achieved,
both will need to be continuously strengthened in coming years, as the increasingly
worrisome science continues to inform the
policy, just as in the case of the Montreal
Protocol on ozone-depleting substances.
The International Scientific Congress on
climate change held in Copenhagen in
March, which was attended by 2000 scientists, concluded that “Recent observations
confirm that, given high rates of observed
emissions, the worst-case Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) scenario
trajectories (or even worse) are being realized.” That would mean that by 2100 there
would be atmospheric concentrations of
carbon dioxide of more than 1000 ppm, total
planetary warming of 5 °C and sea-level rises
probably on the high end of recent projections of 1–2 m followed by a rise of as much
as 2 cm per year or more for centuries. We
would also see one-third of inhabited land
reaching dust bowl levels of aridity, half or
more of all species becoming extinct, and the
oceans increasingly becoming hot, acidic,
dead zones. And if we do not change course
quickly, the latest science predicts that these
impacts may be irreversible for 1000 years.
In short, the fate of perhaps the next 100
billion people to walk the Earth rests with
scientists (and those who understand the science) trying to communicate the dire nature
of the climate problem (and the myriad solutions available now) as well as the ability of
the media, the public, opinion-makers and
political leaders to understand and deal with
that science.
Photolibrary
Something to shout about Scientists must get better at messaging about climate change before it is too late.
Disinformation and scientific illiteracy
So far, we are failing miserably. Neither the
US nor the world as a whole has taken any
consequential action to reverse emissions
trends. And if the scientific community does
not help lead the way in reversing emissions,
then we will justifiably bear serious blame
from future generations, who will no doubt
become increasingly bitter about the havoc
our ignorance and myopia has brought them.
Nobody will be writing books calling us “the
greatest generation.”
As one example of how bad scientific messaging has been, let me go through Gallup
polling over the past decade as discussed in a
2008 article in Environment magazine entitled “A widening gap: Republican and Democratic views on climate change”.
The article reported that in 1997 some
52% of Democrats said that the effects of
global warming had already begun and 52%
said most scientists believe global warming
is occurring. In 2008 some 76% said warming had begun and 75% said most scientists
believe warming is occurring. It would appear that Democrats believe most scientists.
Few leading climate scientists or major
scientific bodies would disagree that the
scientific case that the planet is warming –
and that humans are the dominant cause
of recent temperature rises – has become
stronger in the past 10 years. That is clearly
seen in the scientific literature – as summarized in the IPCC reports.
And yet for Republicans, in 1997 some
48% said warming had begun and 42% said
most scientists believe warming is occurring
– a modest six-point differential. By 2008, the
percentage of Republicans saying the effects
of global warming had already begun had
dropped to a mere 42% (an amazing statistic
in its own right given the painfully obvious
evidence to the contrary). But the percent-
age saying most scientists believe global
warming is occurring had risen to 54% – a
stunning 12-point differential.
In short, a significant and growing number
of Republicans – one in eight as of 2008 –
simply do not believe what they know most
scientists believe. That is quite alarming news,
given that it is inconceivable that the US will
take the very strong action needed to avert
catastrophe unless it comes to believe what
most scientists believe, namely that we are in
big, big trouble and can delay no further.
Here is the lesson for scientists: in the last
decade, we have apparently become less
convincing to Republicans than the deniers
have been. They have apparently become
better at messaging, while we have perhaps
become worse.
In part, this has occurred because there
is an organized disinformation campaign
promoted by conservative think tanks like
the Competitive Enterprise Institute and
well funded by fossil-fuel companies like
ExxonMobil, with key messages repeated by
conservative pundits and politicians like
George Will, Rush Limbaugh and Republican Senator James Inhofe. At the same
time, the media have treated this more as a
