4/8/14, "Global Warming Scare Tactics," NY Times op-ed, b
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." via Climate Depot
==========================
==========================
.
