There is a growing body of research into the social psychological constructs of environmentally relevant group behavior and perceptions. Egalitarians, defined as people with political and social view that emphasis justice and equality, as well as, Solidarists defined as people with communitarian political and social values are significantly more concerned about climate change than are Hierarchists and Individualists.”(Sunstein, 2007. pp546). Hierarchists are defined generally as people that emphasis a striving for excellence and accept stratification within society . Individualists are defined as people who emphasis freedom and are suspicious of governmental intervention. These latter groups have socio-political values and views that cast many of the social, economic and cultural ills of the United States over the past four decades as due to the political agendas of “Egalitarian and Solidarist.” Hierarchists and individualists tend to be republican, conservative or libertarian and have a dim view of governmental social engineering. Their emotional motivation and group biases have made them resistant or skeptical to climatic data and its implications. The concept of human induced global warming threatens their economic world view and the remedies suggested involve considerable governmental regulations. To overcome these biases this paper proposes that arguments about climate change be framed instead as economic development opportunities.
Sociology of Climate Skeptics
In the United States, only half the population thinks global warming is caused by human activity. One in three people believe that global warming is caused by natural cyclic changes (Leiserowitz et al, 2010). In a study of climate skepticism undertaking in the UK, older individuals from lower socio-economic background with conservative views were more likely to express skepticism. The study also showed high levels of skepticism among people who were politically disengaged (Poortinga, et al 2011, pp 1022). Most were white males. Skepticism was found to be highest in the older demographics. This confirms early studies, (Sunstein 2007, Leiserowitz, 2005) that those with conservative hierarchical values and worldviews are more likely to be climate skeptics. Poortinga suggests that one major cause for their skepticism is that economic concerns, such as jobs overshadow environmental issues. The increase in the percentage of those expressing climate skepticism grew in groups hardest hit by the financial collapse of 2008, particularly white males of the lower and middle socio economic strata. He postulates that similar economic fears skew increased skepticism in the older demographics. One conclusion that can be drawn from these studies is that remedies to combat global warming and other environmental issues are seen by climate skeptics as a threat to the economic security. This is conclusion is further supported by the work of Bibbings, 2004; Norton and Leaman 2004 that shows once basic material needs are met “post-materialistic” values such as climate change and protection of the environment become more important.
Political and Cultural Undercurrents of Climate Change
Skepticism of varying degrees is found to be highest in middle aged and older white males classified in the Six Americas study as the “Doubtful” and the “Dismissive (Leiserowitz et al, 2008). These groups have the highest participation in church attendance professional, trade and business groups.
The climate skeptic groups characterized as “Unconcerned”, “Doubtful” and “Dismissive” no longer trust the mainstream “liberal” media and come from every economic and educational background. Economic insecurity is thus only one aspect of climate skepticism. Many well paid and well educated males also hold these views. In comparison those acknowledging climate change, as caused by human activity characterized as the “Alarmed” and “Concerned” skew heavily to female Egalitarian and Solidarist. “Alarmed” are best characterized as largely female global warming activists who see the immediate need for concerted action to reverse warming. “Concerned” are mostly women who believe global warming is happening and action is required, but they do not feel personally threatened.
There is a gender divide between men and women on the issue of climate change.
In a socio-political context women have benefited greatly due to societal changes over the last four decades. More women than men go to college, many laws and provisions have been made for the benefits of women’s health and progress. These advances have to some extent been gained at the expense of men. The high paying manufacturing jobs of the past have been replaced by white collar informational jobs. Women with their superior social interaction skills have succeed in rising up the corporate ranks. As political journalist David Kuhn noted in “The Neglected Voter”, the advances of women and other groups rights not only excluded white
males but alienated them. Feminist and writer Caitlin Finnegan put it succinctly; “In the middle of doing the great work of the 60s, civil rights, women’s liberation, gay inclusion- we decided to stigmatize the white male. The union dues paying, church going, beer drinking family man got nothing but ridicule and venom from us. So he dumped us.” (Kuhn, “The Neglected Voter”, Palgrave Macmillian, 2007).
This can be seen in voting patterns since 1980. No Democratic candidate has received more than 49% of the male vote in Presidential elections. Only 28 out of 100 white male voters are Democrats, a drop of 25 points since 1948. In 2004 Democrats lost 26 of 28 States with the lowest per capita income. Republicans won 19 of 20 States with the lowest median income (Kuhn, 2007). Global warming has been largely accepted by Democrats, it is seen as a Democratic platform supported mostly by women and liberals. It is very difficult for skeptics to separate the issue of climate change from the messengers and their perceived biases.
The psychological judgment heuristic described as attribute substitution ( Kahneman , 2003 pp707) is a useful way to understand the skeptics. When data about climate change is presented to skeptics of climate change an Affect heuristic ties that data in the minds of skeptics with antagonistic liberal social engineering and hot button social issues.
The Challenges of Skepticism
There are differences in the types of skepticism; trend skeptics who deny there is such a thing as an upward trend in global temperatures, attribution skeptics who accept the world’s climate maybe changing but do not think that it is caused by human activity and impact skeptics who agree that the world’s climate is changing as a result of human activity but do not think it will lead to substantial detrimental impacts. (Fischer, 2011).
The common trait of skeptics is they are in general more egoistic and uncaring for others and are less responsive to policies based on voluntary restrictions. At the same time these groups are the ones most likely to oppose mandatory government policies (Sunstein, 2007). At a deeper level these attitudes are based on perceptions of human behavior (Fisher et al 2011, pp1025). Fischer’s study involving five European countries with different cultures found commonalities characterized as “folk psychology.” The samplings were taken in urban, rural and bigger cities. They were recorded as interviews on people’s perceptions of society in general. Three characteristics recurred in their perceptions. Humans were described as inherently selfish, governed by habit and/or convenience and money was seen as the only factor that could possibly change people’s behavior (Fischer et al, 2011, pp1028-29). At the same time these subjects describe the societal context in their industrialized countries as consumption-orientated and individualized. Fischer concluded based on these “folk psychologies” that no matter how reasonable and technically feasible, if a sufficient minority of individuals believe collective action to be unrealistic they refuse to participate (Fischer et al, 2011,pp1033).
The debate surrounding climate change has polarized the US population based on important and conflicting economic, political cultural, social and gender values. Rational persuasion has been shown to be largely ineffective as skeptics tend to view the data as biased and those delivering it as motivated by self interest. Effective action to sway these skeptics must involve engaging their self interest and must be seen economically advantageous.
Reframing the Proposition
Essentially, overcoming climate change skepticism is a framing issue. Climate change policy and communications have to be transformed into an endeavor to create the new infrastructure
for the 21st century. This not only sparks self interest with the possibility of perceived economic benefit, but it involves employing middle and lower class white males in infrastructure and engineering jobs relieving them of their underlying economic insecurities. Innovation and economic development are seen as spheres of business, not that of government. In practice this is not the case as all major economic action has governmental regulations. But the opportunity and freedom offered by creating businesses in a new sustainable and clean market sector is appealing. At first there is less regulation and governmental interference, as was the case with the development of the internet.
Course of Action
The International Energy Agency projects about $22 trillion of investment will be needed over the 2006-2030 period. (Newell, 2010,pp254). These costs could be reduced by innovative new energy technologies coming online early. To accomplish this there needs to be a large influx of funds into research and development. Since 1980, with the exception of the 2008-9 stimulus package, the amount of money going to alternative energy R&D in the US has dropped over 50% (Newell, 2010, pp254). This downward trend has been due in part to no external costs being assigned to greenhouse gas emissions. There is little or no economic incentive for adopting new technologies to abate GHG emissions. This requires governments to assign a value to the pollution externalities, and instigate a system such as cap and trade. When in place the new technologies have to meet three criteria to win over climate skeptics. First public policy has to stimulate demand, second the research has to have a dramatic effect, to achieve adoption by the private sector, and thirdly, antitrust and intellectual property protection has to be balanced to encourage competition. (Newell, 2010).
The European Union has adopted such an approach. Germany, the Netherlands and the Scandinavian countries represent the vanguard of progressive solutions to climate change. Not only have they an effective political voice in the Green Party, but the Germans, Dutch and others see climate change as a challenge to their engineering prowess. Per capita Germany releases CO2 at a rate about than half that of the US. They are the technological leaders in sustainable engineering. The Mercedes UN Studio near Stuttgart is a net zero building. It is one of many such buildings in Germany; coming online soon are net positive buildings, the buildings will become energy providers. Over 40% of all energy used is by commercial and residential buildings. The Germans have transformed climate change into a positive challenge, a modern day “race to the moon.” A 20% reduction in CO2 from 1990 levels is projected by 2020. A fast growing new energy service business sector has been created. By 2016, according to Cleantech Market Intelligence the industry will be generating $16 billion dollars annually.
The European model highlights a framework for organizational innovations. The first is CCP programs are more quickly adopted if they are within the spatial and administrative proximity to previous adopters (Vasi,2006). Cities located in the same county are significantly more likely to adopt a program, due to the cultural proximity for social contagion. Adoption was fastest when the environmental activities were linked. Empirical analysis by Vasi showed that environmental degradation was a poor predictor of decisions to adopt climate change programs. The major predictors were the new environmental regulations would save money and reduce air pollution. This demonstrates the importance of successful locally based initiatives in changing doubters into believers and spreading positive environmental change.
Conclusion
The Tragedy of The Commons demonstrates the difficulty in getting governments to agree on mandates. The arguments for instituting climate change have to be framed in the economic opportunity for innovation. We have a once in a lifetime opportunity to create a clean post-industrial world.
This change has to happen on a Local, Regional and State level, encouraged by business friendly government standards. It has to be framed in a manner that the press and media can be used as an ally. The message is we are a moving to a cleaner, healthier, wealthier tomorrow, building the infrastructure of the 21 Century
References
Sunstein.,Cass, 2007. On The Divergent American Reactions to Terrorism and Climate Change
Leiserowitz,A.A, Maibach,E.W, Roser-Renouf,C., Smith,N., Dawson,E., 2010. Climategate Opinion and the Loss of Trust
Poortinga,Wouter., Spence,Alex., Lorraine Whitmarsh., Capstick, Stuart., Pidgeon, Nick., 2011 Uncertain climate: An investigation into public skepticism about anthropogenic climate change.
Leiserowitz,A., 2005. American risk perception:is climate change dangerous? Risk Analysis 25, 1433-1442
Leiserowitz,A.A, Maibach,E.W, Roser-Renouf,C., 2008 Global warmings Six Americas
Kuhn, David,. 2007, The Neglected Voter, Palgrave Macmillian
Fisher, A,, Peters, V, Vavra, J, Neebe, M, Megyesi, B,. 2011. Energy use, climate change and folk psychology: Does sustainability have a chance? Results from a qualitative study in five European countries.
Newell, R, 2010. The role of markets and policies in delivering innovation for climate change mitigation.
Vasi,I,. 2006. Organizational Environments, Framing Processes, and the Diffusion of the Program to Address Global Climate Change Among Local Governments in the United States.
Kahneman,D,. 2003. A Perspective on Judgment and Choice.
Copyright 2012
No comments:
Post a Comment