Download HCOL FINAL RESEARCH PAPER!x

RISK PERCEPTIONS AND CLIMATE MOTIVATION
1
Liza Freed
Global climate change has become an issue of growing importance in recent decades.
Drastic changes in global average temperatures, sea level heights, and frequency in extreme
weather events are all indicators that have nearly convinced people that climate change is
occurring. However, arguments regarding the causes of these changes remain inconclusive.
While skeptics of anthropogenic climate change argue that our climate has been changing for
centuries and these fluctuations are just a part of the natural pattern, climate models prove that
our raising temperatures are due to more than just natural forces. A continued reliance on CO2
emitting substances could push temperatures up even higher and lead to many extreme and dire
consequences. Thus, it is essential to understand what propaganda and evidence convinces
people that climate change is anthropogenic and motivates them to take climate action.
While most people are in agreement that climate change is not just an idea dreamt up by
tree-hugging liberals, not all are convinced of what is primarily causing these changes. Many
people attribute the changes to natural patterns that our world cycles through regularly. However,
ample evidence exists that shows the direct effect that CO2 emissions have on our climate.
According to the Environmental Protection Agency, greenhouse gases (like methane, water
vapor, and most importantly CO2) act like a blanket over the atmosphere and trap in heat
(“Climate Change Facts,” 2012). In recent decades, humans have emitted extreme amounts of
CO2 into the atmosphere through fossil fuel consumption, use of electricity, and farming of
agriculture. On their website, the EPA explains that CO2 concentrations “have increased by
almost 40% since pre-industrial times...the current CO2 level is higher than it has been
in...800,000 years” (“Climate Change Facts,” 2012). The EPA goes onto explain that “Earth's
average temperature has risen by 1.4°F over the past century” and they attribute this rise
RISK PERCEPTIONS AND CLIMATE MOTIVATION
2
primarily to anthropogenic effects (“Climate Change Facts,” 2012). It’s nearly indisputable that
human caused emissions account for most (if not all) of the rising temperatures and changing
climate. We must take drastic measures to reduce our carbon emissions, live more sustainably,
and prevent potential harmful consequences.
However, modifying lifestyles is much easier said than done. Humans essentially must
change their entire way of life in order to attempt to reduce our carbon footprint and prevent
further damage. These adaptations and mitigations will require a lot of work, money, and
patience. It is destined that people will be stubborn and challenge these drastic changes when
presented with them.
This obstinacy is the eternal struggle that climate change proponents face today.
While changing our habits is a daunting task, it is our obligation to do something in order to
prevent the dangerous consequences of rising temperatures. Neither ignorance nor laziness are
options when the stakes are this high. It is absolutely necessary to motivate people to take
climate action and to do this, we must determine what existing information in our society gives
people the incentive to care about climate change.
Researchers on the topic have identified the importance of risk perception on climate
change belief and motivation. In this sense, risk perception refers to the extent to which people
are convinced of the dangers of global climate change (“Risk Perception,” 2012) . The amount of
risk perception a person has affects the likeliness that they are going to support or oppose climate
change policies and or take climate action. Essentially, people are inclined to act on fears. Thus,
it is necessary to explore what heightens risk perception.
Researcher Anthony Leiserowitz explores the causes of risk perception in his research
project “Climate Change Risk Perception and Policy Preferences: The Role of Affect, Imagery,
RISK PERCEPTIONS AND CLIMATE MOTIVATION
3
and Values.” Leiserowitz uses a national study of American global climate change risk
perceptions (a mail-back survey completed by a representative sample of the American public) to
understand these relationships and ultimately draws a number of conclusions.
Initially, the relationship between peoples’ climate change awareness and their concern
for its consequences was surprising. Leiserowitz explains that 62% of people acknowledged the
existence of climate change and associated its consequences with “generic increases in
temperature, [and a] separate problem of ozone depletion” (Leiserowitz 2006). These reports
indicate how people are considerably knowledgeable about the effects of climate change.
However, when asked about their anxiety for future effects, the same people had relatively low
concerns about the consequences on their own lives. Most participants only reported concern
about “danger to geographically distant people, places and non-human nature” (Leiserowitz
2006).
Leiserowitz also measures the amount of support that the participants have for actions to
reduce emissions of greenhouse gases. The participants whose values were most consistent with
egalitarianism also most strongly supported national and international climate policies
(Leiserowitz 2006). Conversely, the participants that were classified as pro-individualists and
pro-hierarchists were considerably less in favor of climate policy options that attempt to mitigate
climate change (Leiserowitz 2006). Overall, however, most participants supported at least one of
the governmental actions to reduce emissions or the Kyoto Protocol.
Ironically, while most of the participants involved supported some kind of governmental
climate action, they also firmly opposed higher gas prices. Leiserowitz speaks to this and says
“Americans have not fully confronted the contradiction between their strong support for
greenhouse gas emission reductions and opposition to selected policies that would directly
RISK PERCEPTIONS AND CLIMATE MOTIVATION
4
discourage fossil fuel use by consumers” (Leiserowitz 2006). People like the idea of doing
something to prevent further damage but haven’t fully confronted the dire need to make
sacrifices. While a high number of people are aware of the existence of climate change and are in
support of some policy reforms, most aren’t adequately informed of the intense threat that it
poses to our lives.
Leiserowitz hypothesizes four predictors of risk perception policy preferences among
the American public. These predictors include negative affect, alarming imagery, pro-egalitarian
values, and sociodemographic variables (Leiserowitz 2006). Interestingly, Leiserowitz
determines negative affect, imagery, and pro-egalitarian values to be the strongest predictors of
risk perception and concludes that sociodemographic variables (including political party
identification and ideology) have little to no effect.
This conclusion is valuable because it is traditionally assumed that political party
affiliation has a major effect on a person’s climate action motivation. Right-wing conservatives
are much more likely to be targets of climate change propaganda as this group is stereotyped to
be unconvinced of the dangers of global climate change. However, this evidence indicates that
climate change proponents should spend more of their energy on spreading climate awareness
elsewhere.
Leiserowitz concludes that holistic negative affect is the strongest predictor of global
warming risk perception. It is clear that climate change propaganda would be most effective if it
was designed to target the emotions of the audience. Thus, evocative imagery should be more
frequently implemented in climate change propaganda.
Matthew C. Nisbet expands on the importance of holistic negative affect in his article,
“Why Frames Matter For Public Engagement” (Nisbet 2009). Nisbet refers to Al Gore’s
RISK PERCEPTIONS AND CLIMATE MOTIVATION
documentary, An Inconvenient Truth and discusses the effectiveness that both negative imagery
and affect have when used strategically. Al Gore’s documentary dramatized climate change and
scared audiences of the potential catastrophic effects. Nisbet argues that the buzz that
accumulated around the documentary was due to the way the information was framed (Nisbet
2009).
Framing is the way in which evidence or research is presented. Nisbet emphasizes the
effectiveness of framing and explains that the same piece of research can elicit different
responses when framed in different ways. Nisbet elaborates on this when he discusses the
presentation that author E. O. Wilson gave on climate change to religious leaders (Nisbet 2009).
In his presentation, Wilson emphasized the religious and moral dimensions of climate change
and thus convinced the leaders of its applicability to their respective faiths. Nisbet argues that
Wilson was successful in convincing the leaders because of the way he framed the topic at hand
(Nisbet 2009).
Nisbet’s research demonstrates the effect that framed propaganda can have on the
consumer. When we evaluate the existing information about climate change in the media today,
we find that it is framed in a way that is convincing and elicits a response from the viewer.
However, this coverage is distributed ineffectively and only reaches a small, informed audience
(Nisbet 2009). The coverage should reach those are not yet convinced of the consequences of
climate change in order to target the intended audience.
It is important to understand who these uniformed people are before we move further in
determining how to distribute effective propaganda. Like previously discussed researcher
Anthony Leiserowitz, researcher Robert E. O’Connor et al. (1999) “examines the relationship
between risk perceptions and willingness to address climate change” (p. 461). Unlike
5
RISK PERCEPTIONS AND CLIMATE MOTIVATION
6
Leiserowitz, however, O’Connor et al. focuses more on the demographics of the respondents and
examines the correlations between gender, age, and education to determine risk perceptions of
each group (O’Connor et al., 1999).
O’Connor et al. concludes that women are more likely than men to take voluntary
measures in response to climate change (O’Connor et al., 1999). Conversely, however,
O’Connor et al. (1999) determines that better educated, older men are more likely than women to
support government policies that “impose public sacrifices in order to reduce greenhouse gas
emissions” (p. 469). Information like this helps us determine which demographics should be
targeted for climate propaganda.
All of these results suggest the need for major modifications regarding the distribution of
climate change propaganda. The significant effects of risk perception are clear and we should use
this research to alter existing information to be as effective as possible. We also must make sure
climate change information is distributed to more people, framed in a strategic and effective way,
uses holistic negative affect, and targets the correct demographic. A combination of these
variables will help us create effective climate change propaganda that can hopefully prevent a
dangerous future.
RISK PERCEPTIONS AND CLIMATE MOTIVATION
Works Cited
Leiserowitz, A. (2006). Climate Change Risk Perception and Policy Preferences: The Role of
Affect Imagery and Values. The Yale Climate & Energy Institute. Retrieved from
http://climate.yale.edu/publications
Nisbet, M. C. (2009). Communicating Climate Change: Why Frames Matter for Public
Engagement, Environment: Science and Policy for Sustainable Development.
Environment Magazine, 51:2, 12-23. Retrieved from
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.3200/ENVT.51.2.12-23
7
RISK PERCEPTIONS AND CLIMATE MOTIVATION
No listed author. (2012). Climate change facts: Answers to common questions. Retrieved from
http://epa.gov/climatechange/facts.html
O’Connor, R.E., Bord, R. J., Fischer, A. (1999). Risk Perceptions, General Environmental
Beliefs, and Willingness to Address Climate Change. Society for Risk Analysis.
Retrieved from http://www.peccuv.mx/
Risk Perception. Retreived December 13, 2012 from the Risk Perception Wiki:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Risk_perception
8