Download AAAS Conference on Promoting Climate Literacy

Survey
yes no Was this document useful for you?
   Thank you for your participation!

* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project

Document related concepts

Joseph J. Romm wikipedia , lookup

Economics of climate change mitigation wikipedia , lookup

Myron Ebell wikipedia , lookup

Low-carbon economy wikipedia , lookup

Climate resilience wikipedia , lookup

Michael E. Mann wikipedia , lookup

German Climate Action Plan 2050 wikipedia , lookup

Soon and Baliunas controversy wikipedia , lookup

2009 United Nations Climate Change Conference wikipedia , lookup

Effects of global warming on human health wikipedia , lookup

Instrumental temperature record wikipedia , lookup

ExxonMobil climate change controversy wikipedia , lookup

Heaven and Earth (book) wikipedia , lookup

Climatic Research Unit email controversy wikipedia , lookup

Climate sensitivity wikipedia , lookup

General circulation model wikipedia , lookup

Climate engineering wikipedia , lookup

Global warming hiatus wikipedia , lookup

Global warming controversy wikipedia , lookup

Climate change adaptation wikipedia , lookup

Economics of global warming wikipedia , lookup

Citizens' Climate Lobby wikipedia , lookup

Mitigation of global warming in Australia wikipedia , lookup

Climate change denial wikipedia , lookup

Fred Singer wikipedia , lookup

Climate governance wikipedia , lookup

Climate change and agriculture wikipedia , lookup

United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change wikipedia , lookup

Physical impacts of climate change wikipedia , lookup

Climatic Research Unit documents wikipedia , lookup

Global warming wikipedia , lookup

Global Energy and Water Cycle Experiment wikipedia , lookup

Solar radiation management wikipedia , lookup

Effects of global warming wikipedia , lookup

Attribution of recent climate change wikipedia , lookup

Climate change feedback wikipedia , lookup

Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme wikipedia , lookup

Climate change in Tuvalu wikipedia , lookup

Climate change in the United States wikipedia , lookup

Politics of global warming wikipedia , lookup

Effects of global warming on humans wikipedia , lookup

Media coverage of global warming wikipedia , lookup

Climate change and poverty wikipedia , lookup

Scientific opinion on climate change wikipedia , lookup

Climate change, industry and society wikipedia , lookup

Business action on climate change wikipedia , lookup

Public opinion on global warming wikipedia , lookup

Surveys of scientists' views on climate change wikipedia , lookup

IPCC Fourth Assessment Report wikipedia , lookup

Transcript
AAAS Conference on Promoting Climate Literacy through Informal Science
February 17-18, 2010 San Diego, CA
Summary of the Situation
American public opinion is shifting in the direction of fewer people believing that climate
change is happening, that humans are causing climate change, that the majority of
scientists agree that climate change is happening and that scientists can be trusted as a
source of information. This shift is very partisan but reflects changes in attitudes among
all age groups. These attitudes are at odds, however, with a continuing willingness by
Americans to support a wide variety of climate change and energy policies. (For more
specifics, see the attached highlighted statistics from public opinion polls.)
The strategies of “naysayers” to climate change are similar to well-organized and wellfunded efforts to discredit the science that connected smoking to lung cancer, acid rain to
negative environmental effects, and the hole in ozone layer to aerosols. They are backed
by influential scientists and exploit basic misunderstandings by the majority of the public
in the role of uncertainty in the scientific process and the process and significance of
consensus in the science community.
The IPCC process is open and transparent, is overseen by governments, and includes
extensive peer and public reviews. By its nature, the process is intellectually
conservative. The most recent report (2007) concluded that “warming of the climate
system is unequivocable and is now evident from many lines of inquiry . . . Most of the
observed increase is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse
gas concentrations.” The report, however, failed to document or predict a number of
recent climate change phenomena such as the accelerated melting of Greenland and
Antarctic icesheets, accelerated melting of glaciers and ice caps; rapid Arctic sea ice
decline, changes in ocean temperatures, heat content, salinity, acidity, and oxygen; and
the likelihood of a 1 meter sea level rise by 2100 (higher than IPCC prediction). The
Copenhagen Diagnosis, released in late 2009, summarized the more recent science and
also addressed the urgency of action in reducing CO2 emissions in relation to tipping
points and irreversible changes.
Advice to Informal Science Educators to Promote Climate Literacy

Do not assume that scientific information about climate change will lead to
rational choices or behavior change,or that more science will be more effective.

We don’t have time to increase science literacy for everyone before we engage
people in climate change mitigation and adaptation. The urgency of the situation
requires motivating people to buy into common values and inspiring and building
the movement for action.

Know your audience. Incorporate social and learning sciences in your approach
i.e., where is your audience on the “6 Americas” spectrum of “alarmed” to
“dismissive” on climate change?
o For those who don’t believe that climate change is happening, select the
most compelling evidence which includes basic principles of physics and
chemistry. Again, more science and more complex science will likely not
be convincing to people who are unconvinced about climate change as a
reality.
o Few people understand that science is by nature provisional and that
modern science, in particular, is a collective enterprise which validates
ideas supported by a body of evidence judged by a jury of scientific peers.
Teach how science works and the process by which scientific knowledge
is established. Promote the importance of knowing a scientist’s or
layperson’s expertise before trusting their conclusions or statements.
o For people in the “alarmed” and “concerned” categories (and the ones you
convert from the other categories), they want to know what they can do.
Find meaningful things for them to do, e.g., citizen science. (This is new
ground for many educators in zoos and aquaria, but “knowledge to action”
has a long history in environmental education.)
o Framing is required to engage visitors at the level of broad-based values
such as public health, a healthy economy, quality of life, clean water, and
clean air.

Provide relevance. “What does it mean to you?” is an important frame. Calibrate
data to the visitors’ frame of reference, e.g., what does a 2 degree rise in global
temperature or a 1 meter sea level rise mean in consequences they would be
familiar with? (e.g, effects of Katrina on the sea level of New Orleans, decline in
the Sierra snowpack, loss of habitat for wildlife).

The adventure of climate science is an effective frame provided it involves
excited human beings in delivery.

Although melting ice is a logical and thus believable consequence of global
warming, polar regions and melting ice are not persuasive frames for most
Americans because they perceived them as geographically remote. Similarly,
polar wildlife, like walrus and polar bears, are likely perceived as socially remote
by most people (although zoo animals may serve effectively as ambassadors).

When using visuals, especially television or videos, consider that the visceral
experience of potential impacts with powerful images can overwhelm a sense of
empowerment.

“Gloom and doom” is ineffective; good characters, action, and an interesting
narrative are all needed for a video or television story.

It’s important to acknowledge fear and offer hope.

Scientists and science educators are needed in the role of credible neutral
“explainers” about climate change who help people understand choices, including
broad, realistic energy choices (vs. nifty ideas).

Personal choice is an effective focus for exhibits and programs because energy
efficiency is the “low hanging fruit” of emission reductions and everyone can be
encourage to become a “first responder.” It is much more difficult to promote
behavior change from a focus on climate science given the constraints of time that
most visitors spend at an informal education facility.

Working with schools requires knowledge of their standards-based framework.
Time available for professional development is often limited by other demands.
For information about how to scaffold age-relevant topics to lead to an
understanding of higher-level climate and climate change concepts, refer to the
atlas that AAAS has developed as part of Project 2061.

Be a model. Implement green practices related to reducing emissions throughout
your institution and programs. Use extended experiences like camps to promote
conservation behaviors.

Evaluating the success of a climate literacy program requires that you have a clear
understanding of what you expect the visitor to take away in terms of knowledge
or what you expect in terms of behavior change.

Addressing climate literacy will require networks of people throughout the world.
Network with other informal science educators and work together to design your
climate change activities and outreach to help visitors move through the entire
infrastructure of informal education about climate change in your area.
Some important statistics and information:
CO2 emissions have increased 41% since 1990. The increase in the rate of emissions
during the period 2000-2009 was 3%/year (up from 1%/year
1990-99).
The average global temperature has had a steady linear upward trend from 1980-2009
at a rate of .2 deg. C/decade (3.6 deg. F.). Two degrees is the predicted rise in global
average temperature that could be stabilized if CO2 emission rates were halved by
2050 compared to 1990.
Sea level is now rising at a rate at the high end of the 2007 IPCC prediction and the
rate is increasing. No estimate of melt rates for the Greenland and Antarctic icesheets
was available for incorporation into models before the 2007 report was completed.
It’s now clear from measurements of changes in the mass balance of these icesheets
that sea level is rising faster than can be accounted for by the thermal expansion of a
warmer ocean.
Arctic sea ice has been identified as one of several “tipping points” in terms of the
global climate.
For More Information:
Speaker bios and conference presentations are available online at
http://www.project2061.org/events/meetings/climate2010/speakers
Merchants of Doubt by Naomi Oreskes, the conference keynote speaker, was recently
published.
Climate Change in the American Mind: Americans’ Global Warming Beliefs and
Attitudes, a series of polls on American attitudes toward climate change and
mitigating measures related to climate change and energy policy and lifestyle choices
by Yale University and George Mason University
http://www.climatechangecommunication.org/ . The reports include the 2006 study of
the “Six Americas” and a 2010 update.
The Copenhagen Diagnosis report can be downloaded at
http://www.copenhagendiagnosis.org.
Attachment 1. Selected statistics from public opinion polls of American attitudes
about climate change
Public Knowledge and Attitudes [Presented at a panel at the AAAS Conference on
Promoting Climate Literacy through Informal Science with membersLeah Christian,
Pew Research Center; Anthony Leiserowitz, Yale University Project on Climate
Change; and Jean Johnson, Public Agenda. Survey results below are from the 2009
American Public Agenda Pool, Pew Research Foundation (2001-2009) and the Yale
Climate Change Project (2008,2010)] For a series of reports on surveys done by the
Yale University and George Mason University, Climate Change in the American
Mind: Americans’ Global Warming Beliefs and Attitudes, go to the webpage of the
Center for Climate Change Communication at George Mason University:
http://www.climatechangecommunication.org/








Americans are ignorant about energy sources and climate change (4 out of 10 people
can’t name a fossil fuel, 6 out of 10 people can’t name a renewable energy source, 56%
believe that nuclear energy causes global warming, 32% believe that solar energy causes
global warming, only 54% believe that driving cars and trucks contributes to global
warming.)
Climate change is a low priority issue for the American public (#21 since 2001),
especially with recent economic concerns.
Attitudes about global warming and trust in scientists is polarized on partisan lines.
Belief that global warming is happening and is caused by human actions has declined
since 2006.
The belief that scientists agree that it is happening declined significantly after
“climategate.
Many people are not engaged with the issue. (55% knew “nothing about cap-andtrade, 30% knew “a little,” and 14% knew “a lot.” When asked what “cap and trade
referred to, 23% chose “energy and the environment;” of the choices made by the
other 77%, 11% said “health care.)
Despite this lack of knowledge and declining belief, broad support for energy policies
to reduce emissions persist. (50% favor setting limits on CO2 emissions, 82% favor
funding for wind and solar energy, 70% favor funding for mass transit, 73% say that
even if gas prices are lower, we still need to develop alternative energy.
The Yale project characterized the potential audiences into, “the Six Americas:”
http://www.climatechangecommunication.org/images/files/SixAmericasJan2010.pdf
The Alarmed (18% in 2009, 10% in 2010) – high knowledge, highest belief, most
motivated to act, “What can I do?”
The Concerned (33% in 2009, 29% in 2010) – may have high knowledge but it is still a
distant threat
The Cautious (19% in 2009, 27% in 2010)
The Disengaged (12% in 2009, 6% in 2010) “I don’t know.”
The Doubtful (11% in 2009, 13% in 2010)
The Dismissive (7% in 2009, 16% in 2010) – high knowledge, lowest belief, low
motivation, hard-core, often-vocal naysayers
Panel members thought the shift towards less belief in climate change and engagement
in solutions was due to the emphasis on the poor economy, media coverage, and a
concerted backlash against Congressional actions. More highly-educated Republicans
believe less in global warming and correct answers about the causes.