Climate Change: the State of the Debate Alex Evans
December 19, 2007 | More on Climate and resource scarcity, Influence and networks | 2 comments
David and I are publishing a report today entitled “Climate Change: the State of the Debate“. It’s essentially intended to catalyse a deeper discussion about why climate change has become a big political issue; what’s driving awareness of it among diverse publics; whether climate change will stay high on the agenda; and how future perceptions of the issue might evolve. It does not try to set out definitive answers to these questions, but instead explores questions of who influences whom in the global conversation about climate change.
The report, published by CIC’s Climate Change and Global Public Goods program, forms part of the London Accord, a major climate change research initiative which launches today (Wednesday 19 December), and which involves organisations including ABN AMRO, Credit Suisse First Boston, Merrill Lynch, Morgan Stanley, BP and the Corporation of London.
The paper begins with a survey of the history of public perceptions of climate change since 1900, arguing that these perceptions have much deeper roots than is often realised: Time magazine ran a cover story on the idea of a warming world as long ago as 1939, for instance. The history section also stresses that perceptions of climate change have always been subject to peaks of interest followed by subsequent declines, and a constant ebb-and-flow of public attention. Above all, the history of climate change shows that perceptions of the issue are by no means driven only – or even primarily – by facts, evidence and rational argument: images, narratives, relationships and values matter at least as much.
Section two of the paper looks at a sample of recent polling data in an attempt to discover whether perceptions of climate change really did reach a ‘tipping point’ during 2006, as many media commentators believe. While opinion polls do appear to show a global public consensus that climate change is real, urgent and driven at least in part by human activity, the perceptions of what needs to be done – and by whom – are much less clear-cut. As well as examining polling data, section two explores the findings of qualitative research methods, which suggest that instead of attempting to understand ‘public opinion’ about climate change, it is essential to realise that there are diverse publics involved in the issue – all with different ‘prisms’ or ‘frames’ through which evidence, facts, arguments and discussions are filtered.
The paper concludes that while climate change may have reached a tipping point of sorts in 2006 as far as perceptions of the problem are concerned, the same definitely cannot be said for perceptions of the solution. So far, we lack answers to fundamental questions such as which solutions will be favoured; who will back them and who will resist them; how much they will cost; and what benefits they are likely to deliver. As we argue, the direction of this debate will depend on how deep public concern is, and on whether what people ‘want’ (either consciously, or as expressed by their behaviour) in different countries diverges or converges.
So before any actor – whether government, investor or advocate – can seek to influence the climate debate effectively, it is essential to understand the drivers of that debate. For deal makers, knowledge and information about the politics of climate change is itself a global public good: the lack of clarity favours those who would prefer inaction. Here, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change provides a model. Just as the IPCC has informed and then stabilised the ‘problem debate’, so we now need a similar knowledge bank on the perceptions and politics that make up and drive the solutions debate.
We also conclude that governments and businesses face huge political and financial risks as they navigate the climate debate. At present, their actions are based on vague, and mostly intuitive, views of what is driving change. Many professionals assume they know more than they do, or that climate change is basically a scientific and technical problem. This view is mistaken – and now is an especially good time to correct it. The push for a replacement for the Kyoto Protocol is now beginning in earnest. This will place stress on existing beliefs, force apart current coalitions, and create the circumstances for new ones to be born. That’s why it’s now time to understand, study and track the state of the climate change debate.
Delicious
Rss
Twitter - David Steven
It seems to me that technological solutions will be ineffective without a social movement to support them. Hybrid cars are all very well, but if people aren’t willing to spend a bit extra to buy one, they won’t make much difference to the weather. Similarly, taxes and regulations may be good ideas, but politicians won’t implement them unless public pressure forces them to. We need a new political compact, a new civil rights or anti-slavery movement. This is not a problem that can be left to politicians and scientists to solve – it’s time to trigger social change too.
There is no more “hockeystick graphs”, polar bears are doing exceptionally fine, sealevel forecasts have been “corrected” from Gore’s meters, to inches till 2100, hottest temperatures where not 1998, mediaval temperatures were warmer than today’s, and they had no SUV’s and I could go on and on about the serious fallacies of the ICCP’s reports, of course based on new peer reviewed research, showing UN’s unethical and criminal behaviour to get to their pre-determined problem/solution at any cost. The tide is clearly turning in favor of the so-called “deniers”, comparing any skeptic as a holocaust denier. The mass media, complicit in the propaganda of the end of world scare mongering, should be a little more balanced by listening to both sides of the arguments. But my hope of that happening is rather naive, so, lets keep those unfunded skeptics prove it online.