Understanding Environmental Attitudes: The Case of Climate Change

1. Understanding Environmental Attitudes: The Case of Climate Change Nick Pidgeon School of Psychology, Cardiff University ESRC Professorial Climate Change Fellow Institute of Biology Meeting Valuing our Life Support Systems London, April 2009

2. Saturday 19 February 2005

3. ‘Dangerous’ Climate Change Introduced in UNFCCC 1992 – objective of policy is to avoid dangerous anthropogenic interference Danger involves risk and uncertainty as measured by science But also societal values e.g. about severity of consequences about acceptability of options (risks, benefits, costs) for addressing risk hence perceptions matter

4. Projected Impacts of Climate Change (source Stern 2006) Global temperature change (relative to pre-industrial) 0°C 1°C 2°C 3°C 4°C 5°C Food Falling crop yields in many areas, particularly developing regions Falling yields in many developed regions Possible rising yields in some high latitude regions Water Significant decreases in water availability in many areas, including Mediterranean and Southern Africa Small mountain glaciers disappear – water supplies threatened in several areas Sea level rise threatens major cities Ecosystems Extensive Damage to Coral Reefs Rising number of species face extinction Extreme Weather Events Rising intensity of storms, forest fires, droughts, flooding and heat waves Risk of Abrupt and Major Irreversible Changes Increasing risk of dangerous feedbacks and abrupt, large-scale shifts in the climate system 4

5. Changing attitudes towards the environment (see Ipsos-Mori, Turning Point or Tipping Point, 2007)

6. Mental Models Early work (1990s) on mental models of ‘global warming’ found: People understand some of the impacts (melting glaciers, hotter summers) Confused ‘climate change’ with ‘variation in weather’ And had an imperfect grasp of the causes, and what could be done (e.g. thought the hole in the ozone layer, or nuclear power were causes), think recycling is an appropriate response Might lead to inappropriate behaviors (stop using spray deodorants, oppose nuclear power, consider recycling as a response is sufficient) See Kempton (1991; Bostrom et al 1994)

7. Attitude and Perception Studies People in Europe and North America Do see it as ‘risky’ – but not as pressing as other social or environmental issues Some still think the science is uncertain A distant problem affecting other people and times Cross-national variation (e.g. Southern vs Northern Europe). Attitudes can be based upon wider political beliefs (e.g. USA) Think others are responsible for taking action NO SINGLE PUBLIC! see Lorenzoni and Pidgeon (2006) Climatic Change, 77, 73-95.

8. How important are these issues to you? (Base GB, 1547, 2002) Scale: 1= Not at all important, 5 = Very important

9. Do you think the world’s climate is changing, or not? (2005, n=1491) 91% Yes 4% No 5% Don’t know What do you think is causing the world’s climate to change? (%)

10. ‘Which one, if any, of these do you think should be mainly responsible for taking action against climate change?’ (n=1491, 2005, Source Poortinga, Pidgeon and Lorenzoni, 2006)People see others as responsible. Also sets a dilemma as people also tend not to trust these institutional actors.

11. Climate Risk Governance ‘Trap’. People are concerned about climate change, but see politicians and policy makers as primarily responsible hence are not impelled to act. In addition trust in these institutional actors is low In turn politicians want people to act, while at the same time see the electoral cycle as a reason to not impose what they see as unpopular environmental measures Resolving the perceptions on both side of this argument, and in a way that does not erode confidence and trust further, will be critical

12. US Beliefs on Media Reporting by Political Party (Gallup Polls)Source: Dunlap & McCright, 2008, Environment.

13. Understand Barriers to Engaging With Climate ChangeLorenzoni, Whitmarsh and Nicholson-Cole, Global Env Change, 2007 Lack of knowledge Uncertainty and Scepticism Distrust in Information Sources Externalising Responsibility Distant Threat A Marginal Threat Fatalism and Helplessness Lack of Political Action Lack of Business Action Worry about Free-riders Social Expectations (to consume) Lack of Enabling Initiatives (+ ‘Rebound Effects’)

14. 2007 Summer Floods Floods across large parts of Southern and Northern England in summer (June, July, August) of 2007 “In terms of scale, complexity and duration, this is simply the largest peacetime emergency we’ve seen.” 55,000 properties flooded. Around 7,000 people were rescued from the flood waters by the emergency services and 13 people Largest loss of essential services since World War II, with almost half a million people without mains water or electricity. Insurance industry pay out over £3 billion (Pitt Report, 2007)

15. Behaviour Change - Approaches Understand and Target Barriers to Change Recognise different ‘publics’ Target Behaviours which BOTH Make a Difference (e.g. improve energy efficiency) and are Low Cost for Individuals Downstream and Upstream Interventions

16. Acknowledgements Website - www.understanding-risk.org PidgeonN@Cf.ac.uk

17. Most Effective Actions (Gardner & Stern, 2008)

18. References – I(Key readings indicated by *) Evidence for Climate Change Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Fourth Assessment Report (2007). Climate Change 2007: Synthesis Report. Cambridge: CUP. (available on Web) Stern, N (2006) The Economics of Climate Change. Cambridge: CUP. (available on Web) Plus – a very concise readable little book: Emanuel, K. (2007) What We Know about Climate Change. Cambridge Mass: MIT Press. Mental Models and Images of Global Warming *Bostrom, A., Morgan, M.G., Fischhoff, B. and Read, D.: 1994, ‘What do people know about global climate change? 1. Mental models’, Risk Analysis,14(6), 959-970. Stern, P. C. (1992). Psychological dimensions of global environmental change. Annual Review of Psychology, 43, 269-302. Kempton, W. (1991). Lay perspectives on global climate change. Global Environmental Change: Human and Policy Dimensions, 1, 183-208. *Lorenzoni, I., Doria, M.F. et al (2006) Cross-national comparisons of image associations with 'global warming' and 'climate change' among laypeople in the United States of America and Great Britain. Journal of Risk Research, 9(3), 265-281.

19. References – II (Key readings - *) Attitude Studies and Surveys *Lorenzoni, I. and Pidgeon, N.F (2006) Public views on climate change: European and USA perspectives. Climatic Change, 77, 73-95. Poortinga W., Pidgeon, N.F. and Lorenzoni, I. (2006)Public Perceptions of Nuclear Power, Climate Change and Energy Options in Britain: Summary Findings of a Survey Conducted during October and November 2005. Technical Report (Understanding Risk Working Paper 06-02). Norwich: Centre for Environmental Risk. (this report is available from NP or WP) Dunlap, R.E. & McCright, A.M. (2008) Environment, V50(5), 26-35. Pidgeon, N.F., Lorenzoni, I. and Poortinga, W. (2008) Climate change or nuclear power - no thanks! A quantitative study of public perceptions and risk framing in Britain. Global Environmental Change, 18, 69-85. * Downing, P. and Ballantyne, J. (2007) Tipping Point or Turning Point?Ipsos-Mori Social Research Institute. (Available on Web) Media Reporting Carvalho, A and Burgess, J. (2005) Cultural circuits of climate change in the UK broadsheet newspapers 1985-2003. Risk Analysis, 25(6), 1457-1469. Boykoff, M. (2007) Flogging a dead norm? Newspaper coverage of anthropogenic climate change in the United States and United KIngdon for 2003-2006. Area, 93(4), 470-481. Behaviour Change *Lorenzoni, I., Nicholson-Cole, S. and Whitmarsh, L. (2007) Barriers perceived to engaging with climate change among the UK public and their policy implications. Global Environmental Change, 17, pp. 445-459. Gardner, G.T. and Stern, P.C. (2008) The most effective actions US households can take to curb climate change. Environment, V50(5), 12-24. *Spence, A., Pidgeon, N.F. and Uzzell, D. (2009) Climate change – psychology’s contribution. The Psychologist, 22(2), 108-111.

20. Interventions Upstream and Downstream(see Spence, Pidgeon, Uzzell, 2009) Health Psychology makes a distinction between: Downstream intervention (change attitudes) Upstream intervention (structural or enabling changes which remove barriers to desired behaviour)