What I've Done and Taking Suggestions

I remember when John F. Kennedy became our President, and I was very young with the future in front of me, he ushered in a rush of pride, participation, patriotism, and great enthusiasm for who we were and what we could all accomplish together. He gave us a feeling of wanting to contribute and help make this world a better place. And many of us tried to do just that...
How wonderful it would be to have that again, someone or something to inspire us all to help make our planet habitable, safe, and peaceful.
And this in large part was, and can be, because of a communication that came across, was understood, and embraced by people.

imo the biggest obstacle to engaging the public with GW is that so far science has only got as far as 'Houston we have a problem', and when the facts are so depressing it's no surprise that lots of people prefer to look the other way or listen to other people who tell them it's not really happening. What we need is answers: should we build more nuclear power stations for domestic electricity generation, or not? When are renewables going to become cheaper and more reliable? Should we use more biofuels, or will they make the problems worse? Will living a green lifestyle always be a) boring or b) expensive? The pledges LiveEarth attenders were supposed to make sum up the problem in a nutshell - every commentator I heard dismissed them as effectively meaningless. Science doesn't need to wake people up, it needs to come up with a clear, simple and effective plan of action and then repeat it ad nauseum until the public can recite it by heart. THE PRESENTATION IS NOT THE PROBLEM!!

I think I've linked to Sterman and Sweeney's work here before, but what the heck (abstracts pasted below; pdfs of the full papers are available at the linked pages). The title of the first one neatly sums up the problem. People in the sciences are probably unable to even comprehend this gap in understanding other than intellectually. I've begun to suspect that there may be genetic differences at the root of it.

What it probably means for climate change is that there's no substitute for just continuing to beat our heads against the wall. :(

A little more usefully, while it's probably the case that it would be an exercise in frustration to try to directly educate the public about stocks and flows, if they are given a view of the whole system most people probably can see that the rising water in the draining bathtub ultimately will overflow. The climate change equivalent of this is perhaps to emphasize progress toward those tipping points about which we have reasonable certainty, but the difficulty with that in turn is that most scientists are trained to dislike being "alarmist" in that way. They're also going to need to talk more about solutions, which for most is even harder.

I think Jim Hansen's recent writings for the general public demonstrate that he understands the problem perfectly. We need more scientists to step out and do what he's doing.

Understanding Public Complacency About Climate Change:
Adults' mental models of climate change violate conservation of matter (2007)

Abstract: Public attitudes about climate change reveal a contradiction. Surveys show most Americans believe climate change poses serious risks but also that reductions in greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions sufficient to stabilize atmospheric GHG concentrations or net radiative forcing can be deferred until there is greater evidence that climate change is harmful. US policymakers likewise argue it is prudent to wait and see whether climate change will cause substantial economic harm before undertaking policies to reduce emissions. Such wait-and-see policies erroneously presume climate change can be reversed quickly should harm become evident, underestimating substantial delays in the climate's response to anthropogenic forcing. We report experiments with highly educated adults-graduate students at MIT-showing widespread misunderstanding of the fundamental stock and flow relationships, including mass balance principles, that lead to long response delays. GHG emissions are now about twice the rate of GHG removal from the atmosphere. GHG concentrations will therefore continue to rise even if emissions fall, stabilizing only when emissions equal removal. In contrast, results show most subjects believe atmospheric GHG concentrations can be stabilized while emissions into the atmosphere continuously exceed the removal of GHGs from it. These beliefs-analogous to arguing a bathtub filled faster than it drains will never overflow-support wait-and-see policies but violate conservation of matter. Low public support for mitigation policies may be based more on misconceptions of climate dynamics than high discount rates or uncertainty about the risks of harmful climate change.

Cloudy Skies:
Assessing Public Understanding of Global Warming (2002)

Abstract: Surveys show most Americans believe global warming is real. But many advocate delaying action until there is more evidence that warming is harmful. The stock and flow structure of the climate, however, means "wait and see" policies guarantee further warming. Atmospheric CO2 concentration is now higher than any time in the last 420,000 years, and growing faster than any time in the past 20,000 years. The high concentration of CO2 and other greenhouse gases (GHGs) generates significant radiative forcing that contributes to warming. To reduce radiative forcing and the human contribution to warming, GHG concentrations must fall. To reduce GHG concentrations, emissions must fall below the rate at which GHGs are removed from the atmosphere. Anthropogenic CO2 emissions are now roughly double the removal rate, and the removal rate is projected to fall as natural carbon sinks saturate. Emissions must therefore fall by more than half even to stabilize CO2 at present record levels. Such reductions greatly exceed the Kyoto targets, while the Bush administration's Clear Skies Initiative calls for continued emissions growth. Does the public understand these physical facts? We report experiments assessing people's intuitive understanding of climate change. We presented highly educated graduate students with descriptions of greenhouse warming drawn from the IPCC's nontechnical reports. Subjects were then asked to identify the likely response to various scenarios for CO2 emissions or concentrations. The tasks require no mathematics, only an understanding of stocks and flows and basic facts about climate change. Overall performance was poor. Subjects often select trajectories that violate conservation of matter. Many believe temperature responds immediately to changes in CO2 emissions or concentrations. Still more believe that stabilizing emissions near current rates would stabilize the climate, when in fact emissions would continue to exceed removal, increasing GHG concentrations and radiative forcing. Such beliefs support wait and see policies, but violate basic laws of physics. We discuss implications for education and public policy.

I don't think it'd be effective if we 'teach' the public about global warming or climate change the way we teach science to kids in schools, purely intellectual understanding. People need to understand the impact in relation to their daily lives. I live in the south east Asia regions and the summer heat this year has been unbearably high. Those of us, however, who work inside the buildings with the air-con don't notice that. But the street people, for example, those who clean up the streets, they told the local reporter that they almost suffocate from the heat. The blue colloar workers, the low income earners, they are the one who are directly suffering from the climate change effects. We people, especially the intellectuals, the scientist don't have to work on the streets to earn a living, and so do the many other people who enjoy an average or above living style. This is perhaps why we are not as eager or feel as urgent to solve the problems because we still have the option to quickly skip back to our office or home equipped with air-con when the heat becomes unbearable outside. Unless we grow the empathy towards the suffering of those who are immeidately impacted by the climate change, like the people who lost their lives and homes due to floods and tsunamis, I can't see how individuals can take these issues to heart and be motivated to do something.

As the public awareness of GW gets stronger and denial doesn't work as well anymore, opponents move on to the new mantras of "OK, but we can't do anything about it," or "If we try, it will devastate the economy." We need to be ready to demonstrate that we can do something, and it will probably help the economy (at least in the long run).

Fortunately, many people have been working very hard on this and the solutions are out there. All the technology is probably not in place yet, but there's plenty to get started and the rest will come with a little investment in "American ingenuity."

The key is that people have to be made to realize that there is no ONE solution that will fix things. There are a broad range of solutions, ALL of which must be done together to get a handle on this thing. That makes it harder to "market," but we'll just have to keep working on it. Two recent attempts to put together such packages are at EnergizeAmerica and GlobalWarmingSolution.Org.

Other general "solutions" links:
Union of Concerned Scientists
The Heat Is Online: Solutions
Pew Center on Global Climate Change
Climate Solutions

Unfortunately (given who we have to work with right now) the solution is in our political leadership. We've got plenty of good scientific voices, celebrity voices, activist voices pointing us in the right direction. But the politicians control the pursestrings and have the bully pulpit.

We need leadership in turning around carbon emissions on many fronts. We need leadership in preparing our most vulnerable regions and populations for climate impact. We need the JFK-like leader who will (like Al Gore) explain clearly what we are going to do, why we're gonna do it, and how it will affect us in both the short and long runs.

The denial cabal has effectively confused the public and only a strong and credible leader can get us beyond this public opinion stalemate. Of course, such a strong leader will be vilified by the same people who still have confidence in George W. Bush, but the prospects for a flooded Manhattan, a destroyed Miami, a burning Oregon, a water-starved Phoenix will prove to be persuasive.

So right now, get politically active.

Replies on both threads call for better communication, engagement in politics, creative solutions that give reason for hope, a unified voice, and most importantly strong leadership on environmental issues.

Okay, we've recognized what's needed...now let's get started.

There may be a cultural "respect" factor to take into consideration. For me, individuals or organizations that make the world a worse place, I don't respect them. Vice-versa for those that make the world a better place.

Global Warming presently being humanity's #1 extinction threat, those that behave in a responsible manner earn my respect. Also: never voting Republican ever again, will help.

Jonathan Vause:
You seem to be laboring under the misapprehension that "presentation is not the problem". Please read Mr. Bloom's post.

I run a bookstore. It could truthfully be said that I read for a living; this would be far more true than calling what I do 'taking money in exchange for books'. So when I tell you that, despite my voracious reading appetite, one look at Mr. Bloom's post sent me immediately on to the next page almost before I noticed what I was doing. (Yes, eventually I did slog through it.)

Presentation IS the problem. Try to remember that half of the population of this country is below average -- and they vote.

So what we need to do is to present the facts in a way people can understand. Example: Tom Hanks comes on the screen and says, "Every time you drive to the corner store, the world comes half a second closer to thermal extinction due to global warming. Do your part." (The more you know...)

OK; so the numbers are off. But I'm sure we can find something equally stirring to promote recycling, carpooling, the bicycle... everything the people ought to be doing. Much of our problem isn't apathy; it's ignorance.
-John the Gnerphk

I agree. Presentation is the problem. How are you going to reach that below average half, when "Environmentalism" has been framed as the pursuit of treehugging girly-men? It's difficult to rationally address issues once they've been linked to sexual identity. Throwing Science at brainwashed people is not effective (those Eggheads are all sissy boys anyway). Make Global Warming/Climate Change a threat to our families, and call on the Manly Men to defend their families by driving sexy little hybrid cars, going solar, using EnergyStar and (fill in the blank). The campaign against Environmentalism was made by appealing to the reptile brain and it seems to have been effective. Let us frame Hummer drivers as poser sissy boys who still live with their moms. Let's slap 'Sorry About Your Penis' stickers on every SUV. Let's see Daisy and the Dukes get all excited about the new bio-fuel still.