Indiscriminate, Irrelevant, and Sometimes Wrong: Causal Misconceptions about Climate Change

Abstract

Prior research demonstrates widespread persistence of beliefs about climate change causes and risks that are arguably misconceptions. They include believing pollution causes climate change, believing ozone depletion causes climate change, the combination of these two “green beliefs,” referred to as environmental problems, and believing natural climate variation significantly contributes to current climate trends. Each of these causal beliefs has the potential to weaken or divert support away from effective climate change risk mitigation policies. To assess this potential, we explore the nature and prevalence of these beliefs in the United States with a national sample of interviews (N = 77) and two national surveys (N = 1,013, N = 1,820), and apply regression and mediation analyses to explore whether they explain any of the variation in individuals’ concern or support for policy to mitigate climate change. Adherence to these beliefs—which reflect a variety of misconceptions illustrated in the interviews—differs by political ideology but is common, with over a third of interviewees mentioning one or more. Controlling for general knowledge, political ideology, and other factors, misconceptions about environmental problems are still associated directly with support for climate change policies. On average adherence to the belief that environmental problems cause climate change is associated with a 25% higher probability of policy support. In contrast, believing natural climate variability is a major recent cause of climate change is associated with a 7% lower probability of supporting climate policy, even after controlling for political ideology and other knowledge about climate change.

Perceptions of Climate Change in China: Evidence From Surveys of Residents in Six Cities

“…As indicated by the natural cycle mental image, some acknowledge climate change but believe it is natural and inevitable, overlooking the anthropogenic causes. They also conflate weather variation and climate and discuss them synonymously (Fleming et al., 2021; Higginbotham et al., 2014; Leviston et al., 2014). In China, however, based on our results, people who confuse climate change with weather are simply uninformed and have no intension or interest to challenge the scientific consensus of climate change.…”

“…Using per capita income as a proxy, the six chosen cities cover a wide spectrum of economic realities ranging from 3,800 (Guyuan) to 8,700 (Hangzhou) US dollars. In addition, we used annual average concentration of particulate matter (PM 2.5 ) to indicate urban air quality, since people might conflate environmental problems with climate change (Fleming et al., 2021). In general, cities on the eastern coast with heavy industries suffer more severe pollution (e.g., Suzhou: 44 μg/m 3 ) while others in the mainland have lower PM 2.5 concentrations (e.g., Guyuan: 30 μg/m 3 ).…”

Evidence for three distinct climate change audience segments with varying belief updating tendencies: Implications for climate change communication

“…A multinational survey found mitigation policy support is associated with different climate change mental EXPLORING AUDIENCE SEGMENTS 7 models, formulated as perceived causes of climate change, perceived climate change consequences, and perceived policy effectiveness (Bostrom et al, 2012). To illustrate, consider two common mental models: one features greenhouse gas emissions as the predominant cause of climate change, whereas the other features toxic air pollution as the predominant cause (Fleming et al, 2021;Kempton et al, 1995;Reynolds et al, 2010). Individuals with the second model may be most likely to suggest the ineffective strategy of mitigating climate change by additional filtering of factory smokestacks (Kempton et al, 1995).…”

“…Rejection of anthropogenic climate change may be underscored by conspiracist ideation, whereby individuals believe climate change to be a 'hoax' and may be resistant to updating their views in light of scientific evidence Sarathchandra & Haltinner, 2021). Ideological characteristics may underscore the contents of mental models and whether mental models are used in deliberation (Fleming et al, 2021). For example, right-wing political ideologies de-emphasise climate change risks and concerns, thereby legitimising mental models that represent climate change as a natural fluctuation in climate (Campbell & Kay, 2014;Drews & van den Bergh, 2016;Leiserowitz, 2006;Zia EXPLORING AUDIENCE SEGMENTS 8 & Todd, 2010).…”

“…Affect, particularly worry about climate change, can influence climate change views and support for action (Fleming et al, 2021;N. Smith & Leiserowitz, 2014;van der Linden et al, 2019).…”