Political events and public views on climate change

Abstract

The gap between the scientific assessment of climate risks and the actions being taken to mitigate and adapt to climate change is stunning. Why does this gap exist, and what can be done to close it? First, it is important to remember that facts are never sufficient for making decisions (Dietz 2013). Decisions require weighing costs, benefits, and risks, distributed differentially across the globe. Making tradeoffs involves values. So value differences and value conflicts have to be resolved in order to take action. Second, policy to respond to climate inevitably involves many interested and affected parties and multiple issues. That complexity alone can slow processes even when there is consensus about facts and values. But the active denial of the scientific consensus by some members of the public and some elites is a particularly troubling obstacle to climate action (McCright and Dunlap 2010; McCright et al. 2016). Hahnel et al. (2020) and Zawadzki et al. (2020) offer important insights into climate denial. They use a major political event in the USA, the election of Republican President Donald Trump, as a natural experiment to reveal some of the dynamics of climate denial and climate action. Politics is both a top-down and a bottom-up process (McLaughlin 2012; McLaughlin and Dietz 2008). The actions of citizens influence elites and policy. But the public is in turn influenced by larger forces and powerful actors, including politicians. The Republican victory in the 2016 election gives an opportunity to see how a large-scale political change impacted public opinion, thus linking the micro level of public views with the macro level of elites and national events. Most research tends to work at one level or the other. But crossing levels of analysis is essential if we are to understand the interplay of power structures and individual views and actions. The ideological split in views on climate change has been much studied. Conservatives (Republicans in the USA) are much more likely to be deniers of the scientific consensus than liberals (Democrats) (McCright et al. 2016). That is, conservatives are less likely to believe that the climate is changing, that the causes are largely anthropogenic, that the risks are substantial, and that action needs to be taken. The ideological difference about climate has

Political Psychology in the Digital (mis)Information age: A Model of News Belief and Sharing

“…Interestingly, the changes in climate change belief from pre‐ to postelection were mediated by increased positive feelings toward the Republican party (by both Republicans and Democrats), and those with the most pronounced increases were the ones who most strongly reduced their climate change beliefs. These results are worrisome because increased climate skepticism, especially among political elites, can harm mitigation efforts (Dietz, 2020).…”

“…To increase support within and among their in-group party, political elites often post information intended to derogate the opposition (i.e., utilizing affective polarization), and their supporters respond in kind, by expressing more negative evaluations toward the out-group (Banda & Cluverius, 2018). If the information is false, or that party endorses a misinformed policy, then it can alter the opinions and beliefs of citizens (Dietz, 2020). For example, American conservatives tend not to believe in human-caused climate change (e.g., Mccright & Dunlap, 2011).…”

More Talk, No Action? The Effect of Exposure to Extreme Weather Events on Climate Change Concern and Pro-Environmental Behaviour

“…It is often assumed that people do not believe in climate change or engage in environmentally friendly behaviour because processing scientific information and making an informed risk assessment of an abstract construct like climate change requires motivation and cognitive effort [11]. However, people often avoid spending cognitive resources and rely on subconscious cognitive processes when forming opinions or making decisions [26,27,11]. Experiential learning -personally experiencing climate change -is thus more likely to influence opinions and behaviour than providing abstract (statistical) information.…”

The Paradox of Public Trust Shaping Local Climate Change Adaptation

“…Since 1990, the political polarization of the country has intensified, with party affiliation increasingly becoming a critical marker of social identity [52], and negative emotional feelings about those affiliated with the opposing political party increasing dramatically [53]. As a result, Americans increasingly distrust and dislike those associated with the other side of the partisan divide [53], and people's perceptions about issues like climate change can shift in response to the actions of prominent politicians [54]. The response to COVID-19 has provided evidence that such party identification can be leveraged to encourage compliance with risk management activities [55].…”