INCREASING UNDERSTANDING OF CLIMATE RISKS AND CHOICES
3
Welcome from the organizers: Seeking a social consensus on climate change1
O
ur national dialogue about climate change has become corrosive. Stolen documents and e-mails, opaque corporate financing of interest groups, and a simple lack of civility have come to define the public discourse. But there is a better way, and we at the Erb Institute for Global Sustainable Enterprise and the Union of Concerned Scientists are very pleased to have collaborated on a workshop that sought to find it. We convened a meeting between top social scientists—psychologists, sociologists, anthropologists, political scientists and others—and climate scientists, business leaders, politicians, faith leaders and communications professionals to help us better understand why people reject the science of climate change and how we can elevate the dialogue to address this most pressing issue. The truth is that the scientific community has reached a consensus on climate change. The buildup of heat-trapping emissions from burning fossil fuels and clearing forests is changing the climate, posing significant risks to our well-being. Reducing emissions and preparing for unavoidable changes would greatly reduce those risks. That is the conclusion of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, the world's leading scientific societies, and the overwhelming majority of practicing climate scientists.
But many people don't accept the facts. When we examine the public opinion data on climate change, we see what Yale and George Mason University researchers identify as "Six Americas." They range from "Dismissives," who are hostile to the science, to the "Alarmed," who worry that we are running out of time to reduce emissions. How can a divided America come together and address climate change? According to social scientists, when people hear scientific evidence about societal risks - whether they concern climate change, disposal of nuclear waste, or vaccines - they actively filter it. They accept evidence they find consistent with deeply held cultural values and reject evidence they feel challenges those values.
Conference organizers Andrew Hoffman of the University of Michigan (left) and Peter Frumhoff of the Union of Concerned Scientists.