“Climate science is being actively dismantled”
Even this year, new heat records were recorded across large parts of Europe, including Germany. Image: Matt Palmer (Unsplash)
Interview by Jess Smee
This summer new record temperatures have been set across Europe. In Germany, hunger stones from the Middle Ages have emerged in major rivers — but is this sense of urgency reflected in the political discourse? Have people stopped caring about the climate?
People have a finite pool of worry: there are only so many things we can be stressed about. There’s a lot going on in the world at the moment. Conflicts like the Iran War are impacting prices globally and threats to democracy are on the rise around the world.
Are people switching off because they find the climate threat simply too big and scary?
There are two relevant concepts in psychological research. One is psychological distance - when a threat seems too distant (e.g., spread all over the world rather than an immediate threat), people tend to be less concerned about it. The other concept is efficacy - our belief that we can make a difference in countering the threat. If the climate threat seems too big and we feel insignificant in fighting it, people tend to disengage. Of those two concepts, research indicates efficacy is more important. When we communicate about climate change, it’s important that we talk about the many climate solutions that already exist and show that we have the ability to fight climate change.
How has communication about climate dangers changed in recent years?
More emphasis has been put on the risks of extreme weather, as science has advanced in identifying the role of climate change in making extreme weather more dangerous. Also, climate communicators and activists have, I’d like to think, been increasingly listening to communication researchers and putting more emphasis on climate solutions, which is key to building public support for climate action.
But climate change has sunk as a priority since the days of Greta Thunberg and Fridays For Future. What’s behind this shift?
One of the biggest drivers of public concern is what experts call “elite cues,” a jargony term for our political and cultural leaders. Humans are social animals and when our tribal leaders, such as politicians, send certain signals, the tribe tends to follow. So when political leaders like conservative politicians tell their followers that climate change doesn’t matter, that has an impact on public opinion.
Would you say that Trump/MAGA hijacked the discourse?
Not only do they communicate that climate action isn’t necessary, they are actively dismantling climate science and defunding climate research. The attack on climate science has gone beyond mere communication and they’re attacking the very infrastructure that supports climate science. This is corrosive and damaging.
How important is social media in shaping our response to climate change?
Over decades, climate misinformation has poisoned the information landscape and made climate change issue more polarised. Once an issue becomes too polarised, it becomes part of the culture war and less and less about reality. Social media can accentuate this trend. Their platforms’ financial models depend on engagement: polarising posts provoke high engagement, creating incentives for platforms to allow and even promote misinformation. It’s a deep structural problem but it is fixable — but not by letting the social media platforms regulate themselves.