What Do Americans believe?

Recent studies have concluded that the nearly half of Americans believe that Anthropogenic Climate Change is occurring. Pew Research Center conducted a survey in 2014 and concluded about 61% of Americans believe there is solid evidence that the Earth is warming (Motel 30.3.15). Motel continues by stating that 48% of Americans believe it's a top concern. The top concerns were possible terrorists attacks and the nuclear plans of Iran and North Korea. As time passes, scientific evidence continues to indicate humans have influence the climate and scientific consensus continues to rise, too. A recent opinion survey showed that there's still a significant gap between the general public and scientists. The poll concluded that about 50% of the general public and 87% of scientists believe that climate change is mostly due to human activity.

Fig 1. Shows the percent of Americans that believe in Global warming and how many view it as a major threat. 

Honestly, I found these studies quite surprising. I feel like I spend a lot more time discussing how we know humans have influenced the climate than what we can do to fix the problem. However, I still remain quite optimistic after reading these studies. I think society is moving in the right direction. As scientific consensus increases, the public is sure to follow. Since more a more people understand that there is a problem, it is our job to introduce solutions.

Works Cited:

Motel, Seth. "Polls Show Most Americans Believe in Climate Change, but Give It Low Priority." Pew Research Center RSS. 23 Sept. 2014. Web. 1 Apr. 2015. <http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/09/23/most-americans-believe-in-climate-change-but-give-it-low-priority/>.

Earth Hour

Earth hour is tonight! Let's combat this problem together! 

Climate Change Depiction in the Media

Here are some examples of how Climate Change is depicted in the media. No climate message is neutral and they display a frame of some sort. Most of the images of Climate Change are negative, so I think it's best to discuss them (as they are more likely to be viewed by the public). Studies have found that images displaying negativity do not cause of long-term behavior change. Therefore, I find it prudent to discuss them so they may be avoided in the future. 

The first image was produced by Greenpeace. It presents two images. The top represents "then" while the bottom represents "now." This image is meant to provoke an emotional response from the viewer. Hulme, Chap 7 referenced a figure from Shanahan (2007) that stated various Climate Change frames. I would classify this image as a "catastrophe frame," because the melting glacier is meant to convince the audience that the Earth is indeed warming. The glacier melting represents the potential disasters mankind may face due to anthropogenic climate change. The catastrophe frame is meant from those who are already concerned about the future of the planet. I have some issues with this image, the first being the validity of the image. These images could have been taken during different seasons; however, there is no way to verify. Also, while this image may induce immediate worry from the audience, I do not believe it would cause a behavior change. Typically, images of this sort disengage the viewer. O'Neill et al. 2013 found that climate impact images were less efficacious, which is not the desired outcome of the Climate Change campaign. The audience has a difficult time connecting the image of the melting glacier to their personal life. Not to mention, the image gives to solution to the problem, which may cause the audience to feel helpless. In conclusion, I’ve seen this approach done frequently. I do not believe it has made much of an impact in the past. Therefore, I believe it is best to avoid images such as these in the future. Especially since most of the American public believes Climate change is occurring, but they place it low amongst their priorities.

source: http://tomohalloran.com/2014/01/11/risking-lives-promote-climate-change-hype/

The second image depicts a well-dressed man representing the “industrialized polluting nations” destroying the developing countries with Climate Change. The intended audience is for those who care about those in the developing countries. The frame used in this cartoon is the industrialized polluting nations are solely responsible for destroying the developing countries. The audience is assumed to distrust politicians and possess sympathy for the developing countries. While I understand the cartoon is meant to be comical, I do not think it will cause anyone to change his or her opinion. This cartoon is meant for those who already share similar opinions. To be frank, it may provoke frustration amongst the audience who oppose Climate Change because the artist portrays the polluting nations in a negative manner. I personally do not like this image because all it does is places blame. Cartoons, such as these, are seen as “liberal alarmists” ones and further divides the nation into skeptics and alarmists (Nisbet 2000). If we are going to solve this problem, we cannot be divided.   

Has the media captured the correct attention?

Well, as the saying goes, “some publicity is better than no publicity!”

I googled the phrase "climate change" and clicked on the first media related link. This is what appeared:

It's not horrible, but note that the picture is of the arctic sea ice. Why does this matter to me? How does it affect me? Since the first tangible impact of anthropogenic climate change is melting ice, it makes sense that the media would display those images. However, how effective is this? This plays in into two problems: 1. the story is not relevant to the audience 2. the story displays the "disaster frame" of all the sea ice/glaciers are melting away. In this discussion, I will discuss the latter. 

I feel as if it’s necessary to incorporate some of my personal experiences in order to convey my thoughts better. I’ve always been fascinated with the weather, so I read books and watched movies to better prepare myself for my future studies. My first exposure to Global Warming/Climate Change was in High School. I remember the films The Day After Tomorrow and Inconvenient Truth created quite the gossip about Global Warming and human’s role in the matter. After watching Inconvenient Truth, I remember feeling the desire to become more environmentally friendly and that the documentary seemed fairly dramatic. I hardly learned anything from both films and I didn’t seek any further information on Global Warming. So, it makes me wonder, if these films didn’t peek my interest in Global Warming, how did they make everyone feel? From the handful of people I know, everyone stated Inconvenient Truth was “over dramatic.” I’m not concluding this as an absolute feeling for the general public.

            The issue of anthropogenic Climate Change is not by any means new. So, the question then becomes, why hasn’t more been done? Why is there still controversy among the American general public? I don’t claim to be an expert, but it seems to me that the “sense of urgency” to change is a more recent development. More studies are being conducted and it’s a story that reaches the media relatively frequently. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) began in 1988 and every 6-7 years they release a report on the current status of the climate and what the future climate may be. Since the first assessment report, the IPCC has become more confident in the human influence and what impacts we may expect, however, consensus among the public still muddled around misunderstandings.   

            Most of the media coverage about Global Warming/Climate Change has been over exaggerated weather extremes. They claim scientists are calling for mega hurricanes, scorching heat, and destruction beyond our imagination. Not to mention, any time severe weather occurs the media quickly raises the question, “Is this due to global warming?” According to the media, severe weather outbreaks in the southeast are because of Global Warming, while record breaking cold temperatures disproves its existence. It’s really quite frustrating to read how much the media distorts facts just because they want to sell a story. It’s astounding how the media does not seem to be troubled by such unethical reporting. I think the media has done a brilliant job in displaying the disaster frame and drawing the public’s attention, however, I do not think it’s the sort of attention that is necessary to cause behavior change. Studies have proven that “scare tactics” do not work. It’s a temporary solution for a long-term problem. Myers et al. 2012 stated, “studies have found that messages emphasizing catastrophic, dire consequences or threats that are geographically remote can result in less concern and more hopelessness among audiences.” Numerous studies have all concluded similar ideas: negative emotional appeals do not work. I agree, as I have personally experienced the frame. We cannot make the public feel hopeless with no sort of solution. It’s our job to properly education them and guide them to how we can fix this problem. It’s not going to be easy, but we need to stand in it together.

Works Cited

Myers, Teresa A., Matthew C. Nisbet, Edward W. Maibach, and Anthony A. Leiserowitz. "A             Public Health Frame Arouses Hopeful Emotions about Climate Change." Climatic Change (2012): 1105-112.

A welcome post

Hello!

As a project for myself, I've decided to create a blog to discuss Anthropogenic Climate Change and the articles I read on the matter. I'm very passionate about the subject and I do believe we can mitigate and adapt to the impacts. I believe proper education on climate is key, then the public has the right to decide from there. I think we should move towards becoming a more sustainable society and rely on renewable energy resources and nuclear energy. I do not mind discussing Climate Change with people, in fact, I rather love it. Feel free to send me your thoughts and concerns.

A little bit about myself: I spent most of my life in California, then moved to North Carolina in High School. I've always had a fascination with weather. My definition of "good weather" is thunderstorms, tornadoes, sleet, freezing rain, snow, etc. I received my Bachelors of Science in Atmospheric Sciences from the University of North Carolina at Asheville. I'm currently pursuing a Masters degree at North Carolina State University. I love to read, travel, run (running my first half marathon in three weeks!), mountain bike, and my biggest hobby is playing classical piano. I hope you enjoy the discussion!

*Disclaimer for this blog: Keep in mind that Anthropogenic Climate Change is occurring and this is what will be discussed in this blog.