BY CARA PIKE JUNE 11, 2010

I was recently asked to lead a discussion with the Connect US Network around framing the climate debate in light of the United Nations Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen, ClimateGate and the Gulf Oil Spill. What are the best themes, frames and messages that can help promote climate policies and programs during such uncertain political times?

I’ve been tracking environmental attitudes and public opinion on global warming since starting the Social Capital Project in 2005. I’m interested in the long term strategic communications challenges and opportunities that are often overlooked when current events are all-consuming and one poll after another is being reported on in the media without reference to how trends shift over time.

With this long-term view in mind, the Social Capital Project has produced some of the largest studies on Americans and their attitudes toward the environment, including Climate Crossroads: A Research-Based Framing Guide, RE:Green: A Values-Based Segmentation Study, and Climate Communications and Behavior Change:  A Guide for Practitioners.  Currently, we are working with our colleagues at the University of Oregon’s Climate Leadership Initiative on a literature review of public opinion polling on climate attitudes focused on research conducted from 1997 to the present.

There is no doubt that we are operating in a difficult context. Public opinion is shifting with polls from November 2009 to April 2010 in particular showing significant drops in concern about global warming, compared to the high levels of concern that were reported in 2008.   Public opinion in the current context is often quite split as well.  For example, while Americans recognize the Gulf spill is an environmental disaster of magnitude, there is still strong support for expanding offshore drilling operations in the United States. Yet, there is more to the picture than any single poll reflects and many opportunities still exist to shape the public narratives in ways that help support the passage of climate policies.

While we’re still in the middle of the literature review of public opinion research, my sense is that efforts to undermine climate science and policies need to be better anticipated. With the world’s attention focused on Copenhagen, and the U.S. starting moving on federal climate legislation, it should come as no surprise that we have seen systematic efforts to discredit climate scientists and political leaders. We should keep in mind, however, that in many ways efforts to derail the public conversation indicate the progress being made.  

Advocates need to develop a more long-term perspective that anticipates success – including the passage of national climate policies – and begin planning for the difficult reality of implementing and enforcing the new laws.  This involves thinking through how best to engage the public in making the changes to our energy and economic systems that are needed.

Prior to starting the Social Capital Project, I spent a decade leading the communications program for Earthjustice.  Our aim was to build public support for the enforcement of environmental laws. As a result, we focused on high profile cases where a courtroom victory was likely to generate significant media and political opportunities.  I learned the hard way, however, that it is important to anticipate success - even when success seems extremely unlikely.  At Earthjustice, we faced some of the greatest communications challenges when we failed to see the progress we were making and plan for the inevitable opposition to that progress.  Developing long-term engagement strategies that take into consideration the possibility of success can be game-changing.

Trends to Track – The Challenges and Opportunities

Challenges

The belief that global warming is a critical issue, that it is caused by humans, and that there is consensus on the science all dropped significantly over the past 6 months, particularly compared to levels of support reported in 2008.  In addition, the percentage of people willing to take personal or political steps in addressing global warming has dropped as well. Most Americans fail to see global warming as an urgent issue that impacts their lives in the near term. 

Similarly, there is a growing insistence among Americans that other countries need to take actions equivalent to what the United States is willing to do. For example, in 2008 68% of Americans said that the U.S. should take action on global warming even if other major industrial countries such as China and India do less. A year later, support for this dropped to 55%. (ABC/Wash. Post/Nov 2009)

While the Gulf oil spill is registering with the majority of Americans as a major environmental disaster, many are willing to pay the price to have oil coming from domestic sources due to overriding fears about terrorism.  “Drill, but save the environment.”  I think there is still a very good chance that the spill could provide a wake-up call, however at this point public concern is understandably focused on the beaches being clean and fish safe to eat, not on issues related to energy production and global warming.

Part of the problem is that while the percentage of Americans who say they know a fair bit about global warming is increasing, most surveys illustrate that critical gaps in the public’s understanding of the issue remain.  For example in the Energy Learning Curve, published in late 2009 by Public Agenda and Planet Forward,  researchers found that only 39% of the public could name a fossil fuel. Furthermore, 65% of the public believe that most imported oil comes from the Middle East when in reality it is only 16%.  Despite this discrepancy, 44% of the public believe that drilling in Alaska or offshore in other parts of the U.S. would eliminate the need to import oil. This is in line with Social Capital Project research which shows that even those who care most about global warming associate the problem with holes in the ozone layer, rather than as a problem with too much carbon and other greenhouse gases building up in the atmosphere.

It is not then surprising that other polls show 46% of the public have heard “nothing at all” about Cap and Trade (Pew/Feb 2010) or that they want domestic energy sources of all types to be developed at any cost.

Perhaps the biggest challenge is that most Americans have a hard time connecting global warming to energy and economic issues. Concerns about terrorism tend to overrule most issues, including economic challenges, yet the issues are all inevitably linked. While education helps, most Americans do not think systemically and they thus need help to see the full picture.

Opportunities

Jon Krosnick, a professor of communication and political science at Stanford argues that the recent drops in the polls are exaggerated and that many are due to a lack of clarity in the polling questions.  Krosnick’s research shows that while there is less public confidence related to the amount of scientific consensus around global warming, scientists themselves are still largely regarded as trustworthy on the issue.

The skeptics’ campaigns have been effective to be sure, but Krosnick’s work points to the fact that not all ground has been lost. The drop in perception around scientific consensus does, however, illustrate the need to be proactive in exposing the motivations and funding behind misinformation campaigns.

Even if you take recent polls at face value, there is some good news to be found in them. In January 2010, there was still overwhelming support for signing an international agreement to cut carbon emissions.  Similarly, 62% of Americans somewhat or strongly support the U.S. participating in the process agreed to by leaders at the Copenhagen meeting. (Yale/George Mason, Jan. 2010)

Though not top of mind, when asked, the majority of Americans support an energy plan that promotes clean, renewable energy and that creates jobs in the United States. (Luntz, Jan. 2010)

Despite declines in overall percentages, most Americans are still interested in saving energy and water at home (Yale/George Mason, Jan. 2010).  Whether these actions are well directed is another question (i.e. more people willing to use a cloth shopping bag than walk or bike in place of a car trip) but nonetheless, it is uncommon to say you are against taking some steps to reduce energy or water use or to reduce waste.

Incorporating Behavior Change Basics – Adding as Sense of Tension, Efficacy and Benefits to the global warming conversation.

From smoking cessation to wearing seat belts, behavior change theories and experiences point to three key conditions needed for people, organizations or society to change – having a sense of tension, efficacy and benefits. Bob Doppelt, my colleague at the Climate Leadership Initiative, and I have been working to incorporate these three elements into global warming outreach and public engagement campaigns.

Tension – Global warming needs to become more relevant and more immediate to people’s lives.  Tension can be experienced as negative or positive and is created when there is an obvious disconnect between people’s values and what is at risk from global warming. For example, disturbances, such as extreme weather incidents, do create some interest and awareness but the connection must be made to larger shifts in climate patterns, rather than limiting the association to individual storm incidents.  A better idea is to focus on how global warming impacts what people care about most (i.e. health, security, wellbeing of children, etc.)

Efficacy – People may care deeply about global warming, but if they can’t see what can be done to address it either by society or through their own actions, they are likely to disengage.  There needs to be a greater emphasis on solutions that are available now and the steps being successfully taken by government, business and individuals. Solutions need to be grounded in the present as most Americans do not see global warming as a near-term priority.  While a “clean energy future” might sound promising, it perpetuates the sense that technologies have yet to be invented that will help us address our climate, energy and economic challenges.

Benefits – Most people need to see twice as many benefits than downsides to taking action. Outreach efforts need to illustrate how addressing global warming will bring tangible improvements to people’s lives.  Concepts such as “green jobs” need to be made more specific and tangible.

Other Recommendations/ Considerations

Fill basic information gaps.  Don’t assume audiences understand what global warming is about. Use clear common sense terms. For example, remind people that global warming is caused by burning fossils fuels, such as gas for our cars or coal for our electricity.

Keep using energy and economic frames but fill out a vision of prosperity that illustrates how addressing global warming will bring benefits via the creation of a clean, carbon-free energy economy.

Clearly illustrate the links between global warming, energy and the economy but get more specific about what the opportunities are if steps are taken and what the benefits will be to change. Connecting global warming to energy and economic issues is not just about saving or making money. There are deeper values about prosperity, financial security, and being in a global leadership position that can be tapped.

Focus on investments and incentives. Many Americans support the idea of “harnessing the power of financial incentives” and government playing a role to level the playing field so that companies can have a “healthy competition” over the development of clean energy sources.

Determine how best to disarm misinformation campaigns. While it is important to avoid spending too much time being on the defensive, there is evidence that climate skeptics are having a significant impact and that misinformation campaigns need to be discredited. One way to do this is to focus on the financing and motivations behind skeptics’ efforts.  Another response is to avoid arguments about scientific certainty and instead, focus on the need for transparency, accountability, and leadership in addressing our energy, economic and climate challenges.

Consider how to leverage national security concerns.  Emphasize the need for clean, efficient, carbon-free sustainable energy sources that will reduce our dependence on foreign oil.  Broaden the concept of what we mean by national security by demonstrating the wisdom of preparing for climate impacts so that communities can better withstand extreme weather incidents and other climate shifts.

Consider pre-political engagement.  To reach younger Americans, consider a long-term strategy that starts with pre-political activities and moves people to higher levels of participation (political and behavior change) over time. Make it clear what people can do that will make a significant difference, aggregate individual actions, and provide feedback on what is being achieved through public engagement.

For more tips and recommendations, see our Publications or contact Cara Pike directly ().  Stay tuned for the release of the meta-analysis on global warming and public opinion in Fall 2010.