Though the scientific community largely agrees that climate change is underway, debates about this issue remain fiercely polarized. These conversations have become a rhetorical contest, one where opposing sides try to achieve victory through playing on fear, distrust, and intolerance. At its heart, this split no longer concerns carbon dioxide, greenhouse gases, or climate modeling; rather, it is the product of contrasting, deeply entrenched worldviews. This brief examines what causes people to reject or accept the scientific consensus on climate change. Synthesizing evidence from sociology, psychology, and political science, Andrew J. Hoffman lays bare the opposing cultural lenses through which science is interpreted. He then extracts lessons from major cultural shifts in the past to engender a better understanding of the problem and motivate the public to take action. How Culture Shapes the Climate Change Debate makes a powerful case for a more scientifically literate public, a more socially engaged scientific community, and a more thoughtful mode of public discourse.
How Culture Shapes the Climate Change Debate download
To date, there are only a few cases where climate change is the sole factor prompting migration. The clearest examples are in the Pacific Islands. The sea level is rising at a rate of 12 millimeters per year in the western Pacific and has already submerged eight islands. Two more are on the brink of disappearing, prompting a wave of migration to larger countries.910 By 2100, it is estimated that 48 islands overall will be lost to the rising ocean.11 In 2015, the Teitota family applied for refugee status in New Zealand, fleeing the disappearing island nation of Kiribati.12 Their case, the first request for refuge explicitly attributed climate change, made it to the High Court of New Zealand but was ultimately dismissed. Islands in the Federated States of Micronesia have drastically reduced in size, washed down to an uninhabitable state, had their fresh water contaminated by the inflow of seawater, and disappeared in the past decade.13 Despite their extreme vulnerability, the relatively small population (2.3 million people spread across 11 countries14) and remote location of the Pacific Islands means that they garner little international action, for all the attention they receive in the media.
While there are no legally binding international regimes that protect climate migrants, there are voluntary compacts that could be used to support them. Most notably, 193 countries adopted the 2030 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), which address both migration and climate change.
The scale and scope of climate change demand dynamic and comprehensive solutions. The U.S. must address climate stress on vulnerable populations specifically, rather than funneling more money into existing programs that operate on the periphery of the growing crisis.
Explore historical and projected climate data, climate data by sector, impacts, key vulnerabilities and what adaptation measures are being taken. Explore the overview for a general context of how climate change is affecting France.
Regime theory argues that nation-states are the central actors in global negotiations, with civil society playing only a minor or supportive role in shaping outcomes. Regimes are defined as sets of principles, norms, rules and decision-making procedures around which actor expectations converge in a given issue area (Krasner, 1982). Young, Keohane and Nye are leading advocates of regime theory (Keohane, 1989; Nye, 1991). As climate change is a global phenomenon, regime theorists focus on mitigation rather than adaptation. The climate regime reflects this strand, though talks of increasing cooperation about adaptation are present. This is due to the mutuality of interests in mitigation. Actually, regime theory reflects the values of liberal institutionalism, which considers international institutions to be a force in global politics. For environmental problems straddling the global commons, it is difficult to draw a dichotomy, as statist model does, in policy debates between domestic and international sphere, and it is in these common issues that international organisations play an active role. For this reason, Rosenau (1997) challenged the statist model in his work on global governance. This is true particularly in climate change diplomacy, as the UNFCCC Secretariat, the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), the World Bank and some other bodies play very important roles in articulating and setting the agenda for discussion.
In International Relations, constructivists emphasise a shift away from rationalist and interest-based accounts to factor in the role of knowledge, norms and values in shaping positions adopted by nation-states; and see cooperation among nations as guided not just by material and power factors but also by discursive power and ideational elements (Haas et al., 1993; Okereke, 2010). As evidence of discursive power in inter-state relations, Cox (1981) argues that the US rise to and reproduction of global dominance in the 20th century was due to its blending of material and discursive power. The constructivist accounts point to their position by indicating at the intergovernmental panel on climate change (IPCC) epistemic communities, which continue to shaping the climate agenda, with their periodic scientific assessments. Constructivist scholars focus more on the discursive and intersubjective procedures by which international governance develops (Ruggie, 1998).
Even within the traditional paradigm of thinking, funding for adaptation can bring in direct or indirect global benefits, such as better monitoring and prediction of climate change, improved modelling of climate impacts, research and development (R&D) to improve drought and flood-resistant crops, etc. Also adaptation measures may prevent climate-induced displacement, regarded as an indirect global benefit (Pickering and Rubbelke, 2014).
The papers that follow are all representative of this turn. They historicize both the understanding of recent climate debates and the varied responses that such understanding (or lack of understanding) can produce in wider contexts. A brief summary of each paper draws out the main themes that they raise.
This would involve widening the range of historical specialists involved, as this special issue has sought to do. Many of these specialists work on issues of power and politics that are close to the hearts of broad social groups, or on histories of ideas that may seem at first blush to be unrelated to the materialities of climate. The writing of a broad and integrated history makes it necessary to reflect on the relative weight of different factors. If we think that climate change is an increasingly important factor in history it behooves us to consider how it is affecting historical understanding and the self-understanding of other disciplines as their histories unfold. Climate change is working its way through social institutions, legislation, economic regulation, and markets, and it will become visible in cultural expressions and a wide range of intellectual fields and social practices.
At the IRM, we have led the debate on risk culture for nearly 30 years. Drawing upon the wealth of practical experience and expert knowledge across the Institute, we have developed guidance for organisations wanting a greater understanding of their own risk culture and the practical tools which can drive change.
To thrive in this environment, companies must think strategically, sharpen their decision making, and keep their fingers on the pulse of customer demand. They need to get digital right and to address consumers increasingly concerned by the climate-change agenda. At the same time, they must cater to local tastes across multiple markets and cultures. One size will not fit all.
In August 2019, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) published its Special Report on Climate Change and Land (SRCCL), which generated extensive societal debate and interest in mainstream and social media. Using computational and conceptual text analysis, we examined more than 6,000 English-language posts on Twitter to establish the relative presence of different topics. Then, we assessed their levels of toxicity and sentiment polarity as an indication of contention and controversy. We find first that meat consumption and dietary options became one of the most discussed issues on Twitter in response to the IPCC report, even though it was a relatively minor element of the report; second, this new issue of controversy (meat and diet) had similar, high levels of toxicity to strongly contentious issues in previous IPCC reports (skepticism about climate science and the credibility of the IPCC). We suggest that this is in part a reflection of increasingly polarized narratives about meat and diet found in other areas of public discussion and of a movement away from criticism of climate science towards criticism of climate solutions. Finally, we discuss the possible implications of these findings for the work of the IPCC in anticipating responses to its reports and responding to them effectively.
For millions of people around the world, social media are increasingly important entrances to information and act as major mediators of public opinion formation. Results from online surveys in 37 countries in 2018 found that for nearly a quarter (23%) of those surveyed, social media were the main way they came across news (Newman et al. 2018). Of these, the microblogging service Twitter has attracted millions of users since its creation in 2006. Along with several other social media platforms, it has become a major and controversial tool for social and political action (Cihon and Yasseri 2016). Its openness and accessibility has led it to become one of the top social media for people around the world to connect, exchange ideas, raise awareness, but also to debate, slander, and sometimes radicalize other users (Kwak et al. 2010; Yasseri and Menczer 2021). It has given life to several major social and political movements including the Arab Spring of 2011 and the ongoing MeToo movement. It also plays a central role in politics and policy discourse (Shapiro and Hemphill 2017). 2ff7e9595c
Comentarios