I often wonder why more Americans aren’t clambering for radical climate change action. The research study, Global Warming’s 6 Americas 2009: An Audience Segmentation Analysis, gave me a lot of insight. I am not in favor of many of the studies that the government spends our money on, but this one provides a foundation for reaching more Americans on the climate change crisis. From their Executive Summary:
“One of the first rules of effective communication is to ‘know thy audience’. Climate change public communication and engagement efforts must start with the fundamental recognition that people are different and have different psychological, cultural, and political reasons for acting—or not acting—to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. This report identifies Global Warming’s 6 unique audiences within the American public that each responds to the issue in their own distinct way.”
The research was conducted with a large, nationally representative group of American adults in the Fall of 2008.
“The survey questionnaire included extensive, in-depth measure of the public’s climate change beliefs, attitudes, risk perceptions, motivations, values, policy preferences, behaviors, and underlying barriers to action. The 6 Americas are distinguishable on all these dimensions, and display very different levels of engagement with the issue. They also vary in size—ranging from as small as 7% to as large as 33% of the adult population.
The Alarmed (18%) are fully convinced of the reality and seriousness of climate change and are already taking individual, consumer, and political action to address it.
The Concerned (33%–the largest of the 6 Americas) are also convinced that global warming is happening and a serious problem, but have not yet engaged the issue personally.
Three other Americas—the Cautious (19%), the Disengaged(12%) , the Doubtful (11%) represent different stages of understanding and acceptance of the problem and none are actively involved. The final America—the Dismissive (7%)—are very sure it is not happening and are actively involved as opponents of a national effort to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.”
I am sure I am one of The Alarmed. I meet a lot of people who are overwhelmed by the climate change issue with some in psychological denial. This research gives us a way to look at different ways to engage our different climate change publics. There is potential to get movement in a variety of ways with the data this research provides from probably all groups except the Dismissives. Having dealt with a couple of dismissives, I found there was no room for common ground with them, so not a good use of my time.
I thought you might like to see a chart with some info on each of the groups. The info in the table is just what struck me and only represents a fraction of the data characterizing each group from the research. In other words, the study itself is a lot better than my table. The study provides detailed characterizations of each group and has a superb set of charts that depict the differences among the groups. The study is very well done. For anyone interested in reaching more people on the urgency of the climate crisis or looking to help build a tipping point across the American public to make radical changes to forestall the worst of climate change, this study is superb input.
There is a lot more data in this research including personal actions and intentions plus views on solar incentives, carbon cap and trade (no clear support from any group), etc. Even the two most motivated groups are not making a lot of progress in personal lifestyle change. There is great information on each group’s use of media.
I found very unusual that the % of ‘born again’ or evangelical Christians had a straight line, reverse correlation with almost all the dimensions of the global warming survey, i.e., almost 60% of Dismissives were evangelical or ‘born again’, almost 40% of the Disengaged and the Doubtful, about 30% of the Cautious, about 20% of the Concerned, and less than 20% of the Alarmed group. I don’t pretend to understand why, but this seems like a major opportunity to me, since evangelical Christians have a real love for the world God gave us.
One of the alarming outputs of the report (pun intended) is that “None of the 6 Americas are fully confident that humans can and will successfully reduce global warming… A majority of the Alarmed, Concerned, Cautious and Disengaged Americas believe that it is possible for humans to reduce global warming, but feel it is still unclear whether we will do so.”
I know I am among many working hard to make sure we choose to radically reduce global warming. We have to believe we can more universally or we won’t be able to make the changes we need to make. I also find that the more I learn and the more I am involved, the more I consciously live through a sustainability lens from a personal standpoint.
To skim or read the whole study go to http://research.yale.edu/environment/uploads/SixAmericas.pdf.
By Debbie Deland, Director of The 10% Initiative. She works with Green Cities Florida, the Chamber of Commerce, and NetImpact.
Tags: Climate Change, United States
The issue asks the wrong questions. The “theme” falls for the NWO Environmentalism(tm) control agenda process to take away our freedom and liberty, instead of focusing on reducing pollution and improving conservation techniques.
Are the “Christians” the only ones that seem to understand the importance and significance of stewardship and agency (the right to make choices, instead of being forced to follow mandates)?
The world has not been getting warmer, it has been getting colder for the last 8 years. See the links posted at http://www.peswiki.com under “Global Cooling”.
I like debate. So here is what I read recently, which relates to our planets temp (the first two articles were written in 2008. The last was written last month):
http://dougmood.com/SunSpots.aspx
http://aftermathnews.wordpress.com/2008/01/13/nasa-solar-cycle-may-cause-dangerous-global-cooling-in-a-few-years-time/
http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2009/29may_noaaprediction.htm
Rajiv and robert,
It is clear you are both ‘dismissers’ according to this study. I disagree with you. We aren’t making sufficient progress on pollution and conservation. Global Warming is of highest priority and urgency, as is getting off foreign oil so we don’t bankrupt ourselves. Having dealt with deniers before and according to this study, I know that I can’t change your minds. I do hope there is common ground whether it is based on the rapidly decreasing availability of fresh water, the bankrupting nature of our payments of over $700B/year for foreign oil.
I am not sure why you made comment that Christians are the only ones understand the right to make choices, instead of being forced to follow mandates. I am a Christian and know there is a place for each. We, the American public, are not making the right choices. How could we be when we are 5% of the world’s population using over 25% of the world’s energy, by orders of magnitude contributing more pollution/person than almost any other country in the world, and by far using more of the world’s resources than almost any other country in the world? Global Warming aside, this is just selfish and greedy, not very Christain. Mandates are critical to good stewardship of the commons–our waters, our land, and our atmosphere. You or I don’t have the right to use energy, land, water, or air just because one of us can afford to. Systems thinking clearly speaks to the tragedy of the commons. To address preserving and restoring the commons, the system requires new mandates, rules, incentives.
I also disagree that the world is getting colder. I have read and read both sides of the issue and the factual evidence is clear. The world is getting warmer. The first thing we face, already face all over the world now, is the significant reduction in fresh water availability. Here, in the US we still treat water as a free commodity jeopardizing our future, our children’s future, and future generations. Atlanta and Tampa are the best recent examples of lack of mandates to preserve their water resource. You’ll hate this, but I think nationwide everyone should be given a quota of water they can use/day and then the pump shuts off. Long ago we should have made drought water restrictions standard across the US. We are totally irresponsbile in our use of water. Many times you need mandates to drive behavior change. We are consciously and unconsciously addicted to high volumes of water and energy at home and in business. This is another complex systems trap called shifting the burden where we continue doing what we are doing versus dealing with the root cause, i.e., changing how we do business and changing our lifestyles.
The impact of Global Warming disruptions is much bigger than fresh water availability as is the bankrupting of the US to buy foreign oil at over $700B/year. I have read The Deniers, looked at numerous Web sites, including the ones above, and still can only come to one conclusion based on the facts, we have overshot the carrying capacity of the earth both in resources we use and the pollution we create. There are clear limits to growth using the Western Industrialization model. I truly think we are arguing details on these sites and even in the Deniers. The Natural Step science-based principles for sustainability are principles that I think all of us can use to achieve common ground. If you have the time, please read The Natural Step Story: Seeding A Quiet Revolution. It is not political and based in rudimentary science that no one disagrees with. I will be doing a series of posts on The Natural Step, since I think it is an elegant approach to sustainability and enables common ground.
I love debate too as my family could tell you. However, if our differences are irreconcilable, then it is not a fruitful use of our time.
Debbie
Dear Debbie,
I have no disagreement with you. I have only left you with 3 links in regards to global warming. Please check the dates on your data on global warming and really take a look at 2007, 2008, and 2009, as most articles and data written about global warming were correct for their time period up to around 2006-2007. However, what may have been correct at one time point is not valid indefinitely.
This site is about global warming: http://www.drroyspencer.com/latest-global-temperatures/
Our differences are not irreconcilable. I am 100% for clean renewable energy. Fighting pollution and conserving what resources you have is purely wise, as our population grows and resources are limited.
Kindest Regards
Most interesting post.
What struck me is that the majority of Americans are more or less dubious at how climate change is real.
To them, I would say : ” Fine, even if there is no such thing as climate change / global warming we still have to decrease the amount of oil, coal and natural gas we burn.
By doing so we will send less money overseas (sometimes to people who downright hate us), develop alternatives that will create million of jobs that won’t be sent overseas, decrease pollutions of all kinds and also avoid massive problems when the productions of these energy sources will peak.
This is not exactly a gloomy prospect or something that will ” take our freedoms away… “. Quite the opposite in fact !
[...] There are 6 Americas when it comes to climate change! | Green Leader (tags: climate-change united-states society psychology) [...]
Whether earth is getting hotter or colder is a problem in itself. I actually read an article on paper actually a couple months back on the antarctica water being a couple degrees warmer than what it used to be. Anyways, as American we should change the way we use carbon. The air we breathe and the climate we leave to future generations is more important than the climate we have now. Who cares if it is getting hotter or colder either way consuming carbon is not helping.
The price of oil is going to sky rocket up and if we can’t get off of our need of carbon then we will be stuck. We need to fix the problem and not by hesitating by trying to make a change now so that we can set a positive example for those that will follow our footsteps. As Americans whatever we do is going to followed because in the spectrum of the world we are the leaders and if we continue to make a negative impact so will every other country.
Develop renewable energy at home so that we can develop jobs at home. Create renewable energy jobs by creating renewable energy plants. When creating these renewable energy technologies use renewable energy. By using these tactics not only will the climate go positive but also our economy will slowly go positive also.
Rajiv,
I apologize for lumping you in the dismisser category. Glad our differences are not irreconcilable. I am for clean energy and conserving resources too.
Just as a note
I didn’t find the first two sites you gave as credible (the first was a politician and the second was from a conspiracy theory proponent) and the third seemed to indicate to me that the sun has not been causing global warming at least since the last solar cycle. I can agree that the next solar cycle (2013) may add to the global warming problem, but it is clearly not the leading cause.
Dr. Spencer’s site was excellent. He has credibility both from an education and filed of research standpoint. I was fascinated with his view (and hope that climate sensitivity proves to be less sensitive than thought), as I was with the views in the book The Deniers and others I read so I heard both sides of the story. However, I have to align my thinking with the position of the majority of scientists worldwide and the physical evidence before our eyes and that is that climate change is an urgent issue. Like you though I want to both sides of the issue researched and debated. I am aghast that many scientists that held anti-climate change views were practically tarred and feathered and run out of town. I don’t like that kind of group think. But, until we know differently, we need to reach a better tipping point for action on climate change. I will spend more time Spencer’s site.
It is interesting to me that only 18% of America is alarmed by global warming and taking some action. Equally compelling an issue to me is our spending of over $700B/year on foreign oil. I think it will bankrupt us, since it will only go up. I think it is a severe national security issue too. There must be a way to forecast the impact of shelling out over $700B every year to overall American financial welfare. For that matter, there ought to be a way to do that with our trade deficit. Global warming or not, our extreme over-consumption will be our downfall. In fact, in some ways I am not sure if it matters whether Global Warming is real, we need something that gives us a common purpose to reduce consumption. If global warming is it, more power to it.
Debbie
Edouard,
I am with you. I don’t understand why the public and those responsible for our national security aren’t making getting off foreign oil the top priority. I guess we are not good at a little short term pain ($1+ tax on gas, no car idling, no drive-throughs, no sale of low gas mileage cars, no coal fired plants, no nuclear plants, etc.) for our long term health.
I am one of the alarmed group in relation to Global Warming, but I actually am more alarmed by our dependence on oil and coal.
One note: 51% of us are convinced that global warming is happening and happening due to man. However, that means 49% are not sure, don’t know, or don’t think so. The 49% struck me too. We aren’t close to a tipping point.
Thanks for your post,
Debbie
Calvin,
Thanks for your post. It is spot on. You are so with it on creating renewable jobs here to reduce our carbon footprint and help our economy.
What concerns me is how long major technology transitions have taken in the past. I wonder if anyone has assessed what money and resource it would take, as well as a timeline to move our electricity to say 30% renewables, our 30% of our cars to hybrids or electric, and to increase our mass transit by 30%. I like the idea of backcasting, where we define where we need to in 10 years in terms of renewables, cars, and mass transit and building water and energy efficiency retrofits (assume equiring all new buildings to be LEEDs certified now). With current technology fixes defining what that mix has to be in ten years would allow us to lay out a program to get there. I don’t think we, our government has done that. I could almost see the program to get there as a shared purpose like getting a man on the moon.
Debbie