Deborah L. Rhode,
Professor, StanfordLawSchool and
Director, StanfordCenter on Ethics
With Lee Ross, Stanford Department of Psychology, January 2006
Environmental Values and Behaviors: Strategies for Encouraging Public Support of Global Warming Initiatives
- Introduction
This brief explores public values and behaviors on environmental issues, particularly global warming. Its central concern is how to motivate Americans to act in ways that are environmentally responsible but that are unlikely to have much direct benefit to them personally. Adverse climate change reflects multiple factors that any individual can affect only at the margins. The consequences of this change are to some extent uncertain and, if it is unreversed, likely to have greatest adverse affect on future generations and on populations in vulnerable regions outside of the United States. The discussion that follows explores strategies for encouraging the public in general and Californians in particular to make global warming a central personal and political concern despite the lack of strong personal incentives for doing so.
Significant progress on climate issues will require behavioral changes on several levels: voting, purchases, personal consumption, and support of environmental issues, initiatives, and organizations. This, in turn, will require that the public have sufficient information and sufficient motivation to act on the information it has. The following analysis first surveys what the public knows about global warming. Discussion then turns to the relationship among information, attitudes, and behaviors, and explores the psychological literature relevant to persuasion. A subsequent section focuses on the role of visual images, which are particularly important in shaping environmental beliefs and values. The brief concludes with a summary of strategies that are most likely to be effective in increasing public support of global warming initiatives.
- Public Knowledge and Values
A. What Does the Public Know
Most members of the public have some, but not a great deal of knowledge about global warming. According to a 2004 survey by the Program on Policy Attitudes/Knowledge Networks, 15 % of Americans had heard a great deal and 48 % had heard some about about global warming. (Americans and the World 2005) .In a 2003 CBS poll, 27 % had heard or read a lot about global warming, 33 % had heard or read “not much or nothing”, and 39 % had heard or read some. (Americans and the World, 2005). West Coast residents (those in California, Oregon and Washington)have among the highest levels of awareness; 38 percent describe themselves as very aware of global warming, compared with 32 percent of the nation generally. (Greenberg, Quinlan, Rosner Research, Inc., 2004).
A majority of Americans see a basis for concern. Three quarters of those in a 2002 Harris poll believed that unchecked emission of carbon dioxide and other gasses will cause global warming. (Americans and the World, 2005).When asked in September 2005 by an ABC/Washington Post survey “How convincd are you that global warming or the greenhouse effect is actually happening, about a quarter (23%) described themselves as “completely convinced,” and another were “mostly convinced.” A quarter (22%were “not so convinced”; only 17% were “not convinced at all.” (Pollingreport.com, 2005). In a 2004 survey for the YaleCenter for Environmental Law and Policy by the Global Strategy Group, 70% indicated that global warming was a very serious (40%) or somewhat serious (30%) problem. Californians are among those most concerned. A 2005 Public Policy Institute of California survey found that 86 % believed global warming will affect future generations; 56 % believed it was already occurring and 62 % believed it was primarily caused by human activity. (Public Policy Institute of California, 2005).
The public’s general awareness does not, however, reflectwidespread accurate knowledge of particular controversies. In a 2004 Gallup Survey: 66% had heard “nothing” or “not much “about criticism of Bush for ignoring scientific evidence. (Americans and the World, 2005). A 2004 poll by the Program on International Policy Attitudes/ Knowledge Networks, found that less than half (48 %)of Americans knew that President Bush opposes participation in the KyotoAgreement; 42 % erroneously believed that he favors participation. The public also overestimates the degree of scientific dispute over global climate change. Half of those polled in 2004 by the Program on International Policy Attitudes/ Knowledge Networks believed that scientists are divided on the existence of global warming and its impact; only 43 percent agreed that there “is a consensus among the great majority of scientists that global warming exists and could do significant damage.” (Americans and the World, 2005).
Americans are also not well informed about the specific dynamics of climate change. A 2005 poll by researchers at MIT and Knowledge Networks found that most were relatively unaware of 17 listed items concerning global warming and technologies to mitigate climate change. Only a quarter knew that carbon dioxide capture and storage could reduce global warming; a slightly larger percentage (29 %) thought, incorrectly, that it could reduce smog. (Herzog, Curry, Reiner, and Alsolabehere, 2005). Despite considerable recent media coverage of the relationship between global warming and natural disasters, the public appears unaware of the dominant view in the scientific community. Although most scientists believe that global warming heightens the intensity, not frequency of hurricanes, over a third (36%)of Americans in a 2005 Gallup Poll thought that global warming has been a major cause of theincrease in hurricanes, and over a quarter (29%) thought that it has been a minor cause. (Pollingreport.com, 2005).
Given such findings, it is not surprising that Americans themselves recognize the limits of their knowledge. In a May, 2005 poll by the Yale University School of Forestry and Environmental Studies, a majority (53%) agreed that. ”there is so much information and disagreement in the media that I don’t who to believe about what is best for the environment.” Only 42% thought that “I have enough information to have a good idea about what is best for the environment.” (YaleUniversitySchool of Forestry and Environmental Studies, 2005). Similarly, in a September 2005 Harris Interactive Poll, less than a third thought that the “quality of information we have about global climate change” is “excellent” (4%) or “good” (29%). A third thought it was of “fair” quality, and a quarter thought it was “poor” or “terrible.” (Oak RidgeCenter for Advanced Studies, 2005).
B. How Much Does the Public Care
Efforts to assess the public’s level of concern about climate change have met with mixed results. Much depends on how the question is framed and who is asked. In one 2004 survey by the Program on International Policy Attitudes/ Knowledge Networks, only about a third of Americans (31 % ) believed that global warming is a “serious and pressing problem” and that “ We should begin taking steps now even if this imposes significant costs;.” 45% thought that the problem “should be addressed” but that its effects will be gradual so we can deal with the problem gradually by taking steps that are low in cost. ((Americans and the World, 2005). A poll taken a year later by ABC News/ and the Washington Post found only a slightly higher percentage (38%) of individuals who felt that the problem was urgent and in need of immediate action; 58% thought it was a longer term problem requiring more study before government action was taken. By contrast, about four fifths (79%) agreed that global warming would pose a serious threat to future generations. (RoperCenter, Public Opinion On Line, 2005). And an independent research center poll in 2004 found that only 13% of the public thought that “concern about global warming is greatly exaggerated, and only a quarter thought that more “research is necessary before we take actions that might hurt the economy.” (Greenberg, Quinlan, Rosner Research, 2004).
Data on the relative importance of global warming is also mixed, but on the whole suggests that it is not a consistently high priority. In the MIT 2005 poll, the environment came out 13th on a list of 22 possibilities for “the most important issues facing the U.S. today.” On a list of 10 specific environmental problems, global warming came up sixth, well behind water pollution and toxic waste. (Herzog, Curry, Reiner, and Alsolabehere, 2005). Findings from 2004 surveys were similar. The YaleCenter for Environmental Law and Policy found that global warming ranked 15th out of 22 general concerns, and Gallup found that global warming ranked 9th on a list of 10 environmental concerns, lagging behind extinction of animal and plant species and the loss of tropical rain forests. (YaleCenter for Environmental Law and Policy, 2004; Pollingreport.com, 2005). In a June 2005 poll, only a third believed that global warming was a significant enoughproblem that America should be “willing to limit job growth to address it.” (New Models National Brand Poll, in RoperCenter Public Opinion Online, 2005). The public ranks the seriousness of global warming far lower than an EPA task force. (Adler and Kranowitz, 2005, 16)
However,almost half (47%) of those surveyed in August 2005 believed that we had too little government regulation in the area of environmental protection (Harris, Pollingreport.com, 2005). And it may well be that public priorities have changed in light of increased coverage of the relationship between climate change and natural disasters following Katrinaand the cluster of other hurricanes in the fall of 2005. (Krosnick, Holbrook, Lowe, and Vissen, 2005).
Californians register relatively strong views on the urgency of global warming and need for further action: 39 % considered it a very serious threat and 36 % considered it a somewhat serious threat to the economy and quality of life for California’s future. About three quarters (77%) favored more stringent emission requirements for new cars; 69 % favored new emission targets for industry; 76 % favored solar incentives; and 76% favored tighter fuel efficiency standards even if they were more costly. (Public Policy Institute of California, 2005). Almost two- thirds (62 %) believed that there was “no real conflict between creating jobs and protecting the environment and, in fact, investments in new technology are not only good for the environment but create the jobs of the future.” Only about a quarter (26%) believed that “until we get the economy back on track and create jobs, environmental regulations should be a lower priority.” (Greenberg, Quinlan, Rosner Research, 2004).
In short, although Americans generally believe that global warming is a problem requiring action, a large majority do not share a sense a urgency, particularly in comparison with other social problems. The reason may be partly due to the lack of clear, consistent information, but also a sense that the problem is unlikely to affect them personally. In a June 2005 ABC News/ Washington Post poll, two- thirds of Americans did not believe that global warming would pose “a serious threat” to them or their “way of life in [their] lifetime.” (RoperCenter Public Opinion Online, 2005). A Transatlantic Trends survey around the same time similarly reported that only a third believed that it was “very likely” that they would be personally affected by global warming. Another third felt that it was somewhat likely and a third felt that it was not likely at all. (RoperCenter Public Opinion Online, 2005). As the discussion below indicates, the public’s perceived lack of self- interest and unambiguous information concerning global warming compound the challenges in inspiring significant political commitment or behavioral change.
- The Relationship Among Information, Values,and Behaviors
- The Need for Behavioral Change
To make substantial progress in controlling the emission of carbon dioxide and other gases that contribute to global warming, we need behavioral changes on both a personal and political level. As a personal matter, individuals must make energy conservation a greater priority in their purchases and lifestyles. Obvious examples involve buying energy efficient appliances and automobiles, making home construction and improvement choices that prevent wasted energy (such as weather stripping, insulation, and passive solar design), and altering daily routines to minimize unnecessary energy consumption (such as turning down thermostats, turning off lights, and carpooling). Many of those behavioral changes can be justified on personal economic grounds. Others cannot, such as the purchase of hybrid vehicles or some energy- saving investments by short-term tenants.
As a political matter, individuals need to make global warming a higher priority. A wide variety of policy changes are necessary, including stiffer efficiency and emission standards, additional mass transit, and better tax, rebate, incentive, and research and development structures for conservation and alternative energy technologies. Greater public commitment is essential along multiple dimensions ranging from environmental activism to environmental citizenship. (Stern, 2000, 409-410) Activism involves participation in environmental organizations and campaigns. Environmental citizenship involves making energy conservation a key factor at the ballot box, in support both for candidates and initiatives. It also requires some further actions to register environmental concerns. That might includeletters, petitions, and community action, as well as support for the national and local environmental organizations that are most effective in addressing conservation and global warming.(Sher, 2005; Stern, 2000,409).
- Influences on Behavior
One influential framework for understanding influences on behavior is the “theory of reasoned action,” (Ajzen & Fishbein, 1980, 5-7), which has been widely applied in the environmental context. (Hwang, Kim, and Jeng, 2000; Kals, Schumacher, and Montada, 1999). In essence, the theory posits that behaviors are affected by interests, which are a function of personal beliefs and social influences. Individuals are likely to behave in ways that they perceive will have positive consequences and that others will also perceive as positive. Beliefs about consequences are, in turn, affected by the way that information is presented, processed, and recalled. Assessments of consequences are affected by individuals’ ethical values and the importance of those values in shaping their identity and self-esteem. However, as many other theorists emphasize, behaviors are only partially determined by interests; individuals’ actions also reflect their motivation and capacity to bring their practices in line with their interests. (Clayton and Brook, 2005, 90-94). That capacity varies in light of the perceived costs and benefits of desired behaviors.
In the context of global warming, these theoretical frameworks suggest that individuals’ likelihood of acting in environmentally responsible ways will reflect factors such as:
- What information they receive about the urgency of the problem and the strategies necessary to address it;
- How they evaluate that information in terms of credibility and how it relates to their own values and self-image;
- How they perceive others behaving in response to the problem;
- How costly or inconvenient they believe that energy conservation would be.
Information and Cognitive Bias
A threshold challenge in motivating individuals to care about global warming involves the way that information about the problem is presented. In a world of information overload, individuals often adopt strategies of “rational ignorance;” they tune out data that appears uninteresting and irrelevant to immediate concerns. (Fischoff, 2004). Complicated environmental issues that individuals do not perceive as affecting their own interests have a difficult time attracting popular attention. (Clayton, 2005, 87).
In such contexts, the most effective communication strategy is to present easily understandable material from credible sources in inviting, vivid formats. Visual images and compelling personal stories are particularly useful. (Stern and Aronson, 1980, 68, 85, 184-85; Shanahan and McComas, 1999, 24). Where it is difficult to get accurate and consistent information, individuals will rely on sources that they believe are most trustworthy and likely to have expertise. (Stern and Aronson, 1980, 44). In some environmental contexts, sources such as grassroots organizations, local officials or even friends and work associates may have more credibility than the government or regulated agencies like utilities. (Stern and Aronson, 1980, 45, 68, 91).
By these criteria, much of the publicly available information about global warming falls short. News coverage and environmental outreach efforts often use relatively dry and sometimes technical analysis that highlights complexity and uncertainty. (Rayner, 1998, 83). And information about the urgency of the problem or importance of conservation often comes from federal authorities or public utilities, which may not be the most persuasive sources.
Journalistic conventions of “balance” further complicate an already complicated picture. Because there is some scientific dispute that conservative interest groups have funded and exploited, the media often seeks competing views on the problem. The result is to give equal coverage to claims that lack mainstream scientific support, and to undercut a sense of urgency about energy conservation initiatives.(Shanahan and McComas, 1999, 31, 83). Ambiguities in calculating the costs of small changes have a similar effect. It is, as researchers note, hard to convince many audiences that small increases in average global temperature are sufficiently serious to demand immediate fundamental changes in global energy use.(Rayner, 1998, 101).
A related problem involves the nature of the risk. Both the media and their audience tend to focus on dramatic, immediate dangers and to underemphasize chronic, long- term problems. The news, after all, aims to be new, and journalists underreport problems that are long-standing, technical, and lacking in personal “human interest” stories. (Bennett , 1996, 39; Shanahan and McComas, 1999, 30). Global warming has traditionally gotten little coverage unless there is some unusual climate-related occurrence, like an exceptionally severe heat wave or devastating hurricane season, or a major policy event like the Kyoto Conference. Even then, press reports tend to follow a rather short-lived news cycle common to environmental reporting. Some dramatic event or discovery sparks concern about a problem, which is followed by a burst of public interest and support for efforts to combat it. Then attention declines as the costs and difficulties of change become clearer. (Shanahan and McComas, 1999, 149-51).
The potentially catastrophic consequences of global warming are also problematic.Sensationalized coverage, such as doomsday scenarios and scare tactics following a major natural disaster can be counterproductive for several reasons. First, this approach may evoke fear, and suggest a need to sacrifice, which are both unpleasant, and may lead to repression, resistance, or denial of the problem. (Oskamp, 2000, 383-84; De Young, 2000, 512). Alternatively, such coverage can generate a sense of futility, rather than a commitment to plausible incremental reform.(Shanahan and McComas1999, 174; Oskamp, 2000, 384). Accounts that stress the enormity and complexity of the problem can similarly lead to feelings of “global helplessness,” which work against environmentally protective behaviors. (Pelletier, Dion, Tuson, and Green- Demers, 1999; Kaplan, 2000, 498).