During her research lecture on 27 March, Dr Robyn Wilson introduced and elaborated on several key concepts such as how to create climate change messages that are relevant to the local context and reduce your “climate shadow” as an individual action. To build on some of the talking points, she shares further insight below.
Dr Wilson’s slides can be accessed here and the full recording of the lecture here.
- What are some of the common misperceptions you observe that hinder people from taking individual climate action?
While I do think some people discount the personal relevance of climate change, by failing to see the local impact, it seems that the bigger challenges are related to 1) understanding the role of human actions in the rapid increase in global temperatures, and 2) believing that climate solutions are feasible and effective. Building on both those points, a stumbling block for many is believing that one’s individual choices have no real effect, or that the actions that are needed are at the policy and regulatory level. I think this discounts the “behavioural wedge” or the impact of household level consumer choices, and the importance of political engagement and consumer pressure. Related to these concerns about feasible and effective solutions, if one believes current climate change is natural, then there is nothing to be done by society to address it. One other potential challenge is related to trust in science and the consensus in climate science. Despite the relative consensus among climate scientists, public perceptions are often that there is much lower disagreement as to the reality of climate change amongst the scientific community.
- What are some reasons these misperceptions occur and how can they be addressed?
I think we can do a better job at communicating the personal relevance of climate change at the local level, as well as combatting the misperception that current trends are just part of natural cycles and that there is nothing that can be done. However, there are forces at play that make it difficult for these messages to have impact – much of the misperception (where it exists) is driven by social forces that incentivise individuals to seek out information that is consistent with their existing beliefs, and to defend preconceived notions in the face of contradictory information. To address this challenge related to identify defense mechanisms and media-driven echo chambers, we need to avoid language that triggers such defensive mechanisms, work to identify shared values amongst opposition groups, and encourage a shift in how we consume information in a world where algorithms feed on fear and extreme positions.
- In countries like Singapore where climate change consequences may not be as obvious, how can communications be tailored in order to inspire action?
There are two schools of thought on this challenge related to climate impacts being perceived as distant or irrelevant in a local context. One school of thought is to bring those consequences closer, either by identifying what is happening locally in concrete and vivid ways, or by highlighting the impacts on local “others”, such that those who do not feel personally vulnerable may be motivated by the impact on others in the community who are more vulnerable. While this can be effective, the effectiveness seems to vary by context, and one could argue may be more effective in a collectivist culture like Singapore. A second school of thought is that instead of trying to increase the personal relevance of the impacts to motivate action, especially in privileged communities who are well insulated through resources and technology, we should instead promote scope expansion. An expanded scope allows individuals to move beyond immediate, proximal concerns and consider a wider range of possibilities and goals, as well as the long-term consequences of decisions today. Communications can expand one’s scope by focusing on why an action is important, and in line with one’s long-term goals.
- To what extent can individual action signal to government and businesses that they want sustainable change, and is there a success story that you could share?
Perhaps the most obvious examples of individual action signaling they want change to government or business is through political protests for the former, and product boycotts for the latter. A prominent example of a social movement that led to environmental change was the first Earth Day over 50 years ago, which triggered significant environmental regulation in many countries around the world. In terms of product boycotts (or consumer demand for more sustainable products), we are seeing examples of this now in global demand for Tesla as frustration with the CEO is significantly impacting sales. We also see the opposite positive impact of consumer demand slowing increasing for sustainable products, which is starting to shift priorities in the business sector.
- Mitigation and adaption often get mixed up as similar concepts, could you explain these two terms in relation to how they build climate resilience?
Mitigation refers to efforts to curb climate change by reducing our greenhouse gas emissions through energy systems transitions, decreased fossil fuel consumption, increased efficiency and geo-engineering solutions aimed at capturing and storing carbon. Adaptation refers to efforts to mitigate the near-term impacts of climate change through changes in our personal behaviors (e.g., limiting time spent outdoors in the heat of the day), the design of our cities (e.g., integrating green infrastructure of flood mitigation), and in some cases considering geo-engineering solutions to buy us time (e.g., reflecting sunlight back into space). At the intersection of these two approaches, the former focused on long-term risk mitigation, or avoiding the worst possible impacts, and the latter on the short-term, or avoiding the impacts today, is the idea of resilience. True resilience is the ability of our systems to not just cope with today’s climate impacts and “bounce back”, but to anticipate, prepare for and respond to climate change with a focus on systemic and transformative change. We can imagine something like more localised food systems as a resilience strategy as it can both cut back on the energy impact of food for mitigation purposes, while helping communities avoid supply chain disruptions caused by climate-exacerbated extreme weather events.
- In your talk, you mentioned reducing your climate shadow as an action, could you elaborate on what that would entail?
The term “climate shadow” was coined by journalist Emma Pattee, and is meant to reflect a broader understanding of what we can do to advocate for climate action. While increasing our climate shadow includes reducing our carbon footprint or minimizing our consumption of fossil fuels directly (e.g., heating, cooling, transportation) and indirectly (e.g., food waste), it is much bigger than that. A simple focus on reducing our carbon footprint ignores the role of the systems and structures that influence our individual choices and can be a frustrating goal for people who feel their options are limited. Increasing our climate shadow focuses on the good we do for the planet through a variety of means. For example, putting solar panels on our residence is a great way to reduce our carbon footprint, but we can increase our climate shadow by ensuring they are visible on our house and talking to our neighbors about why we put them on and the energy savings. Our climate shadow includes reducing our consumption, as well as engaging in political action and advocacy, making wise investment decisions and using our power as consumers to purchase sustainable goods.
