Unintended Effects of Emphasizing the Role of Climate Change in Recent Natural Disasters

In 2017, the United States experienced a series of natural hazards (hurricanes, wildfires, and blizzards) that resulted in significant loss of life and property. Emphasizing the role of climate change in these events might offer an important tool for engagement, particularly with skeptical audiences. However, in a survey experiment (N?=?1504) involving three different natural hazards – hurricanes, wildfires, and blizzards – we find that emphasizing the role of climate change in these hazards produced unintended effects for climate change skeptics. In particular, skeptics experienced resistance to the news article, which associated with reduced perceived hazard severity. These backfiring effects likely serve as a defensive mechanism used by skeptics to maintain their prior views of climate change, illustrating the challenges faced in communicating climate change to skeptical audiences. These findings offer additional insight for those attempting to communicate climate-related risk information to skeptical audiences.     

Optimizing Messaging to Reduce Red Meat Consumption

Red meat production has a range of negative environmental impacts. We sought to characterize the motivations, environmental attitudes and demographics of red meat-eaters, and examine the effect of message framing in reducing future meat consumption. Canadian adult meat-eaters (593) completed a survey and were randomly assigned to one of six message treatments that presented information on the environmental impacts of meat production using frames representing social norms and/or place identity constructs. Taste and quality were the most important motivators for eating meat, while moral/ethical factors were the least. Forty-nine percent of respondents indicated they would reduce red meat intake after exposure to an information only message, while the social norms frame was more effective than others (χ2). Awareness of the environmental effects increased significantly after messaging for all 13 impacts. These findings should assist communicators with designing more effective messaging aimed at encouraging pro-environmental behaviours associated with meat consumption.     

Soil erosion vulnerability under scenarios of climate land-use changes after the development of a large reservoir in a semi-arid area

Climate and land-use/cover changes (LUCC) influence soil erosion vulnerability in the semi-arid region of Alqueva, threatening the reservoir storage capacity and sustainability of the landscape. Considering the effect of these changes in the future, the purpose of this study was to investigate soil erosion scenarios using the Revised Universal Soil Loss Equation (RUSLE) model. A multi-agent system combining Markov cellular automata with multi-criteria evaluation was used to investigate LUCC scenarios according to delineated regional strategies. Forecasting scenarios indicated that the intensive agricultural area as well as the sparse and xerophytic vegetation and rainfall-runoff erosivity would increase, consequently causing the soil erosion to rise from 1.78 Mg ha^?1 to 3.65 Mg ha^?1 by 2100. A backcasting scenario was investigated by considering the application of soil conservation practices that would decrease the soil erosion considerably to an average of 2.27 Mg ha^?1. A decision support system can assist stakeholders in defining restrictive practices and developing conservation plans, contributing to control the reservoir's siltation.     

Influencing climate change regulations: examining responses from large-scale firms

Recent climate change projections and a push towards a universal agreement on carbon emission reductions suggest that firms will need to respond to future regulatory changes. This paper employs an influencing strategies lens to examine how large-scale firms might respond to future climate change regulations. The study uses a structured qualitative methodology to explore and explicate the strategic responses from 21 international firms to the proposed emissions trading scheme outlined in Australia's Garnaut Climate Change Review. The results of the analysis show that firms can use pre-emptive influencing strategies in attempts to shape and mould regulatory design parameters, secure high levels of transitional economic support, and shift the balance of public policies and expenditure. Complementary defensive strategies may also target policy makers and regulators with some of the potential negative consequences of the new regulations.     

The News You Choose: news media preferences amplify views on climate change

How do choices among information sources reinforce political differences on topics such as climate change? Environmental sociologists have observed large-scale and long-term impacts from news media and think-tank reports, while experimental science-communication studies detect more immediate effects from variations in supplied information. Applying generalized structural equation modeling to recent survey data, previous work is extended to show that political ideology, education and their interaction predict news media information choices in much the same way they predict opinions about climate change itself. Consequently, media information sources serve as intervening variables that can reinforce and, through their own independent effects, amplify existing beliefs about climate change. Results provide empirical support for selective exposure and biased assimilation as mechanisms widening political divisions on climate change in the United States. The findings fit with the reinforcing spirals framework suggesting partisan media strengthens climate change beliefs which then influences subsequent use of media.     

Climate policy support under political consensus: exploring the varying effect of partisanship and party cues

By creating attitudinal rifts among partisan voters, political polarization is expected to negatively affect chances of effectively mitigating climate change. While such expectations generally have found support, less attention has been paid to the opposite claim that political consensus should eliminate the partisan dimension in climate change politics. This study tests this claim by studying how party identification, and party cues specifically, affects public policy attitudes in a context defined by political consensus. Using data from a large online access panel in Sweden, party identification and party cues are shown to matter for policy attitudes even in a consensus context. This effect is not limited to certain issues but is found across a wide range of policies, and the effect of party cues, for a given issue, varies across parties. The implications of this study and areas for future work are discussed.     

Depoliticizing adaptation: a critical analysis of EU climate adaptation policy

The ways in which climate adaptation is understood in the European Union is examined via three key policy documents: the Strategy on adaptation and the Green and White Papers that preceded it. Drawing on Poststructuralist Discourse Theory, light is shed on the implicit values and assumptions that underpin this recent policy initiative. The findings demonstrate a tension between the declared ambition to act on adaptation and implicit suggestions that nothing really has to change, and the challenge can be addressed by market and technological innovations, and by mainstreaming adaptation into existing sectoral policies. The policy discourse effectively serves to depoliticize choices societies make in response to climate change, presenting adaptation as a non-political issue. Insight into European adaptation discourse enables deeper understanding of recent policy developments and opens up possible entry points for critique.     

The effects of the Fukushima disaster on nuclear energy debates and policies: a two-step comparative examination

Under what conditions do critical events trigger large-scale public discussion and mobilisation, and can these lead to policy change? In a comparative study of nuclear energy policy after the Japanese Fukushima disaster in March 2011, a theory-development approach is adopted, mobilising data collected from national news agencies’ newswires, public surveys, legislation and parliamentary databases, and newspaper editorials in 12 established democracies between March 2011 and March 2013. The analysis suggests two main hypotheses that can guide future research: critical events are more likely to trigger policy change when intense (contentious) mobilisation from policy challengers aligns with the views of the general public, and is backed by major political allies; and critical events are more likely to trigger intense (contentious) mobilisation when policy challengers articulate their opposition around pre-existing policy debates on the issue and resort to pre-existing organisational and mobilisation resources.     

Who shapes local climate policy? Unpicking governance arrangements in English and German cities

A new framework for analysing subnational policymaking is applied to climate governance in the ‘twin towns’ of Newcastle upon Tyne and Gelsenkirchen. Low levels of resource interdependence between central and local government in England mean that Newcastle Council has to rely heavily on other horizontal actors to achieve its climate objectives. In contrast, Gelsenkirchen Council receives substantial support from higher tiers of government, which gives it greater control over policymaking within the locality. Greater independence between tiers of government can make it more difficult for subnational bodies to adopt the kind of ambitious policies that may be necessary to combat wicked and/or significant policy challenges such as climate change. Instead, interdependent ‘joint-decision’ systems, which facilitate mutual support across tiers of government, may be better equipped to ensure that subnational public bodies have the capacity to act appropriately.     

The spillover of race and racial attitudes into public opinion about climate change

The relationship between racial attitudes and public opinion about climate change is examined. Public opinion data from Pew and American National Election Studies surveys are used to show that racial identification and prejudices are increasingly correlated with opinions about climate change during the Obama presidency. Results show that racial identification became a significant predictor of climate change concern following Obama’s election in 2008, and that high levels of racial resentment are strongly correlated with reduced agreement with the scientific consensus on climate change. These results offer evidence for an effect termed the spillover of racialization. This helps further explain why the public remains so polarized on climate change, given the extent to which racial grievances and identities have become entangled with elite communication about climate change and its related policies today.