Recently, some political leaders like Trump or Bolsonaro have denied climate change. It seems unlikely that these officials lack advisers on such pertinent issues for which the science provides very consistent evidence, little debated, and of which almost everyone has heard. Many scientists are outraged by this situation and have a legitimate desire to react angrily to denialistic statements. However, this may not have helped much. It is unlikely that these politicians would realize that such a public statement, probably well thought out, is a mistake. Also, it’s not so clear whether the scientists will be able to convince those who listen to the deniers. I suggest trying to understand the reasons that explain what drives a politician to deny science, understand the dangers of denial, and see if and how we can neutralize them.
Why do some politicians insist on denying the evidence on climate? One possible reason is that recognizing the existence of such a big problem compels them to act. And these are neither technically nor politically easy measures. Those that don’t seem to evoke public resentment are usually not enough to move quickly towards climate targets. On the contrary, effective measures almost always entail costs for different social sectors. The closure of mines, energy restrictions, the increase in the prices of products or measures that try to make the population aware of unsustainable behavior so that they take responsibility for the situation are difficult for citizens to accept, even if they are aware of their need are aware . Nor is it easy for governments to embrace the immediate negative impacts they can produce, such as unemployment, depopulation, lost sales (e.g. of meat or petrol), complaints of inconvenience, or changes in transportation or consumption habits. .
Faced with these situations, where current measures to solve a problem that some still see as a future are not popular, politicians have two main options in order not to lose the support of citizens. A responsible politician will take action against climate change that seeks to mitigate its negative impacts and share the social costs. These initiatives have materialized in the so-called “just transition” policy. It is about offering employment alternatives in communities that are losing their main livelihood, sometimes thanks to the industries that are springing up around the new energy, or establishing compensation mechanisms for those affected. Still, these are guidelines that they rarely find sufficient or fair. Politicians can console themselves with the thought that they did what they were supposed to. Better yet, they should know that when crises do finally arrive, evidence shows that citizens tend to punish politicians who have done nothing to prevent them (even in the case of events like natural disasters, which are difficult to prevent). However, these consolations of fulfilled obligations or future revenues may not be sufficient incentive for all politicians to act responsibly on climate change.
The problem of denying the problem
Another option is to deny the problem. This avoids having to implement technically complicated and politically painful measures that call into question the tolerance of citizens. But the climate-change denial of some politicians is a danger, and not just because it delays decisions on a phenomenon that will not allow for further expansion. In addition, there is solid evidence that the positions of party leaders on political issues (abortion, immigration or climate change) help shape citizens’ opinions. Thanks to denial politicians, some citizens will have arguments at their disposal to counter them with beliefs, such as that science may find a last-minute solution, or prefer to believe that eventually their individual contribution to mitigating climate change is insignificant and therefore unnecessary. According to some work, when a person accepts the opinion of their party, the information provided by experts/scientists also has little impact on limiting the impact of partisanship (or religion): citizens ignore any information challenging these positions, and this is what happens more evident in situations of polarization.
However, all is not lost. Some recent empirical evidence, using data collected during various crises, suggests that citizens are sometimes able to question their political leaders’ statements. Although part of this discernment depends on each individual’s personality and self-perception of their effectiveness in influencing policy, another part can be stimulated by the creation of certain environmental conditions. Some of these conditions will occur naturally as the climate itself evolves. There is evidence that experiencing repeated abnormal weather episodes over 11 seasons arouses curiosity about the weather.
Explain how science works
So the question is how to convince at least this group, which tends to update their climate assumptions, of the correctness of climate change. The social sciences have shown that not all people trust the same sources or are sensitive to the same messages. An experiment on vaccines showed that regardless of partisanship, a greater understanding of how science works (i.e. how evidence is obtained, what it means that there is strong evidence about what is and isn’t known about certain subjects) makes it easier to accept scientific messages.
It has also been shown that there are two other factors that can predict acceptance of science, even beyond individual political commitments. The first is the perception that whoever is sending the message has more experience than the recipient. Second, the sender and receiver have common interests. Sometimes citizens judge that scientists are insensitive to their daily and urgent needs, or suspect that they have interests that are not entirely legitimate.
Therefore, the evidence suggests that there is clear promise in betting on improving the scientific culture of citizens. Institutions such as the Ministry of Science and Innovation or the Higher Council for Scientific Research (CSIC) are making more and more resources available for this. However, improvement in this area will take longer than we have to deal with climate change. In the near term, scientific institutions need to step up their efforts to identify the groups they want to send climate information to, understand their needs, and think about how to communicate them to each. Dissemination and scholarly communication must be empathetic. The scientists, especially if they belong to a recognized institution like the CSIC, fulfill the first condition (have more experience than the recipient). Many scientists have begun to become aware of the need to disseminate quality science and are devoting their time to it. Achieving empathic communication requires more training so that scientists can not only communicate intelligibly, but also see all sides of problems or recognize which actors can sometimes act as intermediaries between science and the public (e.g. politicians, farmers, teachers or influencers). ), which satisfies the second condition that citizens perceive that the issuer is sensitive to their concerns.
Eloisa del Pino She is a political scientist and President of the Higher Council for Scientific Research (CSIC).
you can follow TOPIC on Facebook, Twitter and Instagram, or sign up here to receive our weekly newsletter.