The

Intangible Made Personal:

Opinions and Perceptions About Global Warming

Ben Phillips May 2013

UW Political Science Honors Program Thesis Thesis Advisor: Professor Mark Smith

I. Introduction The effects of global warming are already being seen across the planet, and the consensus in the scientific community about the issue is stronger than ever. In American public discourse however, there remain attitudes of ignorance, indifference, and willful disregard. Americans who are aware of the threats of global warming are slow to take action, or find it difficult to galvanize high profile attention or support, and leaders in politics and activist organizations do not coordinate their efforts toward meaningfully addressing the problem. There is a wide range of opinions and perceptions of global warming among the American people, and these must be investigated, interrogated and engaged with to achieve any meaningful action on addressing the threat of global warming. Theda Skocpol, a national leader in public opinion about climate change says that the reason climate change legislation and efforts have failed is that various environmental groups have not been able to work together on the issue (Plumer). Moderates and purists, national groups and local ones must come together and find common ground on the issue for it to gain traction. I think it could happen, Skocpol says of meaningful action on global warming, if the various groups that participate in climate-change efforts would frankly start talking to one another about reaching some sort of common ground and that they can reach out to non-environmental groups. Skocpol disagrees with the common belief that Americans cant grasp big ideas. Instead, she says they simply need a link to their lives (Plumer). With cooperation, engagement and outreach of the type that Skocpol mentions as the goal, this paper will clearly lay out some specific barriers and

challenges to this engagement, as well as specific recommendations that could help facilitate dialogue more smoothly. This paper will address general barriers to engagement, how to engage with individuals with particular views, and how the conversation must be reframed for meaningful action. Methods The issue of public opinion and perception of global warming is widely studied primarily through telephone surveys that monitor the prevailing attitudes toward the subject among the American public. Gallup Research, Pew Research, Yale/George Washington University, and the NSAPOCC are among the leading surveys done on public opinion on global warming, and are repeated over time to provide up-to-date data on current opinions and provide statistics on trends in public opinion. Providing helpful information about what the public thinks about this important issue, these surveys can be used as a tool for those who would attempt to change public opinion, engage people in the issue and facilitate meaningful action. For those who would however, the survey data is necessary but not sufficient, and must be supplemented with a deeper understanding of the reasons behind the attitudes, as well as an investigation of how various groups and individuals conceptualize the problem and view each other. While these polls purport to tell us what the public thinks about global

warming, it is difficult to convert these results into action since there is not one public when it comes to this issue. Anthony Leiserowitz, the director of the Yale Climate Change Project, identifies six categories that he calls the Six Americas.

Each group has a different view of the problem and engaging them in the issue requires a different approach for each group. Education and engagement are essential to creating meaningful change and purposeful action to address climate change. For the Six Americas to engage with one another, for people in one group to move to another, or for leaders and activists to find the ways to talk about the problem that connect it personally to peoples lives, it is necessary to truly talk with people and find out what they think. To do this, I conducted one-on-one personal interviews with a wide variety of people of all ages, genders, political persuasions and socio-economic statuses. My goal was to use the statistics as a jumping off point, and then go deeper and find out what they really thought about global warming, how they formed their opinions and how they conceptualized the issue. By gaining a clearer idea of how and what people think about the topic of global warming, we are better able to engage with them and work together to effectively address the problem. By pairing the data from Gallup, Pew, and others with these personal conversations, the barriers to Skocpols visions of engagement and outreach can be examined and overcome, and one can learn how to better engage and take action. I began each interview with a general question like what do you think of global warming? and largely let the conversation go where it might. I made sure to ask each person questions about how serious of a threat they saw in global warming, how much they knew about it, how they conceptualized it, and in what kind of time frame they thought its affects would be seen. I asked them what could be done to combat global warming, where they got their information about global

warming, and what they thought of people who had different views on global warming. As much as possible, I tried to let the interview subjects drive the conversation in an effort to discover how they naturally thought about the topic without someone guiding them to the next question like in a telephone survey. Some people were more willing to talk than others, but in almost all cases, the interview felt more like an organic conversation than a questionnaire, which was the intention. Following each interview, I asked each participant to answer brief demographic questions, and I thanked them for participating. In discussing and quoting participants in this paper, I have made up names for each of them. These are not their real names, but are names that someone of their age and gender might have. The first time a participant is mentioned in this paper, I will provide brief demographic information about them, and all subsequent times they will be referred to only by their name. A complete list of participants referred to in the paper, along with their general demographic information, appears in the appendix. While every effort was made to interview people of diverse ages, racial backgrounds, political identifications, educational levels, and socio-economic statuses, the selection of people interviewed is not a scientifically representative group. Rather, they should be taken as a general reflection of society at large, their opinions, perceptions and thought processes, illustrating, illuminating, and supplementing the various surveys and opinion polls on the subject of global warming.

General Findings: Intangibility and Ignorance Global warming is so far out that you cant really touch, thats not tangible, said Frank, a 48-year-old man with an AA degree. The magnitude and intangibility of the issue is a major challenge to amassing public support to address global warming. It is this intangibility that leads in large part to the major finding that emerged among participants: a general ignorance about global warming in people of every stripe. Regardless of their opinion about global warming, or their age or education, on the whole, people were unable to articulate what it meant, what its effect would be, and what should be done. This ignorance about the issues led to a focus on small and specific examples, and a particular focus on the weather when thinking about or discussing global warming. Recognizing this inability to discuss the issue and the ways that people choose to do so is an important step toward engagement. In every interview, when I asked Do you believe global warming is a threat?, nearly every single person I talked to answered with a simple yes or I think so. These people clearly would fall into the 65% of Americans who believe global warming is a very or somewhat serious threat (Keystone). However, when pressed to explain what it meant to them that global warming was occurring or how they conceptualized it, most people were unable to provide an answer. Many interview subjects thought they knew or understood the concept of global warming, but when asked about it, struggled to explain what it meant. 27% of respondents in the March 2013 Gallup poll said that they understood

global warming very well, and 52% said they understood it fairly well. 18% said they understood global warming not very well, while only 3% claimed they

understood it not at all. In my interviews, very few people admitted outright that they did not understand global warming. Most peoples responses would have landed them in the fairly well category; however, a more thorough discussion revealed that their understanding was very weak. Even among interview subjects who claimed to have a decent knowledge and grasp of the issue, their actual ability to discuss global warming was severely lacking. While the Gallup survey found that 79% of respondents reported that they understood the issue of global warming very or fairly well, these survey respondents were not asked a follow up question about their understanding. When asked to explain what the concept of global warming meant to them, most interview subjects mentioned one or two specific examples of climate change effects but were unable to discuss any others. The ice is melting, the polar bears dont have places to go because the ice is melting, stuff life that. Thats pretty much it, said Erin, a 29-year-old woman with a high school diploma. Polar ice caps melting said Frank, Wildlife are being threatened. Lindsay, a 24-year-old college graduate agreed. Everyone knows this, she said, but the polar bears. Theyre running out of ice caps to live on. Frank and Lindsay also mentioned rising sea levels, but the most common response to the question about conceptualizing the effects of global warming was weather. According to the NSAPOCC survey data, the primary factor that caused respondents to believe in global warming was warmer temperatures observed for 21% of respondents and weather changes observed for a further 20%. These

ranked significantly higher than other factors such as scientific research (11%) or media coverage (9%) (Rabe). While she discussed rising sea levels, ice caps, and changing seasons as examples of possible effects of global warming, when supplying an example of and justification for her view that global warming was currently happening, Lindsay turned to temperatures. Theyre way hotter in the summer and not as cold in the winter. Its just messed up she said. For many people, weather was the only piece of evidence they could point to for their belief in global warming and revealed difficulty in discussing any other aspect of the issue. Earthquakes, floods, the change in weather said Abby, a 30-year-old woman with a GED. The weather today compared to yesterday, said Dolores, a 76-year-old woman with a college degree. The weather here, Ive seen it change, supplied Martin, a 49-year-old man with some college. By turning almost exclusively to weather or the one or two facts they might have heard as their justification for global warming, respondents demonstrated their lack of education and engagement with the issue. If these interview subjects who claimed to understand global warming and then were able to explain it using only the weather or one or two memorable examples are representative of the broader population, than the 79% of Americans who claim to understand global warming very or fairly well, may be overstating their knowledge. By being content with their current level of knowledge and understanding, people thus do not have the facts that might cause them to take meaningful action on the problem, but do not view themselves as among those in need of education. Indeed, many people suggested education as something that

others might be able to make use of, but did not suggest getting more educated about the topic themselves. Peoples conceptualization of global warming as something that is happening to the ice caps and to polar bears reinforces Skocpols point about connecting the issue to people. They cant understand the vast intricacies of climate systems, but they sympathize with a cute polar bear. This preference for bite-sized and relatable knowledge points the way toward the grounds of engagement, however the vast and intangible nature of the problem leads to ignorance that is difficult to overcome. In addition, different people require different kinds of engagement. II. Six Americas: Understand Who Youre Talking To In examining how to engage with different groups or types of people, Anthony Leiserowitzs Six Americas provides an effective framework. While there were some things that united almost all the interview participants, their opinions and attitudes about various aspects of the global warming debate placed them in different groups of Leiserowitzs Six Americas. These six groups are arranged on a continuum from very educated and very active to not educated and not active. The six groups Leiserowitz identifies are Alarmed, Concerned, Cautious, Disengaged, Doubtful and Dismissive, and I talked to people in all of these six groups. Keeping these in mind provides an effective theoretical framework within which to organize and investigate the appropriate kind of engagement and discussion with different people.

The first group, constituting 18% of the public, is Alarmed. These are the people who believe global warming is happening and is human-caused and are actively trying to do something to address the problem. 33% fall into the category Concerned. These people are aware that global warming is occurring, and see it as a potential problem, but are not immediately concerned about it, and not actively engaged. 19% of the public are considered Cautious. These are the people who have not yet made up their mind about the issue of climate change, and are uncertain about its implications. The Disengaged group constitutes 12% of the public. This group knows almost nothing about the issue and does not think about it. 11% are categorized as Doubtful. This group is not sure that global warming is happening, and if it is they think it is not caused by humans or not a problem. Just 7% of the public is considered Dismissive. This is the group that considers global warming a hoax or conspiracy, and is actively opposed to doing anything to address the problem (Maibach). Leiserowitz says that each of these groups requires a different approach to deal with the problem. Leiserowitzs colleague, Connie Roser-Renouf, sums up the different questions that the Six Americas would ask of a climate change expert. The Alarmed and the Concerned would ask, What can we do to stop global warming? The Cautious and the Disengaged would ask, Why is global warming a problem? The Doubtful and the Dismissive would ask, How do you know global warming is a problem? It is important to engage with the correct question with each group. Someone who does not yet understand why global warming is a problem is not ready to engage in a conversation about how they must change their habits to

10

combat it. Likewise, someone still not sure that global warming is occurring is not likely to engage in discussion about what effects global warming might have. Using questions and frameworks from Roser-Renouf and Leiserowitz combined with ones of my own, the following section will lay out the questions and terms of engagement that are relevant for each group. Concerned to Alarmed: A Focus on Immediacy Most of the people I talked to could be categorized as Concerned, and indeed nationally, the Concerned group is the largest (Maibach). Thus it is important to investigate this group in particular. At 33% and 18% respectively, there are almost twice as many people who are Concerned as Alarmed. The main difference between these groups is the immediacy with which they view the problem (Anthony), and in examining the responses in my interviews, the importance of the perception of timeframe becomes very apparent. At first glance it would seem that the comments of participants I interviewed did not match national data with regard to the issue of timeframe and immediacy. When presented with choices of when the effects of global warming would be seen already, within a few years, within my lifetime, some point in the future, or never 54% of respondents said the effects were already being seen, and 27% said they would be seen at some future time (3% a few years, 9% within your lifetime, and 15% future generations) (Saad). However, when presented as an open-ended question and without planting in the respondents mind that the effects may already be seen, a greater number of people suggested that effects of global

11

warming would be seen sometime in the next 100 years. This initial impulse toward a lack of immediacy about global warming is key to address in converting Concerned individuals to Alarmed. Probably not in our lifetime said Tim, a 21-year-old high school graduate, when asked when he expected the effects of global warming to be seen. I dont think anything drastic is going to change now, but in the next 75 to 100 years more drastic changes are going to happen said Lindsay. I dont think its going to affect us tomorrow, said Frank, But certainly in the next 100 years. Erin thought that the effects might be seen in 30 or 40 years, but as she suggested that she might not be alive in 30 or 40 years, this is effectively the same as saying 75 to 100 years out. Rand, a 51-year-old college graduate, also doubted if the effects would be seen in his lifetime, predicting calamity in the future, a similar view as Chad, a 23-year- old college student, who said, I dont know if it will be within my generation, but definitely children, but then added a couple hundred [years] I think. This lack of immediacy for people is central to their ability to be aware of global warming but choose not to do anything substantial about it, nor let it worry them. Susan, a 52-year-old woman with some college education, the most educated and active person I talked to, made it clear that for her the effects feel both immediate and long-term. It feels like its happening right now, she said, Obviously the polar ice caps are melting at an incredible rate, and weve already seen a number of examples [of global warming] While she too was short on specifics, relying mostly on the example of the polar ice caps, she seemed more aware of the broad, interconnected nature of the problem, and of its current impact.

12

Consequently, she was the most clear about what steps ought to be taken to combat global warming. Focusing on immediacy and timeframe might be able to move some people from Concerned to Alarmed, but other than that, these two groups hold similar views, and as the largest segment of the population and the most educated and active on the issue of climate change, the way they think about the issue is very important. The way that this group views those with different opinions however, is also crucial in how they will engage with them and attempt to change their opinions and behavior. The Complex Middle A third of the country has little or no opinion about global warming, but it is this group that may be most ripe for changing, though it requires truly understanding what makes them disengaged, and what facts might bring them into the debate. While Leiserowitz describes the situation as a fairly clear, linear progression from one end of the spectrum to the other, in talking to people, a far more complicated and nuanced picture emerges, particularly for those in the middle 18%, the Cautious/Disengaged group. Erin, Martin and Abby represent three very different points of view that all would be categorized as Cautious or Disengaged. Understanding these different viewpoints is an essential first step in seeking to move any of these people into the Concerned category.

13

Erin is an excellent illustration of someone who is Cautious who could easily become Concerned. Her knowledge of global warming is limited to the fact that the ice in Antarctica is melting and the polar bears dont have places to go because the ice is melting. She is unsure if the effects will be seen within her lifetime, and she is more concerned about other issues like gun control. Im worried about it, but its not like I loose sleep over it, Erin says of global warming. This initial awareness and openness to the problem make Erin someone who could potentially shift into the Concerned or Alarmed category if someone engaged with her about the basic facts of global warming and how it might affect her own life. Martin is a quintessential example of someone who is Disengaged. He does not know very much about global warming, and he does not think about the topic. I really dont know, he said when I asked him if he thought global warming was a threat, I dont talk about it all the time. Martin too could perhaps move into the Cautious or even Concerned category if he simply engaged with other people about the issue. With some prompting, he was able to discuss his observations about the changes in weather and the fact that they cut too many trees down. This basic awareness makes Martin potentially open to hearing a little bit about the basic facts of global warming thereby engaging him in the issue and moving him into a different category. Indeed even just engaging with the topic to the extent that my questions required him to, seemed to illicit a change in Martin. Whereas he started off the interview saying I dont know and I couldnt tell you, by the end of the interview he stated that global warming is happening now. You can see it happening now. It gets worse as time progresses.

14

Abbys opinions and subsequent categorization are less clear than Erins or Martins. She clearly does not engage much with the topic of global warming, making it reasonably easy to place her in the Disengaged group. Her variety of viewpoints however, make it unclear whether she leans toward the Doubtful or the Cautious side of Disengaged. Not much, to be honest, Abby said when asked how much she knew about global warming, But I can just imagine what it will look like, and its not pretty. Her conceptualization of global warming as a biblical end-times of chaos brought on by God coming could be interpreted as anything from Dismissive (of the scientific idea of global warming) to Alarmed (at the potential destruction). I think Im fine. When it happens it happens, Abby said before adding But I guess I should prepare myself, huh? Abby ended the interview on a cautious note as she discussed doomsday preparation. Maybe I just gotta be like Noah and build an arc, she said. Though Erin, Martin and Abby are in the Cautious/Disengaged group for different reasons and because of different opinions, they all would benefit from some basic facts and awareness about global warming, though this should be tailored to their particular concerns and levels of engagement. Such engagement would go a long way toward encouraging this middle group to change their opinion or actions. The Vocal Minority: Worth Your Time? Considerable focus in the national conversation about global warming is given to the relatively small number of people at the far end of the Six Americas

15

spectrum. While these people are unlikely to change their mind, it is worth understanding what makes them hold the opinions that they do, since, just as with the other groups, there is far more nuance and variety of opinion than the national conversation or even the poll numbers would suggest. Understanding what kinds of arguments a Doubtful or Dismissive person is making can be helpful in deciding if they are worth engaging with, or if ones time would be better spent on a more persuadable person. People at the extreme Dismissive end of the spectrum make up the smallest percentage of the public and are least likely to change their mind, and thus not worth spending time trying to convince. People like Henry, a 72-year-old college educated man, are very set in their views and unlikely to accept any arguments that counter them. I think its more political than real in many ways, Henry says of global warming, I think its a great political thing to gain votes and a following from the environmental agenciesyou know, the green contingent in the U.S. Henry thinks that by talking about global warming, we are trying to blame all the ills of the world on what the human race is doing, and returns again and again to what he claims is the cyclical nature of global warming. We got the cold age and the hot age he says, Its a cyclical patternwe just happen to be at the apex, the top of the cycle. Though pleasant and willing to share his opinion, Henry displays no interest in engaging with any information that might challenge his view of global warming. Delores falls into the Doubtful category, because although she acknowledges

that global warming may be happening, she does not think that it is anthropogenic. The weather today is different from yesterday, she says, going on to explain that

16

she cannot grow the plants in her garden like she used to. As the conversation continues however, she reveals a profound dislike for Al Gore and his movie An Inconvenient Truth, and states that global warming is not human created and that we are not able to control it. Delores also states several times that she has her own conception of global warming, and is uninterested in hearing any other opinions. The fact that Delores recognizes and acknowledges that global warming is indeed occurring makes her potentially a reasonable person with whom to engage about the issue, but her deeply held beliefs and apparent lack of interest in discussing others makes her unlikely to stray from her current Doubtful position. Though he ultimately could be categorized as Doubtful, Joseph, a 32-year-

old man with some college education, started with a relatively open mind admitting that I havent really seen the science myself so I cant say for certain, adding that a belief in global warming certainly seems to be the popular perception. Joseph based his Doubtfulness on a feeling that he did not have the necessary information to make an informed judgment about global warming. When people have such divergent views of the issue, it is hard to even say what about of attention is merited, Joseph said. Without making any definitive statements, Josephs Doubtfulness emerged as he expressed his opinion that global warming could be manufactured and brought up instances in history where there has been an increase in temperature. At some points in the conversation however, he seemed genuinely open to the idea of global warming, simply reluctant to accept it without seeing more proof.

17

While many people in the Doubtful/Dismissive category, like Henry and

Delores, are extremely unlikely to change their opinion, there are those like Joseph who potentially could if presented with compelling evidence. Spending time entertaining climate change deniers is usually not a productive avenue to enacting change. However, some amount of engagement with the Doubtful/Dismissive group of the American public can be effective, but must be situated within the right plane of engagement and be predicated on the right questions. III. Reframe the Conversation Beyond knowing what to say to each group, it is important to know which groups it is most productive to engage with, as well as effective ways to reframe the conversation with these groups. Those people in the Alarmed/Concerned group should refocus their attention from the Doubtful/Dismissive group to the Cautious/Disengaged group. Furthermore, anyone serious about addressing the threat of global warming must resist the paradigm wherein the science of global warming is in doubt and all opinions about the subject are equally valid. The sense of inevitability about global warming that pervades discussions must also be combated if one hopes to address the problem in a meaningful way. Talk to the Right Group The 51% of Alarmed or Concerned people tend to think about the 18% of Doubtful or Dismissive people more than the 31% of Cautious or Disengaged. The key question of engagement with the 18% is about how we know global warming is

18

occurring, while the key question of engagement with the middle 31% concerns how global warming will affect us personally (Roser-Renouf). The 51% at the Alarmed/Concerned end of the spectrum thus use the minimal scientific facts that they have to try to convince the 18% at the Doubtful/Dismissive end. Unable to articulate for themselves what the personal impact of global warming will look like, the 51% do not engage with the middle 31%. Frank and Chad are both Concerned. I dont think [global warming] is going to affect us tomorrow, but certainly in the next hundred years says Frank, while Chad agrees that I dont know if it will be within my generation, but definitely children, like shortly after. Chad discusses changing seasons and weather patterns as well as steps he is taking in his own life with climate change in mind. I try to walk as much as possible, he says, Its being conscious of the little things. Frank discusses weather patterns as well, in addition to rising sea levels, storms, polar ice caps melting and wildlife being threatened. Franks solutions include recycling, cars that are more economical, and laws put in place to reduce pollution. When thinking about people with different views than them on global warming, both Frank and Chad describe Doubtful or Dismissive people. I think some people you know dont want to believe that our way of life and our status quo is being threatened by anything, says Frank, Especially something that is so far out that you cant really touch [it], thats not tangible. Chad is of a similar opinion: They just dont want to believe, he says, They think its a mad theory that someone came up with to get more hybrids or something. Theres always those people who refuse to believe for whatever reason.

19

Susan and Rand are also in the Alarmed/Concerned group, and view the problem primarily in terms of those at the other end of the spectrum, those in the Dismissive group. I think there will be calamity in the future, Rand says, citing ice core drilling and carbon dioxide levels over the centuries, To me that sounds like pretty firm evidence. Susan sees global warming as an issue that is both immediate and long term. It feels like its happening right now, she says, mentioning polar ice caps and superstorms. [My brother] was saying basically were fucked, scuse my Frenchand at this point when you really look at it, in a sense, we are. Susan and Rand both mention measures to reduce global warming like carpooling, LED lights, cleaner energy, and more fuel efficient cars, and both view money and corporate interests as the primary obstacle to meaningful action on global warming. A lot of peoples livelihoods depend on selling fossil fuels and things, says Rand, Anyone whose livelihood is tied to fossil fuels doesnt want us to think that fossil fuels are causing the problem. According to Susan, the inhibitor to action is money. The bottom line. Corporate interestsdont want people reaching in their pockets for any potential threat. They dont want to make those change because it affects the bottom line. Whereas Frank and Chad view the people in the Dismissive group as conspiracy theorists unwilling to change or believe because of personal comfort, Rand and Susan view them as greedy corporate interests denying the existence of global warming for economic reasons. While their views of the Dismissive group are slightly different, all four of these Alarmed/Concerned people turn to those at the far opposite end of the Six Americas spectrum when discussing divergent opinions

20

on global warming. These people however, are least likely to change their opinions (cite), and are in fact the smallest group of the six. The efforts and attention of Alarmed and Concerned Americans who want to engage with others to make a difference would be better spent focusing on the middle 31% of people, those who are Cautious or Disengaged. Tim and Pauline, an 87-year-old woman with some college education also fall into the Alarmed and Concerned groups (respectively), but when thinking about differing views on global warming, the opinions that they discuss align more closely with the Cautious/Disengaged group than with the Doubtful/Dismissive group. Tim thinks global warming is inevitable, but probably not in our lifetime. He mentions reducing your own carbon footprint to make sure youre not adding a lot to the problem, as well as a move toward cleaner burning fuels. Pauline thinks its obvious that global warming is occurring and mentions cars and energy sources as examples of areas in which we will need to make a change. For Pauline, the lack of action on global warming is all tied up in fear. Its a pretty big issue, she says, and one that people dont engage in because they are motivated by fear. Tim sees the lack of engagement less as a result of fear than of ignorance. People really dont know whats actually going on, what global warming actually is, he says, I think a lot of people are confused about that. If you asked a lot of people, most of them probably wouldnt be able to tell you anything about it really. People dont really care. Its not that theyre misinformed; theyre just not informed. They dont see it as a thing that will affect them.

21

Tims description is an accurate portrayal of the 31% in the Cautious/Disengaged group, and he is right in suggesting that we inform everybody as a first step in getting the public on board with addressing the issue of global warming. Putting the focus here, rather than on convincing the 18% of the public in the Doubtful/Dismissive group that global warming is occurring is a more effective use of time and energy, though evidently not the first impulse of many respondents. By changing the goal from convincing the Doubtful and Dismissive to engaging the Cautious and Disengaged, the intense oppositional rhetoric is removed and the emphasis is placed on actually doing something. While avoiding spending time on the wrong group is effective, assuming that this includes Republicans is not. One of the most significant barriers to action on climate change at the national political level arises out of the partisanship of the issue. Allowing this partisan division to filter down to other interactions on the issue would be detrimental to achieving action, and indeed it does not hold out. Though Democrats are more likely to support action on climate change, and those who do not or do not believe in the science of global warming are more likely to be Republicans, there are plenty who break the mold (Rabe). Among Republicans I interviewed, there were a variety of divergent viewpoints on global warming. Henry, Delores, Brad and Lindsay all identified as Republican and represent viewpoints on both extremes of the Six Americas spectrum. Henrys statement that I think [global warming] is more political that real as well as his dismissal of most climate science and insistence on the cyclical nature of warming periods place him firmly in the Dismissive group and makes him

22

an excellent illustration of what is widely viewed as the Republican stance on climate change. Delores acknowledges the fact that global warming is happening, and exhibits some concern about its effects particularly in regard to her garden and the change in weather and temperature, however her opinion that global warming is not human created and that we are not able to control its effects places her in the Doubtful category. Brad is a 22-year-old college student, and is well-educated about global warming and sees it as a threat worth addressing. His focus is mainly on other issues such as the economy which he does not see as directly related to global warming, but when he does think about it, it is clear that he feels it is a threat worth addressing. Lindsay places global warming high on her list of concerns saying, Im a Christian and I believe that God made this world beautiful Its upsetting because [people are] ruining this beautiful world that we have. Lindsay took a class in college that informed her position on the issue, leading her to suggest that stricter mandates on things like recycling might be necessary to achieve the desired change in harmful human activity. These divergent opinions from four people who all identify as Republican point to an age disparity in opinions about global warming, particularly among Republicans. It also is a clear sign to anyone who hopes to work on the issue that assuming Republicans are not interested in engaging with the issue would be detrimental to progress. Indeed bringing Republicans concerned about global warming into the process is an important step toward a broader national consensus on the issue.

23

Inevitability and Opinions: Ideas Worth Abandoning According to the Gallup survey, 56% of people think that it is possible to take some action to slow the effects of global warming, while 40% of people think that it is a process that cant be altered. Among the interviews I conducted, there were varying degrees of effective action suggested, but among nearly all respondents, there was an attitude of inevitability with regard to global warming. Its something that was going to happen. Theres not really much you can do to stop it, said Tim, a 21-year-old high school graduate. Though later Tim stated that you can reduce it, but stopping it is probably never going to happen, and then went on to describe reducing your own carbon footprint, and moving toward cleaner burning fuels. Despite these later suggestions, it is worth noting that this initial reaction was one of inevitability. Erin saw less reason to work to control or curtail the causes of global warming. Its gonna happen either if we do something or we dont do something, she said. Abby had a similar view, interpreting my question about what we might do to combat global warming as a question about what she might do to prepare for its inevitable effects. It is what is. Its just inevitable, she said. When it happens it happens. But I guess I should prepare myself, huh? The idea of working to prevent the effects were not something she considered. While people like Abby and Erin may be more set in their way of thinking, people like Tim, who are open to the idea of working to prevent and slow global warming and yet are still in a mindset of inevitability are the ones who could affect the movement overall. A prevailing attitude among many Americans is that the global warming is simply a matter of opinion, and that there is still considerable doubt about the

24

legitimacy of scientists claims (Clement). People at all points in the global warming debate buy in, wittingly or unwittingly, to this paradigm. What kind of attention and importance should the issue have, muses Joseph, As much as is merited. But when people have such divergent views of the issues, its hard to even say what amount of attention is merited. Here Joseph uses the fact of various opinions to justify questioning the science of the issue. My opinion isnt worth much, but everyone has a right to an opinion, Henry says ostensibly deprecating his own, but at the same time casting those who disagree with him, those who see global warming as a real human-induced threat, as also just sharing an opinion. Frank says that he feels that global warming is happening because of a consensus among the scientists, but asserts that everyone can make their own decision in life. By using the word feel about his fact-based opinion and implying that others might have differing yet valid opinions about the reality of global warming, Frank unwittingly contributes to the idea that global warming is an issue up for debate, despite not feeling that way himself at all. Identifying and overcoming a mentality of inevitability about global warming and shifting away from a discourse of opinion and scientific doubt are crucial steps to take in addressing the issue and galvanizing support from others to do the same. IV. Proposed Solutions Most of the recommendations in this paper focus on how to shift and frame the discourse on global warming and how to engage with certain groups about it. These are important considerations, but so are practical solutions, on an individual

25

and group level. The way that average citizens think and talk about possible solutions is an important consideration, whether crafting these solutions in government or simply suggesting to a neighbor they do things slightly differently. When asked about we might slow, reverse, or combat the effects of global warming, most interview participants were quick to list activities at the local and personal level like recycling and carpooling, but were much slower to supply policy suggestions at the governmental level. Though most people know that marginally changing personal activity alone is not enough to solve the problem, they are generally reluctant to propose any government-mandated taxes or regulations. Understanding what kinds of proposals people are most opposed to, and which they seem open to is important for any future climate change legislation. The focus on small, finite specifics in peoples proposed solutions to global warming mirrored their finite examples in their descriptions of it. When asked an open ended-question like what can we do about global warming? almost all the interview subjects first answers were things on a small, personal level such as carpooling, driving hybrids, using energy-efficient light bulbs, and recycling. Maybe people should carpool more suggested Rand, a 51-year-old college-educated man, I see a whole lot of people driving alone in their cars, and I dont like that. Several other people mentioned reducing driving, energy efficient cars, and recycling, and Chad, a 23-year-old college student, said the word hybrid on five separate occasions during our ten-minute conversation. Only after being asked specifically about solutions on a state or national level, did most participants offer ideas beyond themselves. Most of these were little more

26

than expanding individual practices to the larger population, and most people were reluctant to suggest any kind of mandates, or aggressive laws. For many people, this appeared to be based on some idea that the problem was not yet big enough to warrant a strong government intervention or that it was simply not the governments place to do so. Mandating any changes on a governmental level is a way to piss off a lot of people, said Chad, while Lindsay struggled with the fact that mandating certain changes would be hard because it would conflict with peoples freedom to do whatever they want. Ultimately Lindsay decided that such mandates are going to be necessaryif things dont change. Rand felt similarly, suggesting taxes on fossil fuels to subsidize electric cars, while Susan suggested putting pressure on corporations to have cleaner energy and produce more fuel- efficient vehicles. While some people seem willing to support active government action to address the issue of climate change, others are not yet convinced. 35% of Americans think the US government is currently doing about the right amount in terms of protecting the environment, while 16% think it is doing too much and 47% say it is doing not enough (Newport). While almost half the country thinks the government ought to be doing more, there is not yet a broad consensus on the issue, and responses from interview subjects revealed a continuing unease about fully supporting such measures. In light of this finding, laws and regulations should be implemented in such a way that they do not unduly alienate or anger people, and any such action should be combined with better education about the issue. Susan touched on this point when she stressed the need to be gentle when making laws

27

and regulations about what people could and could not do, while Chad proposed raising awareness on peoples own terms by using Facebook to our advantage. Even education and raising awareness is difficult for some people to actively support, like in the case of Karen, a 55-year-old woman with an AS, when she said, I do my part. I dont lecture. While doing ones own part by recycling and carpooling is an essential part of the solution, larger government action is necessary as well, and this will require supporters of this idea to feel confident in engaging with their friends and neighbors about the issue. V. Conclusion Ultimately, education and engagement with the issue of global warming are at the heart of all of this, and such an engagement will help bring it further into the national conversation and more prominently into the publics consciousness. Even for interview subjects who had clear opinions and thoughtful comments, it was clear that most people were not used to discussing global warming, and had not spent much time thinking about it. Aside from not knowing many details or facts about global warming, many people struggled to discuss it at all. Many people could relate to global warming only in a context they understood and with which they felt comfortable. Delores talked mostly about her own garden, and Abby answered all the questions as though she were talking about a religious apocalyptic end times, clearly a paradigm in which she was more comfortable talking. God is coming. Its scary. Chaos thats what it looks like, she said when asked how she viewed global warming and whether she saw it as a threat.

28

With less concrete frames of reference, people had less to structure their responses, and many found it difficult to articulate opinions or views on global warming. Ive never really thought about that before, said Tim when I asked him to think about how he formed his view of global warming. I dont really talk to people about it, he said later. Being asked to think through issues of climate change sometimes created an opinion about the topic where one previously did not exist. Several participants had different or more thorough opinions about global warming at the end of the interview than they did at the beginning. Simply engaging with the topic provided an opportunity for reflection and engagement with the topic that otherwise would not have occurred. Martin answered all initial questions about global warming with I really dont know. I dont talk about it all the time I dont know, man. I couldnt tell you. I dont know. However, by the end of the interview, he stated with considerable conviction that its happening now. You can see it happening now. It gets worse as time progresses. He appeared to have arrived at this opinion not by anything I had said, but simply by talking through the issues aloud for himself. Lindsay too seemed to have her opinion changed or deepened over the course of the interview simply by making the arguments aloud. While initially reluctant to suggest any type of government mandate when it came to improving fuels standards or expanding recycling programs, by the end she seemed to come to a realization that that such requirements may be the only answer. If people arent willing to make that change, she said, Strict rules are going to have to be enforced so we can keep our world the way we want it. Just moments before she had

29

rejected the idea of mandating what people do, pointing out that people have the freedom to do whatever they want. While being asked to think about global warming resulted in a clearer opinion about the matter in some, it resulted in an acceptance of greater apathy in others. After trying to avoid taking a clear stance on the topic for most of the conversation as he carefully talked through the various positions on the matter, Joseph, ended up in a fairly agnostic position. I guess it really doesnt matter to me, he said, Now that someone is getting me to think about it. The various responses and reactions that a rare conversation about global warming elicited, point to the importance of such conversations if global warming is to become more salient in the minds of the population at large. Frank and Susan, the two best-informed and most thoughtfully articulate people I talked to, were the only ones to mention having regular conversations about global warming. Frank mentioned talking with other people as one source of his information about global warming, while Susan talked at length about her conversations with her very well- informed and passionate brother. Many of the people I talked to seemed generally aware of small steps they could take to reduce their contribution to the causes of global warming, and willing to take those steps. They also seemed concerned about future generations and had a desire to provide a clean, safe world for them. Tim thought that reducing pollution and greenhouse gas emission was a good idea for the future and that it was worthwhile to try to keep the world safe and not a death trap for future generations. You have to think about the world that youre leaving for those I

30

know thats a really clichd thing to say but the world that youre leaving for your loved ones to grow up in, Lindsay said. Frank agreed, saying, Theres no reason to have an attitude that youre only here for your lifetime and then forget about everyone else. Theres a lot more than that. Pauline had a similar sentiment: We want to leave the world a better place, she said. Then, after a brief reflective pause, she added Im not sure its possible. Though time is running out, it may yet be possible, but concrete steps must be taken. Ignorance about global warming must be overcome by making the issue tangible and relatable. Concerned and engaged citizens must take responsibility and reframe the discussion away from partisanship by focusing on the group in the middle, and abandoning conceptions of global warming as inevitable or merely an opinion. Government intervention is likely necessary, but must be carefully implemented and pared with education and a commitment to continued engagement about the issue. Ultimately, it must be remembered that global warming has a tremendous potential to inflict severe damage and suffering on everyday people, and it is essential that these peoples voices enter into the national discussion.

31

Appendix Name Abby Brad Chad Delores Erin Frank George Henry Joseph Karen Lindsay Martin Pauline Rand Susan Tim Sex F M M F F M M M M F F M F M F M Age 30 21 23 76 29 48 65 72 32 55 24 49 87 51 52 21 Education GED Some college Some college 4-yr college degree High School 2-yr college degree Graduate degree 4-yr college degree Some college AA degree 4-yr college degree Some college Some college 4-yr college degree Some college High School Political ID n/a Republican Democrat Republican Democrat Democrat Democrat Republican n/a Democrat Republican Democrat Democrat Democrat Democrat Democrat 6 Am. Grp Disengaged Concerned Concerned Doubtful Cautious Concerned Concerned Dismissive Doubtful Concerned Alarmed Disengaged Alarmed Concerned Alarmed

Concerned Sex, age, education level and political identification were self-reported by the interviewees. The Six Americas group categorization was made based on opinions and perceptions they shared in the interview and the criteria laid out by Anthony Leiserowitz, et al. The names were selected by me for confidentiality and ease of reference in the text.

32

Works Cited Anthony Leiserowitz On Making People Care About Climate Change. Moyers & Company. BillMoyers.com. 4 Jan. 2013. Clement, Scott. How Americans see global warming in 8 charts. The Washington Post. 22 Apr. 2013. Keystone XL Pipeline Draws Broad Support. Pew Research Center for the People & the Press. 2 Apr. 2013. Maibach EW, Leiserowitz A, Roser-Renouf C, Mertz CK. Identifying Like-Minded Audiences for Global Warming Public Engagement Campaigns: An Audience Segmentation Analysis and Tool Development. PLOS One. 10 Mar. 2011. Newport, Frank. Nearly Half in U.S. Say Govt Environmental Efforts Lacking. Gallup Politics. 1 Apr. 2013. Plumer, Brad. Why has climate legislation failed? An interview with Theda Skocpol. The Washington Post. 16 Jan. 2013. Rabe, Barry and Chris Borick. Continued Rebound in American Belief in Climate Change: Spring 2012 NSAPOCC Findings. Governance Studies at Brookings. 11 Jun. 2012. Roser-Renouf, Connie. Environmental Health Communication: Message Strategies from A Climate Change Perspective. Partnerships in Environmental Health, George Mason University Center for Climate Change Communication. PowerPoint. 6 Mar. 2012 Saad, Lydia. In US Global Warming Views Steady Despite Warm Weather. Gallup Politics. 30 Mar. 2012.

33