Introduction
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 20 August 2009
Summary
It is June 23, 1988, a sweltering day in Washington, DC, and members of the US Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources are settling into their seats. What they are about to hear will change the direction of American politics forever. Up to the podium steps a six-foot middle-aged scientist, a little hoarse, a little nervous, and quietly vies for the attention of the eminent body.
The timing is perfect. Over 100 degrees outside and a deadly drought gripping much of the country, James E. Hansen, chief scientist of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, is here to nail the case for global warming. His message is simple and clear. “The greenhouse effect has been detected, and it is changing our climate now.” He states “with 99 percent confidence” that the evidence was in – the world was indeed getting warmer, and model projections pointed to worse heat waves and droughts in the future. As observers later recalled, “Besieged by the media afterward, [Hansen] said, ‘It's time to stop waffling so much and say that the greenhouse effect is here and affecting our climate now.’ Suddenly global warming – and Hansen – became world news.”
And world news it was. Not because of the news value of climate change – global warming had been buzzing around for a while – but because rarely if ever before did a scientist's warning set off such determined response. The June hearing was just the beginning. Seven hearings in the Senate and five in the House followed, each adding to the persuasiveness and urgency of the scientists' warning. […]
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Creating a Climate for ChangeCommunicating Climate Change and Facilitating Social Change, pp. 1 - 28Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2007
References
, , and (2003). Just Sustainabilities: Development in An Unequal World. London: Earthscan/The MIT Press.Google Scholar
American Geophysical Union (AGU) (1999). Waiting for a signal: Public attitudes toward global warming, the environment and geophysical research. Report available at: http://www.ago.org/sci_soc/attitude_study.pdf
(1994). Media (mis)communication on the science of climate change. Public Understanding of Science, 3, 259–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, , and (2000). In what sense does the public need to understand global climate change?Public Understanding of Science, 9, 205–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, , , et al. (1994). What do people know about global climate change? 1. Mental models. Risk Analysis, 14, 6, 959–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(2001). American attitudes to the environment and global warming: An overview of public opinion. Report prepared for the FrameWorks Institute, Washington, DC.
and (2004). Balance as bias: Global warming and the US prestige press. Global Environmental Change, 14, 2, 125–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boyle, R. H. (1999). “You're getting warmer …” Audobon Magazine (November/December). Available at: http://magazine.audobon.org/global.html; accessed June 15, 2005.
(2003). Comparative public opinion and knowledge on global climatic change and the Kyoto Protocol: The US versus the world? International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy, 23, 10, 106–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brewer, T. L. (2003). US public opinion on climate change issues: Evidence for 1989–2002. Available at: http://www.ceps.be; accessed January 5, 2006.
(2004). Communicating Uncertainty in the Science of Climate Change: An Overview of Efforts to Reduce Miscommunication Between the Research Community and Policymakers and the Public. Washington, DC: International Center for Technology Assessment.Google Scholar
Clark, W. C., et al. (2001). Acid rain, ozone depletion, and climate change: An historical overview. In Learning to Manage Global Environmental Risks, Vol. 1, Social Learning Group, ed. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, pp. 21–55.
, , , et al. (1994). Informal Science Learning: What the Research Says About Television, Science Museums, and Community-Based Projects. Ephrata, PA: Science Press.Google Scholar
(1995). Newspaper coverage of maverick science: Creating controversy through balancing. Public Understanding of Science, 4, 341–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Department of Energy (DOE), Information Administration (2005). Monthly Energy Review, January, Table 1.3, p. 7.
, , and (2003). The struggle to govern the commons. Science, 302, 1907–12.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
and (eds.) (2002). The Persuasion Handbook: Developments in Theory and Practice. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
Eastland, T. (2005). The collapse of big media: Starting over. Wilson Quarterly, (Spring).
Environics International (1998). The International Environmental Monitor, Vol. 1: Citizens Worldwide Want Tough Environmental Action Now. Available at: http://www.mori.com/polls/1998/iem_02.shtml; accessed January 10, 2006.
Field, C. B., Raupach, M. R., and Victoria, R. (2004). The global carbon cycle: Integrating humans, climate and the natural world. In The Global Carbon Cycle: Integrating Humans, Climate and the Natural World, eds. and SCOPE Report #62, Washington, DC: Island Press, pp. 1–13.Google Scholar
(2004). Is there a market for nonpartisan news? Media Commentary. Business Week, November 29.Google Scholar
Futerra (2005a). UK Communications Strategy on Climate Change. London: Futerra.
Futerra (2005b). The Rules of the Game: Principles of Climate Change Communication. London: Futerra.
Hansen, J. E. (1988). Testimony before US Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. Greenhouse effect and climate change, 100th Congress, 1st Session, June 23.
Harper, D. (2001). Online Etymology Dictionary. Available at: http://www.etymonline.com/, accessed March 28, 2005.
(2001). The Limits of Policy Change: Incrementalism, Worldview, and the Rule of Law. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
and (2004). Temporal discounting and environmental risks: The role of ethical and loss-related concerns. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 24, 4, 409–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, et al. (2002). Advanced technology paths to global climate stability: Energy for a greenhouse planet. Science, 298, 981–7.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
, , et al. (eds.) (2001). Climate Change 2001: The Scientific Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Third Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
and (forthcoming). Ignition: The Birth of the New Climate Movement Washington, DC: Island Press.Google Scholar
(1996). Scientific uncertainty and the political process. Annals AAPSS, 545, May, 35–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kasperson, R. E., Kasperson, J. X., and Dow, K. (2001). Vulnerability, equity, and global environmental change. In Global Environmental Risk, eds. and London: Earthscan, pp. 247–72.Google Scholar
and (1991). Developmental and geographical equity in global environmental change. Evaluation Review, 15, 149–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kasperson, R. E. and Kasperson, J. X. (1991). Hidden hazards. In Acceptable Evidence: Science and Values in Risk Management, eds. and Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, pp. 9–28.Google Scholar
(1991). Public understanding of global warming. Society and Natural Resources, 4, 4, 331–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, et al. (2004). Outcome-oriented leadership: How state and local climate change strategies can most effectively contribute to global warming mitigation. Widener Law Journal, 14, 173–204.Google Scholar
Kull, S., et al. (2004). Americans on climate change. Menlo Park, CA: Program on International Policy Attitudes (PIPA), University of Maryland and Knowledge Networks.
Leaman, J. and Norton, A. (2004). The Day After Tomorrow – are the British too cool on climate change? London: MORI Social Research Unit, UK, Prime Minister's Strategy.
(2004). Before and after The Day After Tomorrow: A US study of climate change risk perception. Environment, 46, 9, 22–37.Google Scholar
Leiserowitz, A. (2003). American opinions on global warming. Project report. University of Oregon.CrossRef
(1959). The science of “muddling through.”Public Administration Review, 19, 79–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Luers, A. L. and Moser, S. C. (2006). Preparing for the Impacts of Climate Change in California: Advancing the Debate on Adaptation. CEC-500-2005-198-SD, Report prepared for the California Energy Commission, Public Interest Energy Research Program and the California Environmental Protection Agency, Sacramento, CA.
and (1998). Coming Back to Life: Practices to Reconnect Our Lives, Our World. Gabriola Island, BC: New Society Publishers.Google Scholar
and (2004). Environmental risks in the news: Issues, sources, problems, and values. Public Understanding of Science, 13, 295–308.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, , , et al. (eds.) (2001). Climate Change 2001: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability, Contribution of Working Group II to the Third Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
and (2001). Challenging global warming as a social problem: An analysis of the conservative movement's counter-claims. Social Problems, 47, 4, 499–522.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
and (2003). Defeating Kyoto: The conservative movement's impact on US climate change policy. Social Problems, 50, 348–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(2000). Fostering sustainable behavior through community-based social marketing. American Psychologist, 55, 531–7.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
(2003). Laboratories for local solutions for global problems: State, local and private leadership in developing strategies to mitigate the causes and effects of climate change. Penn State Environmental Law Review, 12, 15–82.Google Scholar
(2004). Blinded by science: How “balanced” coverage lets the scientific fringe hijack reality (State of the Beat). Columbia Journalism Review, 6, November/December; available at: http://www.cjr.org/issues/2004/6/mooney-science.asp, accessed June 15, 2005.Google Scholar
, et al. (2002). Risk Communication: A Mental Models Approach. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
and (2004). Making climate hot: Communicating the urgency and challenge of global climate change. Environment, 46, 10, 32–46.Google Scholar
(1998). Impersonal Influence: How Perceptions of Mass Collectives Affect Political Attitudes. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nabi, R. L. (2002). Discrete emotions and persuasion. In The Persuasion Handbook: Developments in Theory and Practice, eds. and Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, pp. 289–308.Google Scholar
National Research Council (NRC) (2002). The Drama of the Commons. Commission on Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
National Research Council (NRC) Geophysics Study Committee (1977). Energy and Climate. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
and (2000). Double exposure: Assessing the impacts of climate change within the context of economic globalization. Global Environmental Change, 10, 221–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
O'Keefe, D. J. (2002a). Guilt as a mechanism of persuasion. In The Persuasion Handbook: Developments in Theory and Practice, eds. and Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, pp. 329–44.Google Scholar
O'Keefe, D. J. (2002b). Guilt and social influence. In Communication Yearbook23, ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, pp. 67–101.Google Scholar
and (2004). Stabilization wedges: Solving the climate problem for the next 50 years with current technologies. Science, 305, 968–72.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
(1997). Trends in science coverage: A content analysis of three US newspapers. Public Understanding of Science, 6, 1, 49–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
and (eds.) (1998). Human Choice & Climate Change. What Have We Learned? Vol. 4. Columbus, OH: Batelle Press.Google Scholar
, et al. (1994). What do people know about global climate change? 2. Survey studies of educated laypeople. Risk Analysis, 14, 6, 971–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(2004). How science makes environmental controversies worse. Environmental Science & Policy, 7, 385–403.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, et al. (2001). Issue attention, framing, and actors: An analysis of patterns across arenas. In Learning to Manage Global Environmental Risks, Vol. 1, Social Learning Group, ed. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, pp. 349–62.Google Scholar
(2001). Assessing the structure of environmental concern: Concern for the self, other people, and the biosphere. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 21, 327–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, , and (2000). Global climate change and public perception: The challenge of translation. Journal of the American Water Resources Association, 36, 2, 253–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Senge, P. (1990). The Fifth Discipline. New York: Doubleday.
and (1996). Representing uncertainty in global climate change science and policy: Boundary-ordering devices and authority. Science, Technology and Human Values, 21, 275–302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, , and (2000). Mass communication and public understanding of environmental problems: The case of global warming. Public Understanding of Science, 9, 219–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(2000). Knowledge, ignorance and the popular culture: Climate change versus ozone hole. Public Understanding of Science, 9, 297–312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(1992). The rise and (relative) decline of global warming as a social problem. The Sociological Quarterly, 33, 483–501.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Union of Concerned Scientists (2005). Clean Energy. Available at: http://www.ucsusa.org/clean_energy/renewable_energy/index.cfm, accessed June 9, 2005.
Voice of America (2004). US Plans to Emphasize Climate Change Adaptation at Upcoming Conference. December 3; available at: http://www.voanews.com/english/2004-12-03-voa83, accessed June 9, 2005.
(1969). The diffusion of innovations among the American states. The American Political Science Review, 63, 3, 880–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(1993). Between facts and values: Print media coverage of the greenhouse effect, 1987–1990. Public Understanding of Science, 2, 1, 71–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(2000). Drought, debate, and uncertainty: Measuring reporters' knowledge and ignorance about climate change. Public Understanding of Science, 9, 1, 1–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 15
- Cited by