So I just came across this new study in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology (I'm starting to think I did the wrong undergraduate degree...) :
The goal of the study was to examine whether the attractiveness of the solution offered alters the willingness to believe in the problem itself (focusing on environmental problems) (Campbell et al., 2014)
It makes sense if you think about it. Say you were diagnosed with serious illness. If on one hand you were advised to go through an intensive recovery program over a long period, odds are you would get a second opinion and question the diagnosis. On the other hand, if all you were advised to do was take a single pill you'd probably accept both the diagnosis and the solution without question (OK if you are a hypochondriac this analogy doesn't really work, sorry).
Well this study formally tested this behavioral trait in the context of climate change denial and found evidence of its existence. One of the questions they wanted to answer was why statistically more Republicans deny climate change than Democrats in the USA.
Here is how the Study worked:
- Two groups of Republicans and Democrats were formed (between 120-188 participants in each)
- Each Participant was shown this statement
- "The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) reported that there would be an increase of 3.2 degrees Fahrenheit in worldwide temperatures in the 21st century and that humans are responsible for global climate change patterns." Campbell et al., 2014
- They were next asked to evaluate one of two policy solutions:
- A tax on Carbon emissions and government regulation
- Innovation into green technology
And here is what the study found:
- When the solution offered was based upon regulation, only 17% of Republicans stated their belief that temperatures would reach the projections of the IPCC statement
- And guess what; when the solution involved profiting from being green technology market leaders, this figure rose to 64% (this strategy fits with a republican free market ideology)
So what can we take from this:
Well the way I see it, this really emphasizes the need to have a solution based approach to climate change mitigation. It is important to realise that targets, no matter how robust they are, are often only as believable as the solutions being offered to meet them. To combat mitigative inertia it is important to place a greater emphasis on developing solutions and examining why those those available at the present are not motivating change.
Anyway, let me know what you think. Can you think of any examples of solution aversion in your life?
Hi Will,
ReplyDeleteI really enjoyed reading this post. I agree that there should be solution-based approaches to climate change mitigation and more work should be conducted to highlight the pros and cons of various solutions posed and why they're aren't working.
However, I think that the role of models is not solely confined to setting projections or targets. Modelling is part of the solution to the climate change mitigation. Refining and improving models can inform spatial planning, which links to a lot of climate change adaptation studies. In terms of renewable energy potential, refining models can offer a view of where the best resource potential is. So, isn't climate change mitigation based on models anyway? Without models, how can we be concerned about climate change mitigation in the first place? Likewise, I completely agree with you that mitigation should not solely rely on modelling; yet I think you should give modelling for climate change and adaptation more credit. :) I was wondering what you think about this?
Anyway, keep up the great posting and I look forward to reading your posts.
Kim
Thanks Kim, good to see you are enjoying the blog! Looking back on this post I think should clarify what I meant. I've reworded my conclusion but for reference this is what it originally said:
ReplyDelete'a vital restriction on mitigative efforts is not going to be solved by refining projections and improving models' (it looks like this is the part you disagreed with).
I was really trying to make the point (not very well) that the focus on global mitigative targets and using models to produce them won't help overcome the solution aversion barrier. Essentially I was criticising the idea of scenario-led mitigation, linking back to my other post "Beyond the target: a bottom-up approach". I agree with your point that models are an essential tool in a solution-based approach (they need to be or I'm going to have to think about a new career!), that being said I do feel that in at present a lack of credible solutions remains a more prevalent restriction on mitigative action than uncertainty in the science of climate change itself. I guess that was really the conclusion of this study : the science is only really being questioned because of solution adversion.
I hope that cleared things up. Thanks for keeping me on my toes :)
Will