Theme of the Month

I agree with Brian on the point that in working with adults "People have to understand to some extent what is at stake, and how climate change is affecting things they care about." We all view issues such as climate change through the lens of what we already care deeply about. There is a great deal of research that shows that in order to effectively communicate about climate change in a way that supports effective, collective action we need to frame the issue in a way that connects to widely held values, explains the basic mechanism of how it works so that people can link the problem to the solutions, and provides examples of realistic solutions that match the scale of the problem. Our work on the NNOCCI project (see "Constructive Dialog about Climate Change" video in the playlist) shows how this plays out in an aquarium/zoo/nature center setting.

I think deeper scientific understanding is good for its own sake, and for the sake of developing the next generation of scientists. But it's not going to lead to concerted public action in the time frame we need. On the other hand, climate change is a multigenerational challenge and we need to build the capacity that we are going to need to address it in the future.

Thanks for pulling this observation out of the chat Brian. My comment mirrors an observation by the teacher I'm co-developing elements of an Earth Science/climate change curriculum with who stated "students are more motivated to act than they are scared of their future." These students are high-school age, typically 10-12th graders, and of mixed ability levels, racial, and economic backgrounds. While the teacher's comment bears out in my classroom observations of this N=1 class, I'm not sure how generalizable this comment is (!)

I speculate from student statements such as "climate change is already happening" and their acceptance that modern climate change is driven by human-derived excess greenhouse gases that the grand challenge of climate change has been part of these students' reality "forever." The question to them now is, "Can I do anything about it?" I'm not sure that they're as motivated to act as many of us in this forum (or Greta Thunberg!) I think we have our work cut out for us here.

Regarding inclusion of human behavior, the research questions of the STEM+C grant I'm working on focus on use of modeling to deepen content understanding across high school science disciplines, computational thinking, and systems thinking across high school disciplines, not specifically climate change. That said, it's become clear that "science only" climate models are incomplete from a systems thinking perspective where students define a problem space (increasing temperatures, crazy weather, human/eco system mayhem) then try to identify "levers" to reduce or reverse negative effects. This has come up both in class and in other climate-related groups I've been part of such as the "Climate Change Education Collaborative" based in Vermont.

 I think there is often an unexamined assumption in climate and environmental education that understanding, awareness, concern and emotions lead to action. Here is a good article that questions that approach: 

https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748...

Thanks for this exchange, Tom & Billy.  I think another piece of the motivational puzzle is that people respond to the challenge, and the feeling that "something must be done by someone"  when they are offered plausible opportunities for action within their reach.  This has been shown to counter deer-in-the-headlights apathy or even despair.  

I have often thought that the core goal for climate change education is to affect the "common sense" of the community-- to get the community to the point that people get used to hearing folks they respect take it for granted that climate change is a problem (quite aside from agreement on specific policy responses) -- then we can talk about ways and means, timing and resources, rather than an existence proof.  There is usually variation in a commnuity about almost every point of science.  For example, I think there is likely to be a proportion of almost every community that prefers homeopathic remedies rather than "allopathic."  But the homeopaths rarely try to interfere with funding for public health clinics, for example...

To further refine the discussion of "community" here, there is a line of argument from the sociologists Gary Fine and Brooke Harrington based on the concept of “tiny publics.” They define tiny publics as “small groups that are a basis for affiliation, sources of social and cultural capital and a support point in which individuals in the group can have an impact on other groups or shape broader social discourse.” The cognitive scientists Wolff-Michael Roth and Stuart Lee argue that these kinds of group affiliations where scientific literacies are negotiated and grown. So, a "community" (as in a geographic community) may very well not be monolithic in its values, beliefs and understanding.

yes, I think this is right. I have been working on a parallel line of thinking, which is examining how in-group expertise ("vernacular science") incorporates identity values into their interpretation of interest-relevant science content.  I think this is a significant contributor fo the complex that we call "public understanding of science," and it's often quite parallell to, distinct from, whatever mainstream science the group participants may hear or know. 

I think this requires a different research approach than is usually taken to such studies.  Up close and personal (ethnographic). 

Thanks for framing and defining the varied approach to these communities.  The "up close and personal" requires a strong commitment of time to ensure trust and activities that involve multiple opportunities to develop analysis from points of view that can be translated to terms that relate and become the language of that community.   

I would argue that we need an aggressive, collective and innovative approach... this is an issue that demands rapid systems and social change. "Behavior change" implies that this is an issue primarily of individual responsibility.

I wonder whether people who begin to take individual responsibility are not perhaps more motivated to be galvanized into action when, for example, a Greta Thunberg comes along? Starting with individual responsibility can lead one into community action with like-minded people.  I think its possible to draw on both bottom-up individual action and top-down approaches...

yes, I think that 350.org is an example that works both up and down, so to speak. 

Yes!  I just responded to Billy's post about "behavior change" representing just an individual responsibility, while aggressive collective action is what is needed. Perhaps models of behavior change are relevant both at the individual and at the collective level.

Just to be clear, I am not saying that individuals bear no responsibility. But community-level action and larger systems-level changes are absolutely critical to making real progress here on a scale and pace that matters. And, community-level action needs to include civic action not just consumer action -- including advocacy for changing the systems and policies that matter including energy, transportation, buildings, etc. (see Project Drawdown for a good analysis).

Climate change has been "sold" for far too long as an issue of consumer choice. This has been an intentional strategy pursued by fossil fuel companies to deflect their own responsibility (see Merchants of Doubt by Conway and Oreskes, for example).

Amen.  

   At present, it seems to me that individual or local action can [a] provide a way of turning interest or anxiety into some outward response; [b] make some changes; [c] motivate others to take that steps at their own scale; and [d] provide an opportunity to see how all such efforts are negated without massive political and economic re-orientations — creating productive frustration, so to speak!

I have to agree that it takes an individual to feel secure to engage with youth who are frustrated by the generation that speaks strongly with data but fails to show working models of progress that they can pick up on and carry forward.  These individuals are hard pressed to find "steps at their own scale" but also that will be impactful to turn heads.  The capture of major signs of changes also have lost their power to engage and transition the energy  into positive results.  The drama in fact is by definition from the amazement of the news.

  The phenomenon of changes are occasionally small and going unobserved as well as the large events, so should  the efforts to engage be less structured? Could what simply avoids events over time be a factor to define sustainability?