You might not care about climate change — and it's not your fault - The Michigan Daily

You might not care about climate change - and it's not your fault

In 1988, James Hansen, a scientist for the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, testified to Congress about the causes and dangers of rising global temperatures. Since then, thousands of peer-reviewed scientific studies have reaffirmed his expert testimony. However, in a Pew Research Center survey, only 14% of Republicans and 64% of Democrats consider climate change a “very big problem.” Participants in the survey ranked climate change as the 11th most pressing problem for the U.S. behind other issues like inflation, gun violence and the state of moral values.

After more than 36 years of political concern about climate change, it’s clear that data and scientific models are not enough to convince people that climate change is real and incredibly important. While data alone is not effective, neither are radical protesting methods like vandalism and disruptive protesting. Climate scientists and activists who use unrelatable, data-driven communication methods as well as overly aggressive protesting tactics make it difficult to attract voters to their cause.

It is essential to humanize the problem of climate change and make it relevant to the broader public. For many years, I was dissuaded from supporting sustainable policies due to environmental movements that seemed irrelevant to me and my community. I found it ridiculous that I was asked to use paper straws and specific light bulbs to be environmentally friendly while the entire country was reliant on fossil fuels. I felt like the blame was being placed on me as a consumer, while corporations and governments were excused from taking action. Until I attended the University of California, Santa Barbara my freshman year and learned that campus itself could be at risk due to rising sea levels, climate change was not important to me. After that, I was more interested in policy solutions as well, such as economic tools to disincentivize fossil fuel burning and preparation plans for sea level rise and extreme weather events.

Many people, like me, are unhappy with the disconnect between what we are told to do in order to be environmentally conscious and real solutions. Communicating information about unrelatable issues is already ineffective, and cognitive psychology studies have also shown that people form opinions based on emotions, not facts and data — especially when it comes to political issues. Activists and scientists should take advantage of this research and craft their arguments with the intent to elicit an emotional reaction and form a more human connection with the audience.

For example, Michiganders would be more likely to vote in favor of climate-friendly legislation if they knew the effects of rising temperatures on their own lives. Warmer water temperatures in Lake Michigan will lead to more algae blooms and degrade water quality, eventually making it undrinkable.​ Lake Michigan-Huron is also expected to rise about 17 inches by 2050, likely eroding much of Michigan’s beautiful beachfront. Changing temperatures and rainfall patterns will cause forests to shift northward, altering people’s cultural and recreational connection to forest ecosystems. The outdoor activities that many Michiganders love, including winter fishing, hiking and hunting, will all be affected.

Communicating these relevant pieces of information will hit close to home for many Michiganders and is far more effective at generating support for climate activism than rote statistics. This smaller community-level appeal is essential to creating real widespread change.

Some activists who grow frustrated with the ineffectiveness of their methods resort to alternative, radical forms of protest that garner attention to their cause. In January, environmental protestors threw soup at the glass-protected “Mona Lisa” by Vincent Van Gogh, calling for the right to healthy and sustainable food. In 2022, protestors from the German group Last Generation formed lines across streets and glued their hands to the pavement, causing massive traffic disruptions in the hopes that it would spur governmental action that combats climate change.

Some believe that these methods are essential to the success of a social movement, as they attract attention to the issue at hand and may be able to force institutions into action. However, research has shown that this sort of activism is counterproductive to increasing support. One study showed that in five of six experiments, extreme forms of protest caused negative reactions that made participants lose support for a movement’s central cause — a change independent of their prior ideologies or beliefs on the issue. The loss of support coincided with participants’ reduced social identification with the movement and a general notion that radical and disruptive forms of protest are immoral. This phenomenon is the activist’s dilemma: while radical actions can bring attention to a cause, they can simultaneously reduce support, preventing widespread and long-lasting democratic political change.

If the U.S. is going to successfully enact legislation to push the country toward net zero, climate activists worldwide will need to change their communication and protesting methods. The global reach of the climate movement has implications on how the issue and its activists are perceived. A protester vandalizing a famous artwork in France can still affect beliefs surrounding climate change in the U.S. Activists need to abandon radical forms of protest and humanize issues if they wish to amass a large voting base for their cause. You can compost as much as you want and drive an electric car, but your most powerful tool for creating change is voting.

Ethan Bittner is an Opinion Columnist from Santa Rosa, California. He writes about American culture and the global climate crisis. Ethan can be reached at ebittner@umich.edu.