Research-Based argument essay
Risk Analysis, Vol. 32, No. 6, 2012 DOI: 10.1111/j.1539-6924.2011.01731.x
Perspective
Climate Change Communication: A Provocative Inquiry into Motives, Meanings, and Means
Branden B. Johnson∗
The deliberately provocative theme of this article is that perceived difficulties in climate change communication (CCC)—e.g., indifference about or denial of climate change’s real- ity, negative consequences, anthropogenic causes, or need to mitigate or adapt to it—are partly the fault of climate change communicators. Fischhoff’s model of risk communication development is used to demonstrate that CCC to date has tended to stress persuasion, rather than social movement mobilization or deliberation, and with a focus on the model’s early stages. Later stages are not necessarily better, but a more diverse strategy seems superior to a focus perhaps narrowed by empathic, ideological, psychological, and resource constraints. Furthermore, even within persuasion, emphasizing a wider set of values, consequences, and audiences could be fruitful. Social movement mobilization has its own set of weaknesses, but usefully complements persuasion with a focus on developing power, subverting mainstream assumptions, and engaging people in collective action. Deliberation similarly has its draw- backs, but unlike the other two approaches does not define the solution—or even, necessar- ily, the problem—in advance, and thus offers the chance for people of contending viewpoints to jointly develop concepts and action agendas hitherto unimagined. Simultaneous pursuit of all three strategies can to some degree offset their respective flaws, at the potential cost of diffusion of energies and contradictory messages. Success in CCC is by no means guaranteed by a more diverse set of strategies and self-reflection by communicators, but their pursuit should better reveal CCC’s limits.
KEY WORDS: Climate change; communication; deliberation; persuasion; social movements
1. INTRODUCTION
My aim in this thought piece is to retreat from details of indifference, denial, and other barriers(1)
for a wider perspective on climate change commu- nication (CCC). Research and practice allow little time for reflection on unexamined assumptions be- hind some CCC behavior. My deliberately provoca- tive argument is that success has been partly ham- pered by CC communicators themselves.
Here I define as communicators those who wish to prevent or reduce climate change and its impacts
∗Address correspondence to Branden B. Johnson, Decision Re- search, Inc., Decision Research, 1201 Oak St., Ste. 200, Eugene, OR 97401, USA; branden@decisionresearch.org.
through communication that moves people to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases, remove excess carbon from global sinks, or adapt to changed climate. CCC problems and solutions are also affected by many other communications and communicators whose ac- tions or inaction can pose barriers to CCC success; for brevity and focus their communications are not discussed in detail in this article, but challenges they pose and possible solutions are noted briefly where appropriate.
My definition of communication here is inclu- sive, covering three major strategies: persuasion of individuals to change their own energy use and adap- tations, mobilization to foster collective action to change individuals’ and institutions’ behavior, and
973 0272-4332/12/0100-0973$22.00/1 C© 2011 Society for Risk Analysis
974 Johnson
deliberation, collective efforts to identify problems and solutions. While some normatively label a behav- ior as “communication” as either criticism or praise (e.g., of one-way messages or deliberation, respec- tively), communication in the sense of meaning being conveyed in one or multiple directions among two or more parties is central to all three strategies. Com- munication can include conveyance of facts, discus- sion of which values are salient and their implications for action, and a host of other possibilities, one at a time or jointly. To assume communication can be only one of these makes the process, and these var- ied strategies, unduly simple, and contradicts the dis- cipline of environmental communication, which fea- tures them all.(2) As all three strategies have their limits—while being potentially complementary and sometimes contradictory—my aim here is to make them all problematic while exploring their potential, rather than privileging one (e.g., deliberation) over all others.
I begin by suggesting that CCC has not evolved far along a proposed sequence of risk communication stages, for varied reasons. Then I review opportuni- ties and drawbacks of the three strategies, and trade- offs and potential complementarities among them, as well as between CCC and other approaches to deal- ing with climate change.
2. HOW EVOLVED IS CLIMATE CHANGE COMMUNICATION?
Baruch Fischhoff(3) suggested a sequence of risk communication development, at least for hazards to which people allegedly overreact, such as nuclear power. Table I shows these stages and equivalents or examples for CCC; despite climate change be- ing a target of underreaction, according to CC com- municators, the definition of stages matches quite well hypothetically. However, how does this se- quence match CCC’s history or potential future? Two sources offer indications in lieu of currently un- available systematic data about actual CCC efforts and their outcomes. The Moser and Dilling(4) edited volume on climate change communication (disclo- sure: I co-authored a chapter) aimed to represent cutting-edge scholarship and practice, and is cited as “the most comprehensive book yet published about the communication of climate change” (p. 247).(5)
The annual Behavior, Energy and Climate Change Conference (BECC), sponsored by the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy, among other organizations, aims to use knowledge of how
individuals and organizations behave and make deci- sions to quicken a low-carbon society. A brief survey of both book chapters and 2009 BECC talks indicates CCC foci.
One of Moser-Dilling’s 32 chapters covered de- liberation, Fischhoff’s penultimate stage; three other chapters mention it. Collective mobilization (in gen- eral and among Alaskan natives) to influence policy- makers takes two full chapters; three chapters dis- cuss movement-related rhetoric or methods. Jointly these two methods take up at most 28% of chapters, less than 10% for full chapters. Five more chapters cover institutional movements, e.g., internal mobi- lization of firms for mitigation; cities and states in- spiring or collaborating on climate change action. Thus the book emphasizes persuasion strategies. The 2009 BECC talks (http://www.aceee.org/conf/09becc/ 09BECCPresentations.html) are less easily catego- rized; they covered more than just communication, and not all talks were available. However, only three items covered deliberation, among university stu- dents,(6) a test with stakeholders as well as citizens of group discussion and structured feedback via key- pads, and New England town meetings. Social move- ments were omitted entirely; all other CCC talks cov- ered persuasion.
A reviewer objected that it was misleading to use the Moser-Dilling volume, whose editors favor delib- eration, and the BECC papers, which include tech- nology and economics (although I only counted the communication papers), particularly as calls for de- liberation on climate change are common in both the United States(7−11) and Europe.(12,13) I argue, how- ever, that my samples misrepresent the population of actual CCC very little. Calls for deliberation1 are not themselves climate deliberations; Ref. 10, for exam- ple, spends a page on deliberation while largely fo- cused on conveying information (a table of tips does include “maintain respectful discourse” and “Let people discuss and draw their own conclusions from the facts”—p. 272). Some institutions favoring delib- eration in their scientific reports have programs to educate people about climate science (e.g., Climate Education Roundtable, U.S. National Academy of
1Ref. 12 reports results of enhanced focus groups on climate change that offer “deliberation lite” at best. People with com- peting views were explicitly recruited into each group, which was asked to report its disagreements as well as consensual topics, but conclusions were general (e.g., take low-cost action despite uncertainty) with no clear audience or action implication; par- ticipants themselves were not asked to commit to any course of action.
Perspective 975
Table I. Climate Change Communication in the Context of Fischhoff’s Stages of Risk Communication
Fischhoff (1995) Stages Climate Change Communication Equivalents or Examples
Get the numbers right Climate scientists doing normal science, in both Kuhnian and colloquial senses Tell them the numbers Reporting scientific findings and projections publicly Explain what we mean by the numbers E.g., ocean thermal expansion + ice sheet melting > sea level rise > projected
submerged shorelines and storm surge impacts Show they have accepted similar risks in the past (a) Show they’ve rejected similar risks (to those of climate change) in the past
(e.g., persistent toxic waste; nuclear waste) (b) Show they’ve accepted similar risks (to those of mitigation and adaptation) in
the past (e.g., precautionary action in other personal or policy areas) Show that it is a good deal for them E.g., stress ancillary benefits (lower energy costs, green jobs) of action against
climate change Treat them nice Offering respect, and fair decision-making procedures, to opponents Make them partners Inclusive deliberation on problems and potential solutions All of the above Both analysis (early stages) and deliberation can be necessary for all but routine
cases
Note: First column from Ref. 3, Table I.
Sciences(14)). Whether this reflects belief in its effec- tiveness despite official reports to the contrary,(15) or an ideological or organizational imperative to edu- cate, is unclear. Regional Integrated Science and As- sessment (RISA) teams funded by the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration are indeed analytic/deliberative efforts, to ensure scientific cli- mate information meets needs of regional stakehold- ers (e.g., farmers, water utilities, governments—see www.climate.noaa.gov/cpo pa/risa).(16) Yet RISA’s valuable co-production of knowledge little increases the proportion of deliberation in actual CCC efforts to date; its decision support focus may or may not generalize to more diverse participants (see a later Fischhoff paper on dangers of best practices that are “unthinkingly copied”(17)).
These reviews suggest communication about cli- mate change has been rooted in Fischhoff’s first three plus good-deal stages. The risk rejection/acceptance stage is entirely absent, but precautionary action on other long-term uncertain threats might be inspir- ing.(18,19) Deepening animosity between climate de- niers and climate scientists and activists, exempli- fied by Climategate, undermines potential niceness. Deliberative stages are also rare, with an increase caught between calls for more such efforts and exam- ples by RISA and others, and continuing examples of science education emphases. Partnership is diffi- cult given CCC emphasis on mitigating greenhouse gas emissions, with little thought to whether this sup- posed need or its methods might merit wider discus- sion (see Section 5).
2.1. Possible Internal Barriers to CCC Progress
If more emphasis on later strategies might in- crease communication success,(1,20) perhaps partic- ularly for climate change,(21) why have CC com- municators used them so little? Understanding this gap might be as important a research question for CCC success as refining strategies. Aside from topic- specific reasons reviewed shortly, attributes of CC communicators may hamper their efforts.
Possible explanations are laid out in Table II. Unconscious lack of empathy(17,22) may make it dif- ficult to imagine other beliefs, attitudes, and behav- iors could be meaningful to one’s audiences. Cultural or ideological biases(14,23−28) might make only certain means tolerable to achieve desired ends, aside from questions of effectiveness, as in a World Wildlife Fund report arguing one cannot plausibly “market less consumptive lifestyles using techniques devel- oped for selling products and services.”(29) Although the literature on communicative rationality(30,31) im- plies CCC deliberation would be highly compatible with liberal, egalitarian, or universalist mindsets, per- haps this propensity has been overwhelmed by im- paired perspective-taking or the boundary-breaching threat of taking climate deniers as potential partners. Combining climate change’s great threat with great uncertainty whether humans will take preventive or adaptive action potentially creates in CC communi- cators fear without self-efficacy, which undermines action.(32,33) Emotional commitments can be so entangled in strategic and tactical choices that change in the first may need to precede the second.(34)
976 Johnson
Table II. Hypothesized Factors for Partial Use of Fischhoff’s Stages by Climate Change Communicators
Factor Type Variants Examples References
1. Limits to perspective taking
(a) Morally important issues Belief climate change is real, human-caused, catastrophic, and everyone’s personal and institutional responsibility
(b) Professional blinders Technology designers see its users as having characteristics consistent with predefined project targets, despite information to the contrary
22
2. Cultural or ideological biases
(a) Political liberals versus conservatives
Whether an environmentally fragile world requires global government interventions in the market for people’s own good
14, 23
(b) Egalitarians versus hierarchists and individualists
Former favor talk, less consumption (also reduces big business/government power they fear), decentralized technological innovation; latter favor centralized technological innovation and money
24– 26
(c) Those with universalism versus power and achievement values
Former favor inclusiveness, latter favor financial incentives or imposing rules on others
27, 28
3. Need for reassurance
(a) Social engineering implies mastery over individual behaviorsa
Social marketing and social movement mobilization offer sense of controlling others that true deliberation does not
5 (p. 12)
(b) Sense of mastery can help avoid despair
Persuasion and mobilization presume communicator has the answer
4. Resources (a) Funding or authority for a good deal
Activists have less money to offer incentives, and lack authority to relax regulations
147
(b) Finding partners willing to talk If CCC morality is questioned by putative partners 30, 31 (c) Producing new technologiesb Activists often lack the financial or human capital to
invent new tools
aGeoengineering and geopolitical engineering (e.g., international, intergovernmental protocols) allow the same assumed mastery over the planet and governing institutions (Ref. 5, p. 12), presumably for other groups than CC communicators. bTechnological innovation is an alternative to communication for reducing energy use (Refs. 48, 59).
Finally, power and resources needed in later Fis- chhoffian stages are less available to many CCC par- ties than to neutral or denier parties. The weapons of the weak(35) include talk, more equal in its use across power differences than are deployment of money or force, but even use of new social media to diminish the advantage of the powerful with regard to one- way, mass-mediated talk will not substitute for delib- eration.(36)
Thus a combination of cognitive, emotional, cul- tural, and resource factors might explain what my ob- servation of practice, rather than of theory or inspira- tional arguments, implies is a CCC presumption that the right answers are known and one-way commu- nication will promote mitigation of or adaptation to climate change. Whatever the merits of these specu- lations, all Fischhoff’s stages can be valuable: “there is no single simple recipe for climate communication” (p. 5).(37) But each strategy carries assumptions about who is talking to whom with which powers that subtly shape prospects for success even in the proponent’s own terms, much less in terms salient to others.(38) In weighing tradeoffs among strategies, CC communi-
cators need to consider how they conceive of both the people they want to reach(39) and themselves as CC communicators. A little humility can go a long way in communication; can this become a default condition for CCC?
3. PERSUASION
Persuasion aims directly at those whose behav- ior seems to need changing. No one assumes energy decisions just for homes and personal transporta- tion will resolve mitigation issues, but CCC to date has largely focused on individuals and households, as I will do here. (Persuasion, of course, also can target institutions, as in the next section on social movement mobilization.) Persuasion has been stud- ied and criticized more than social movement mobi- lization and deliberation, so the greater length of this section is not meant to imply it is a more valuable strategy.
Definitions of persuasion opportunities, barri- ers, or methods in CCC are too varied for full re- view. Analyses have examined alternative frames for
Perspective 977
climate change, such as social progress, economic de- velopment, and Pandora’s box/Frankenstein’s mon- ster;(40) corrected errors in mental models of its causes;(41) provided neutral information;(42) or probed how terms (global warming versus climate change) alter values or beliefs.(43) Arguments for a save-civilization message(44) contrast with the so- cial construction of a barely conscious, seemingly natural denial of the implications of knowledge of CC.(45,46) Many projects use conventional mass me- dia or public relations channels, but increasingly stress social marketing (public commitments, nor- mative pressures),(47) touted as effective(48) if within limits.(49)
My focus here, arbitrarily, will be message defini- tion and audience identification, arguing for the limi- tations of both much CCC work to date in these areas and of the alternatives.
3.1. Message Definition
As a loose framework for these comments I will use the values–beliefs–norms (VBN) model of envi- ronmental behavior (e.g., recycling and environmen- talist group membership(50,51)), although it is not the only potential model for behavior change.(52,53)
3.1.1. Values
Values used to motivate mass action on climate change have been primarily social altruism (for one’s grandchildren or residents of drowning atolls) or biospheric altruism (save the polar bears). While Crompton(29) urged CCC engagement with impor- tant values and identities,(54) he both disavowed monetary approaches and argued that CCC and general environmental success require explicit, in- tense promotion of environmentalist values because other means are insufficient or inherently contradic- tory.(29,49) Such approaches certainly help rally the already convinced, and cross-national assessments show how widely values are shared, if with diverse distribution across and within nations.(55) However, values are difficult to change; thus CCC might use- fully supplement this by reframing existing high- priority nonenvironmental values for climate and en- ergy action. One’s case is much easier to make if the target’s response is “I can achieve what I want this new way” rather than “I must abandon all my current aspirations in order to address climate change.” Even small efforts, such as carpooling or use of mass tran- sit, require at best reconciling potentially divergent
goods, and often goods with bads as well; the fewer such tradeoffs people foresee, the more effective per- suasion will be. Although long-term impacts of so- cial identities evoked by persuasion, such as “envi- ronmentalist” versus “money-saver,” must be taken into account,(49) superiority of the former over alter- native identities and values is still in doubt. For exam- ple, an English community-based pro-environmental behavior change effort built upon support for the lo- cal football (soccer) club, recruiting participants un- motivated by pro-environmental values.(56)
Money, faith, and health each have been sug- gested as communication frames that might provide common ground,(40) offering useful illustrations of strengths and weaknesses of the values emphasis. For example, money is already valued widely; well- designed financial incentives can have strong effects; and many cultures exhibit entrepreneurial and exchange values and behaviors without requiring capitalism (see Section 5).(57) An anti-consumption message is an obvious virtuous counterpart to commercial marketing, although what constitutes consumption is debatable, given data available on voluntary simplifiers.(58) Neutral as well as denier audiences might ask why those who wish to avoid monetary incentives (Section 2.2) would discard any tool as inappropriate if climate change would be catastrophic. On the other hand, price manipulations have little effect on institutional and trust barriers to behavior change,(59) financial incentives have unpredictable behavioral effects2 (even sensitivity to price varies across individuals),(60) and money is a weak motivator when residential energy adds little to housing costs.(61) Among small business owners a strategy that touts environmental responsibility as a mere aid to financial success may backfire,(62) and promotion of green jobs may allow other parts of the economy to remain unsustainable, and even foster market consumption as another unsustainable way to be green.(63,64) However, as with other strategies fi- nancial incentives are heterogeneous, varying 10-fold or more in impact, based more upon their structure
2Criticisms of financial incentives include that their effect of- ten ends with the incentive, and they could undermine intrin- sic motivations to act as desired.(49,65) However, these criti- cisms apply less (if at all) to purchase of equipment, a one- time action more effective at reducing energy use, than to changing usage behavior or to equipment maintenance, habitual behavior likely less affected by money than identity. This under- lines the importance of not assuming identical dynamics of adop- tion/rejection for seemingly similar behaviors.(38)
978 Johnson
than their magnitude;(65) generic criticism is less important than matching their design to needs.(60,66)
As for faith and health, several religions offer messages about stewardship of God’s earth, the ho- liness of nature, the community of all beings, and other faith-based frames that cannot be reduced sim- ply to social or biospheric altruism. Furthermore, several mainstream Christian denominations have af- firmed environmental damage as a sin.(67) Efforts at faith-based reframing of CCC by liberal and funda- mentalist Christians in the United States,(68) and by Moslems in the United Kingdom,(69) highlight the relative lack of religious or spiritual values in climate messages, insufficiently explained by need for credi- ble religious sources of such messages.(70) However, we lack evaluations of whether faith- versus altruism- based messages, versus messages that do not even mention climate change, substantially alter energy behavior of liberal denominations, Muslim women, or American fundamentalists. Liberals, for example, may hear the CCC message as one more rationale for action and church just one more place to be ex- posed to it. Nor may appeals to spirituality lead to “reconciling a fragmented and argumentative world” (Ref. 5, p. 175). Health benefits of reducing green- house gases,(71) primarily from reducing pollutants associated with fossil fuel use, perhaps equal esti- mated costs of reducing greenhouse gas emissions, and would be highest in developing countries.(72) Yet these benefits have been little mentioned in CCC, al- though activists used health rather than climate ar- guments to lobby for regulations that would reduce methane emissions from oil and gas operations.(73)
Those high in egoistic values might find public health benefits salient,(74) although also perhaps inclined to fear job impacts of such limits.
Beyond money, faith, and health, a national se- curity frame for CCC could stress action’s value for avoiding military involvement in volatile areas,(75)
and perhaps to lessen motivation for terrorist at- tacks. If national security is interpreted as imply- ing “energy independence,” this might increase sup- port for tapping all domestic oil, natural gas, coal, and uranium resources, or focus audiences on ter- rorism and warfare in general. However, one could counter that efficiency and renewable energy are less vulnerable to terrorism than oil wells, pipelines, and nuclear power plants; redefine independence as not simply freedom from foreign energy supplies; or de- fine national security excluding anti-terrorism or in- dependence implications. Framing anti-CC action as consistent with the status quo and patriotism (e.g.,
“Being pro-environmental allows us to protect and preserve the American way of life. It is patri- otic to conserve the country’s natural resources”) eliminated climate change denial, and reduced sys- tem justification undermining motivation for pro- environmental action.(76)
Finally, CCC need not evoke only praiseworthy values. Making status motives salient led to choice of green products over nongreen products, despite the latter’s relative luxuriousness, particularly when shopping was public and green product prices were higher. Altruism in this experiment became a costly, thus valued, signal of status.(77) For those who al- ready believe in anthropogenic warming, collective guilt significantly mediates between this belief and willingness to act against greenhouse gases, whereas collective anxiety does not.(78)
3.1.2. Beliefs About Consequences and Vulnerable Entities
The overall drawback of emphasizing values to motivate behavior change is that values have only in- direct effects on behavior,(57,59) so other tools should supplement CCC value framing and targeting, such as consequences and their targets.
Current CCC tends to frame as salient conse- quences loss of nonhuman species, more droughts in Africa, or swamping of Pacific atolls and much of Bangladesh by rising seas. Yet emphasizing more direct climate change impacts, as in visualization of local coastline effects in Delta, British Columbia,(79)
might enhance concern and action; as climate change produces multiple hazards,(18) many candidate con- cerns are feasible.(80) For example, Los Angeles res- idents were more concerned about drier or hotter climates than wetter or colder ones,(81) and con- cern about climate change seems highest in parts of the United States recently experiencing warmer, less snowy winters.(82) Residents of areas of signifi- cant warming and high natural hazard incidence sup- ported climate change policies more than residents of coastal areas subject to inundation, perhaps due to coastal locations’ offsetting benefits. However, coast- line proximity and natural hazard fatalities raised risk perception, while increasing temperature trends and floodplain residence did not.(83,84) In short, the dis- tress people feel when a valued environment suffers harmful change(85) offers leverage to make potential climate change effects salient.
Some researchers suggested physical or bodily exposure to a hazard motivates actions, proposing
Perspective 979
that high room temperature and humidity might heighten a climate change simulation’s salience.(86)
Experience of severe weather or climatic events may help integrate climate change into one’s frame of ref- erence, if not undermined by contested definitions of “natural” versus anthropogenic change(87) or mixed interpretations of experience and its meaning across hazards and contexts.(88)
Other kinds of consequences could be de- ployed for smaller audiences. Hunting and fishing organizations petitioned the U.S. government to act on mitigation and adaptation, concerned about shifting climatic zones’ effects on members’ plea- sures.(89) Farming impacts have featured in adapta- tion in the developing world, less so elsewhere, and recreational impacts for such industries as skiing. Messages that emotionally tap core identities and concerns of the audience—as state independence, outdoor spaces, water, lifestyle, and locals ver- sus outsiders did for residents of coal mining ar- eas of Wyoming—may be more effective than expertise-based messages about benefits and harms of carbon capture and sequestration, although this was not tested directly.(90) These and other im- pacts if featured more prominently could widen potential audiences for CCC, including some cli- mate neutrals and deniers not otherwise open to persuasion.
3.1.3. Target Behaviors
Appropriate behaviors emphasized in CCC have included reducing fossil fuel consumption in home lighting, heating, and personal transportation. Yet this need not mean that mitigation-related behav- ioral changes subject to far less CCC attention are less effective, perhaps due to relative plasticity of be- havior (proportion of targets that could be induced to take the action), low utility, or presumed neg- ative nonclimate connotations for some audiences. For example, increasing vegetarianism to reduce fos- sil fuel impacts of industrialized carnivorism is rarely mentioned,(91) even less than the related local food argument, which tends to unduly assume closer is less energy consuming.(92,93) Adaptation has until recently been the black sheep of CCC, with activists fearing its mention would undermine the mitigation case: If we will suffer climate change impacts any- way, why bother cutting greenhouse gas emissions? Yet adaptation might justify cooperation across otherwise contending groups, even if this focus ig- nores some impacts of climate change impossible to
tackle without mitigation, such as ocean acidification. For example, Nigel Lawson, Thatcher’s Chancellor of the Exchequer, claimed adaptation is more cost ef- fective than mitigation and requires less global agree- ment over burden sharing.(94) Furthermore, their often common causes allow benefits from similar strategies.(95) Finally, a behavioral focus partly lib- erates CCC from need to mention climate change, which in some cases (Section 3.2) would hinder success.
That said, promoting behavior change remains challenging despite advances in the last 30 years. Practitioners are still learning how to conduct interventions at the point of decision (e.g., equip- ment purchase). Meanwhile, incentives, legislation, or technological innovations that disrupt existing cues for habitual behavior (e.g., by removing sup- portive social contexts) and establish new ones (e.g., by setting new social norms)(96) require even more creativity and multi-institutional alliances to pull off.
3.1.4. Limits to Persuasive Flexibility
Values, consequences, and behavioral strategies work best when audiences find meaning in them al- ready(87) and nonpsychological constraints are weak- est.(37,97) The more CCC supporters stress messages they find persuasive, the less such messages will res- onate with diverse audiences (next section). Doing more of the same simply because doing less did not work is not a sound strategy; if current emphases fail to work, or work widely enough, one must find some- thing audiences do care about.
However, no suite of persuasive hooks will do the job alone. There is competition for audience attention, message content is only part of persua- sion (e.g., trusted sources; capacity to implement suggested behaviors; social norms), and household energy use is best predicted by factors (income, life stage, location, size) not amenable to exhor- tation.(59,98) Noncognitive barriers also limit swift success, e.g., denial of uncomfortable emotions and compliance with local emotional norms both serve in- dividual needs and perpetuate national economic in- terests and global disparities;(99) hiding in the present or past to avoid thoughts of the future and anchor oneself against changing times;(1,45,100) and grieving for one’s current situation as prelude to moving to the next stage of behavioral change.(101,102) Norgaard argues that the mix of socially constrained personal denial with organizational cultures, and complexity
980 Johnson
of production and consumption, raise doubts about individual ability to grapple with climate change (Ref. 45, pp. 366–367).
3.2. Audience Identification
If communicators imagine their climate change audiences too narrowly, whether as fellow travelers or potential enemies, CCC aims, strategies, and com- munication methods also will be unduly narrowed. Yet salient groups are much more diverse than CCC to date seems to have acknowledged. For example, small-business owners of Modbury in Devon, United Kingdom unanimously agreed in 2007 to refuse to provide plastic bags to customers, becoming the first town in Europe to ban them.(103) The tendency to market such habit changes to consumers themselves indicates the imaginative leap needed to conceive of small businesses as a suitable target for persuasion. Carrigan et al.,(103) however, show they can be quite amenable to such changes as long as their resource and knowledge constraints, and social contexts, are properly addressed; treating them as petit bourgeois profit maximizers beyond persuasion is both incor- rect and a loss of opportunity.
Several studies(61,104−108) offer segmentation data on climate change, for example, identifying publics distinguished by their stances toward problem recog- nition, constraint recognition, and involvement.(109)
However, far less attention has been paid to how these attitudinal differences might translate into need for different communication strategies or being at different stages of behavior change.(110−112) For ex- ample, some people might be amenable to change, but lack needed facts; others might lack motivation or be completely unaware of the issue. Communica- tion should emphasize issues pertinent to the stage in behavior change reached by one’s audience, yet segmentation analyses to date may not provide ap- propriate data, while such analyses’ attitudinal data might suggest further distinctions within the limited steps envisioned by current stage models of behav- ior change. Corner and Randall(49) note that segmen- tation may undermine development of social capital and sustainability norms, although perhaps more for segmentation by beliefs and attitudes than by social networks.
It seems “the vast majority of people who be- lieve we should do something about climate change believe that we shouldn’t do anything very difficult, expensive or inconvenient—pretty much what the skeptics believe[, except] that if it doesn’t cost [the
majority] anything substantive, they’d be happy if the problem went away.”(113) Thus perhaps CCC should not be unduly concerned about avoiding en- gagement with deniers of climate change, its causes, or efficacy of proposed solutions, particularly as these foci of doubt have varied over time and space,(114) offering assorted vulnerability to persua- sion. In fact, a 30-year-old argument for the general need of social movement rhetoric to transform its target audiences’ views of past, present, and future history parallels the full range of CC denial: audi- ences “may be unaware of a problem, may refuse to believe that a problem exists, may believe that the problem does not require drastic action, and may be optimistic about the future” (p. 302).(115) Deniers of climate change, or that it would be detrimental, might be reached by removing “climate” and “climate change” from arguments for mitigation and adapta- tion, as these self-defeating terms evoke notions— nature as fragile; doom-saying—incompatible with deniers’ worldviews.(116) It can be debated whether “most local, state, and private-sector mitigation ef- forts in the United States to date [already] mention climate change only in passing or as a secondary jus- tification, instead arguing for solutions to more im- mediate problems (such as air pollution) or high- lighting immediately felt and highly resonant ben- efits (such as saving energy and money),”(117) yet more could be done in this vein. Those who ac- knowledge undesirable climate change but doubt it is anthropogenic can be targeted with arguments for adaptation, and for forestalling greenhouse gases’ re- lease from or foregone sequestration in such nat- ural or quasi-natural sources as peat bogs, tundra, undersea methane hydrates, deforestation, and live- stock. Whether deniers are converted by these meth- ods, what is said to or about one population seg- ment is heard by others, including audiences CCC supporters might find more amenable to such ar- guments. Further, CCC is not the only source of messages; deniers and a host of sources for non- climate messages produce noise (and undoubtedly some sense) that obscures the CCC signal. Success is not simply producing a message effective in isola- tion, but in producing one that reaches the intended audience, grabs its attention, wards off counter arguments and other static from the audience, mass media, the Web, and social networks, and gets en- coded in memory and behavior.
Several objections can be raised to such broad- ening of CCC audiences. Scientific literature on per- suasion, confirmation bias, and third-person media
Perspective 981
effects raises questions about the efficacy of treating climate deniers as persuadable. Deniers fit oddly into stages-of-change models: they are neither ignorant of the topic nor motivated to mitigate, but differ from the as-yet-indifferent by actively opposing—in words if not deeds—both behavior change and alleged rea- sons for change. Besides individual resistance to “an inconvenient truth” and institutions’ resistance to their interests being harmed, a concerted effort over decades by corporations and conservative think tanks has helped create and maintain a strong de- nialist stance about climate change.(23,118−120) Those who deny global warming or the human role in it, an estimated 7% of the U.S. population,(104) have been targets of hostility in turn from CCC supporters. Besides doubt about either side’s ability to be nice (Table I), CC communicators may argue that talk- ing to them only encourages or legitimates deniers, wasting the time of or even co-opting supporters, and watering down policies. Certainly the history of en- vironmental policy is littered with examples of such problems, but this must be decided case by case. If people generally foreswore talking to (alleged) fools, hostiles, and scoundrels, life would be rather lonely, and more to the point, likely ineffective. Given the dangers of an individualist style of social market- ing,(49) strategies that build upon social networks and place and other pertinent identities rather than con- sensus on climate beliefs and attitudes seem suited to building bridges to these groups rather than erecting barricades against them.
3.3. The Nonpersuasion Stance
I cannot end without noting that some risk com- munication scholars, in general(121) or for climate change, raised doubts over the universal value of persuasion. Pidgeon and Fischhoff(37) warned against scientists becoming polemicists,(122) while Weber and Stern belittled “disguised efforts to engage sup- port for a line of public policy” (Ref. 18, p. 323). Fischhoff(17) also noted that persuasion provides clear instructions but can arouse suspicion, while nonpersuasive approaches offer autonomy and self- efficacy at the cost of forcing decisions people may be unable or unwilling to face. Lopez(36) argued that “industrialized” mass frames (e.g., national security) “feel more like pandering to an abstract political dis- course rather than cultivating awareness, responsibil- ity and action” (p. 103). My focus on persuasion here is not meant to favor it over, say, the nonpersuasive deliberation discussed later, merely to point out that
within its limits more is feasible than seems yet to have been deployed in CCC to date.
4. SOCIAL MOVEMENT MOBILIZATION
Sociologies of science, technology, and knowl- edge have shown neither users nor developers solely determine an idea’s or technology’s design, use, or users.(123,124) But clearly, physical, social, and economic constraints within which short-term individual and household decisions will be made are often determined by government and business decisions, products, and services. For climate change mitigation, people will not adopt mass transit, energy-efficient lighting, home weather-proofing, or low/no-meat diets where those energy-reducing options are either not available or intolerable. Institutional decisions on land use, employment, transportation infrastructure, product design, agri- cultural subsidies, regulation of energy contractors, and product pricing, among many others, constrain individuals to a large degree. Thus prospects for energy-focused attitudinal and behavior change by individuals depend in part on change by institutions, which in turn depend to some degree on individuals’ collective pressure on those institutions.(125)
Brulle(126) argued that the market imperative “to maximize return on investment through continuous economic expansion,” and government’s imperative to ensure “security, . . . economic growth, and . . . its political legitimacy” both limit the scope of allow- able environmental policies. Thus marketing-based appeals to self-interest and identity-based appeals to core values of mass persuasion assume that plan- ning and regulation will allow economic growth while curbing undesirable environmental effects. But be- yond effectiveness, Brulle(126) argued that persuasion infantilizes citizens by manipulating them with envi- ronmental and communication professionals’ defini- tions of the public interest, undermines broader and more radical mobilization by treating citizens as at- omized consumers, and leads to continuous spin wars among elites competing for political advantage by shifting poll figures. These observations complicate the seemingly simple question of what to do about CCC.
The last 40 years have seen several explana- tions of social movement evolution and behav- ior: resource mobilization (e.g., material resources, elite support),(127,128) political process (e.g., oppor- tunity structure; social networks),(129,130) new social movement (e.g., collective identity(131,132)), and new
982 Johnson
culturalist (e.g., framing(133)). The last is the most explicitly communication oriented, but despite pos- sible overextension of these varied perspectives,(134)
communication complements other mobilization factors just as it complements noncommunica- tion factors in promoting behavior change among individuals.
Social movements aim to transform, whether through collective political action (e.g., women’s suffrage; environmental action groups), cultural ac- tion (e.g., messianic religions; collective self-help ef- forts), or a combination of policy and self-change.(135)
Hence the centrality of conflict in defining so- cial movements(118)—and their explicit subversion of social reality.(115,136) The profoundly conservative, taken-for-granted nature of the world is difficult even to see, meaning that those who are dominated must struggle to break free from their own complicity in the dominant ideology, a breakout not feasible with mere will or education.(115,137,138)
A central element of social movement emer- gence is an organizing narrative that defines a prob- lem, a blame-worthy target, and a proposed solu- tion mobilizing citizens to pressure the target (even themselves) to enact the solution.(139) While persua- sion can be part of political mobilization favoring social change, the latter highlights collective rather than individual action through subversive narratives (e.g., highlighting injustices and ideological bias in mainstream messages; “a rhetoric of salvation”) and methods (social interactions and dialogue; civic en- gagement).(126) Broader taxonomies of the functions of social movement rhetoric also include such items as justifying setbacks and delays, and maintaining the visibility of the movement.(115)
Mobilizing also inherently evokes norms of re- sponsibility,(108) of the potential activist as well as of the movement’s institutional targets.(140) While the VBN model(50−51,142) of environmental behav- ior posits that a norm for personal action derives from awareness of negative consequences of inac- tion, for at least some hazards people may see at- tempts to recruit them for personal action as a de- nial of business’ and government’s responsibility for the problem and/or the solution.(141,142) This belief could enhance political mobilization but undermine self-transformative mobilization and persuasion; alternatively, citizens recruited to a political social movement partly from a felt imbalance between true and ascribed responsibilities might thereby be more willing to act themselves. Such personal action, if a criterion for membership in a political movement,
could reduce its members’ apparent hypocrisy or shirking of duty, and as part of the movement narra- tive place a claim upon the target institution to meet its obligation as others have done.
Movement mobilization has more potential than one-shot persuasion efforts to foster medium-to- long-range behavior change, across both individuals and institutions, if movement organizations have suf- ficient commitment, resources, and opportunities. A few calls have been issued for using or creating so- cial movements in favor of climate-change-related action.(108,143,144) Brulle has particularly argued that a sustainable society may require “a tough and con- frontational political/cultural struggle” that he sug- gests makes communication scholars too uncom- fortable to outline transformative communication strategies.(145)
On the political end, the Sierra Club’s Beyond Coal campaign is an example of CCC mobilization against nodes in market and political structures that leverage larger forces. Its often successful attempts to delay or block coal power permits awarded by state utility commissions immediately affect individ- ual firms, of course. But they also influence larger capital flows by signaling to institutional investors an increase in cost of coal-based carbon and in risk of failing to achieve expected returns from coal-power investments.(146) Only this approach, it is claimed, will exert needed “changes on the scale and timetable that climate . . . crises require” (Ref. 146, p. 125, orig- inal emphasis); short-term mass-public efforts, such as the one-day Step It Up campaign or 350.org’s sol- idarity events, do not influence the powerful. How- ever, insider methods such as lobbying, lawsuits, and participation in stakeholder processes do not foster ecological citizenship,(108) relying on the public only for donations. Whether insider approaches are in- evitable concomitants of movement success or coop- tation (e.g., need for foundation and government funding), or options that succeed when presence of radicals makes compromise with insiders more palat- able to the powerful, are widely debated.(147−150) But mass political mobilization around climate change has been attempted little, if at all.
On the cultural end, Global Action Plan’s EcoTeams of 4–8 people, preferably from the same street or at least neighborhood, meet monthly over four to six months to discuss how to ad- dress household environmental issues. These higher wealth people already have green intentions and social networks, but achieve significant reductions in waste production and energy use. Meetings
Perspective 983
offer participants social support and affirmation, performance contrasts to other greens, and educa- tion on how to do more locally or with a specific system.(151) Similar small-group efforts to promote grassroots discussion and action for low-carbon per- sonal behavior change include car clubs to share access, “walking buses” to take children to school, and Carbon Reduction Action Groups (also see www.transitionnetwork.org).(125) How much this ap- proach would appeal to those not already at that late stage of behavior change,(110−112) whether partic- ipants become evangelists for the cause, and the rela- tive effectiveness of collective energy behavior trans- formation versus individually focused persuasion are all uncertain.
Social movement mobilization faces several chal- lenges. The mobilizing narrative needs to be com- pelling and to fit sufficiently with prior worldviews to be accommodated despite its subversive text,(152)
possibly more difficult for climate change than for many other hazards, and for certain CCC themes (e.g., anti-consumption) in particular. Even within the environmental movement there are multiple dis- courses available to adapt to different audiences,(153)
but their often conflicting messages also could create more cacophony than clarity. Intentionally mobiliz- ing narratives are no more guaranteed to produce in- tended results than are persuasive messages.(36) Vari- ations in frames’ accessibility in memory, movement narratives, and mass media; interpretations; and ef- fects are never fully controlled by activists, as too many potential structural and individual moderators intervene.(154) As a result, “the shift from the implicit to the explicit [in conflicting understandings] is in no way automatic: the same experience of the social may be uttered in very different expressions” (Ref. 136, p. 730). Even when the deployment of alternative perspectives succeeds it can yield unexpected effects: environmentalist discourses and mobilization efforts managed to help scotch waste-to-energy plants in the United States and resuscitate recycling as more than a trivial option for managing solid wastes, but also helped make recycling a for-profit enterprise rather than a radically transforming grassroots, decentral- ized activity.(155)
Despite radicals’ fears of marketing or conser- vatives’ fears of a Leninist power grab, both per- suasion and movement mobilization aim to prompt behavior changes,(156) which is manipulation (a de- scriptive rather than pejorative term here) regardless of who does it or whether the frame sincerely rep- resents the communicator’s identity.(36,126,157) Will
integrating persuasion into political mobilization(120)
avoid the atomization, social distancing, ethical, and other charges brought against persuasion on its own? Further, the denial of climate change implications— not its existence, as in the “deniers” most often the focus of CCC angst—found among the concerned but nonactive, noted earlier, is a challenge for mo- bilization as well as persuasion. If those privileged enough to be able to act effectively against climate change impacts and other unjust outcomes are the very ones least able to see them (Ref. 45, p. 367), we need worry little about free-riders stifling mo- bilization. The tensions over movement goals and adherents’ motivations—is it large-scale transforma- tion of society or alteration of one’s life’s mean- ing?(158)—add to the difficulty. If one can only en- gage people in climate change activism by linking it to attempts to address unemployment, financial chal- lenges, and economic inequality—invoking collective fate despite political or cultural polarization(159)— this raises the bar for mobilization even higher. Per- haps these barriers can be partly offset by encourag- ing grassroots innovations with personal carbon al- lowances,(125) although this policy likely requires po- litical mobilization to be adopted.
Both political and cultural mobilization can be undermined by institutions’ responsiveness and counter-subversion,(160) as well as by counter- movements that are not always institutionally sup- ported fakes.(161) Making climate deniers the “bad guys” can energize both adherents and opponents, turning a potentially more subtle struggle into a mat- ter of brute force that status-quo-supporting institu- tions are likely to win. If American mitigation efforts are little worse than those in countries with far more consensus on climate change or energy policies (e.g., Denmark, Netherlands, Japan), can climate skepti- cism really be the cause, and a battle against it the so- lution?(14) Furthermore, the conflict-based narrative presents problems for climate change movements, as it means to some extent warring on oneself and other potential recruits; blaming others for climate change is only plausible to a point. If CC action will require simultaneously tackling barriers in the legislature, the mass media, public opinion, and elections,(162)
this further raises the odds against movement suc- cess. This does not mean the attempt is fruitless or guaranteed to fail. But social movement mobiliza- tion’s strengths relative to persuasion (e.g., greater personal engagement; tackling structural constraints on individual and collective behavior; creation of fa- cilitating social norms) are complemented by great
984 Johnson
barriers as well (e.g., narrower appeal; more direct opposition).
5. DELIBERATION
Several observers have noted the vital role in environmental, energy, and climate change choices of the desired future: “the kinds of lives people want to forge for themselves, their communities, and their descendants;”(163) “the vision of a de- sirable urban (or even more broadly, national or global) future . . . to sustain engagement in mitiga- tion actions;”(164) “choices about human identity and community—about what kinds of communities we live in and how the risks and benefits of modern soci- eties are distributed.”(39) While both persuasion and social movement mobilization feature such vision- ing, their futures are largely prepackaged because social marketers, movement entrepreneurs, and proselytizing neighbors all want you to buy their visions of that future. By contrast, ideally delib- eration is a means to identify problems and de- velop solutions through brainstorming and (perhaps) consensus decision making; the aim is the process, with solutions at most emergent. It promises pro- duction of widely acceptable solutions that probably were not on participants’ agendas before the deliber- ative exercise, but its threat is that participants must be open to alternative views and positions that may be self-subversive. As with collective action, deliber- ation can foster shared commitment and responsibil- ity, creativity, confidence, and challenges to the sta- tus quo.(165)
How might deliberation be used in CCC? Seek- ing wholesale transformation of global society into a low-energy, low-consumption enterprise means lay- ering these social uncertainties (including inevitable pleasant and unpleasant unintended changes) onto those of physical climate change. Deliberation might bridge the gap between those who fear radical change, and those who fear a piecemeal approach may not stem inertia or obstinate powers. By con- trast, persuasion and social movement mobilization could be construed as treating public opinion as if it were the object of an athletic contest, which might be ineffective as well as undemocratic.(36) The delib- eration route potentially allows people to take part in decisions about their own communities, identi- ties, and futures, and thus in climate change solu- tions. CC communicators’ decisions about what is at stake or what are tolerable tradeoffs do not nec- essarily match their audiences’ views, nor may all
parties clearly imagine options already in mind with- out the opportunity offered by informal or formal de- liberative processes with “the other” to explore pos- sibilities. For example, limiting consumption rather than seeking only sustainability(166) has become an increasing focus of scholarly interest,(167−169) with a strong contingent urging an end to the “treadmill of production”(170) of capitalism itself. Popular as- pirations to keep up with the Joneses, Chuns, Gup- tas, Rodriguezes, and Appiahs, and fears of con- strained choice; government concerns about policies that might restrict needed revenues or foster polit- ical instability; and business concerns about how to benefit from nonconsumption all pose critical chal- lenges to this agenda. Nor can we ignore billions in dollar-equivalents spent by businesses and govern- ments worldwide to encourage consumption. Unless social movements or changed institutional incentives remove these obstacles, only deliberation might ad- dress them. That need not involve a compromise that leaves the current system largely intact, at least hypo- thetically. Because “different ownership patterns, re- source availabilities, social facilities, and rules of op- eration” can produce diverse “prices, terms of trades, income distributions, and, more generally, very dif- ferent overall [market] outcomes”(171) (pp. 136–137), restructuring market systems could be an alternative. However, scholars debate whether such ecological modernization eliminates or merely postpones the clash between capitalism and environmental qual- ity.(172,173) Global deliberation, if without discussion of logistics, also has been proposed for any geoengi- neering research, as representative democracy seems insufficient for projects with major, diverse, and un- certain consequences.(174) Proposals to address cli- mate change as a risk management issue—i.e., which societal risks associated with climate are we prepared to take at what cost?(8,9,17,175)—also are ripe for de- liberation. Small, perhaps one-shot deliberative ef- forts could be part of social movement mobilization and of mass persuasion, as narratives help people see anew a difficult or controversial issue.(176) When recorded with permission, video and Web streaming of such deliberations in small, slow communications through such venues as community radio stations and bottom-up poetry slams or discussions of documen- taries(36) could help send deliberation viral.
However, deliberation has its own chal- lenges.(177) Given apparent urgency of action now to limit centuries of potentially undesirable global conditions, it may seem unduly time-consuming versus alternatives. Deliberation, as with all risk
Perspective 985
communication, has validity, reliability, and repre- sentativeness challenges whose solutions in actual policy formulation or adaptive management are still emerging.(178,179) Effective deliberation must occur in small groups, limiting its mass-change applications to seeking limited agreement among influential individuals or focus within a social movement organization or network. Nor is it yet clear how unequal powers will be controlled so discussion will be mutually productive, not merely consensual.(31)
Deliberation also requires all participants be treated nicely (Table I), which raises uncomfortable ques- tions. Acknowledging that observing climate change cues is difficult even for scientists, much less others, fits with advice on correcting mental models;(180)
coupled with explanation that this acknowledgment does not recant on anthropogenic climate change, this may get neutrals and moderate deniers to realize CC communicators are actually listening to them, and thus merit attention in return. Yet being honest about uncertainties and acknowledging the understandable points of others, however consis- tent with Habermasian notions of fair process,(31)
might merely fuel deniers’ use of uncertainties to undermine action.(1,5,119) However, these latter problems arise from direct discussion of climate change; if deliberation instead emphasizes energy diversification or enhancement of social resilience against shocks of any kind, these problems may be postponed. Deliberation can be successful, if slow, even when participants are initially defensive, but requires all to acknowledge that not taking part risks even greater potential catastrophe than does partici- pation. That acknowledgment will not occur in many cases.
6. LARGER CONTEXT
Persuasion, social movement mobilization, and deliberation all have defects. Persuasion alone might fail in mitigation or adaptation, and leave the pop- ulace atomized as individual households. However, persuasion and deliberation are more likely to reach those not yet convinced of climate change’s reality, importance, or causes than will social movement mo- bilization, at least until its spread creates a band- wagon effect. Mobilization and deliberation have greater potential than persuasion to emphasize in- stitutions’ responsibilities; social scientists disagree whether voluntary action alone leads people to start demanding policy changes.(181) Persuasion and mo- bilization can potentially reach and engage many,
while deliberation engages few directly, although its outcomes might be usable in subsequent persuasion and mobilization.
Thus the presumed best alternative for CCC would combine two or three of these, alone or com- bined with noncommunication strategies (e.g., finan- cial; technological innovation; command and con- trol). Mixed strategies may be vital for success at multiple scales from very local to global,(5,48,125,182)
with the mix fitted to the target. For example, per- suasion and deliberation could jointly help mobi- lize social movements, which in turn could pressure both institutions and individuals (subject also to in- stitutions’ persuasion efforts). Institutions also might undertake internal or cross-organization delibera- tion on internally driven change,(183) which at min- imum might create elite divisions(184) that open up the political opportunity structure for social move- ment action.(130−131) This approach is even more fea- sible given the diversity within strategies: e.g., per- suasion can be individualistic or communitarian;(49)
movement mobilization can be inclusive or divisive; deliberation’s agenda can be narrow or broad.
Criticisms of a mixed strategy also can be raised. Whether scattering available resources across mul- tiple approaches is cost effective is debated (e.g., contrast Ref. 48 with Ref. 5, p. 339); some strategies may be unnecessarily redundant, as when financial incentives or disincentives are sufficient to change energy behavior without persuasion, or vice versa. Segmentation by attitudes may not always work in a globalizing world, for example, as those asked to im- plement biospheric values in personal and collective action overhear messages aimed at others’ egoistic values to seize monetary opportunities offered by behavior change, and vice versa. The use of some strategies and channels of communication has been argued to be self-contradictory, undercutting their intended aims.(29,36,49) Hulme argues against the vain dream of “solving” climate change—and, perhaps, CCC—through cobbling together solutions via “mul- tiple values, . . . frameworks, . . . and voices” (Ref. 5, pp. 334–339). Instead, he urges proliferation of “creative applications of the idea of climate change” in technology, art, social movements, adaptation, and other areas that he hopes will “lead us to learn more about ourselves—our lament for the past, our fear of the future, our desire for control, and our instinct for justice” (Ref. 5, pp. 363–364).
What are the implications for CCC of achiev- ing a more diverse communication approach (Section 2)? Deliberation allows for partnership and
986 Johnson
mutual respect, while in movement mobilization partnerships are contingent and niceness often not a productive strategy. In fact, neither social movements’ rhetoric nor logistics fit well in the Fischhoff sequence (Table I), developed to explain evolution only of government and business risk communication. Yet the three strategies together might reasonably cover Fischhoff’s stages, assuming CC-oriented social movement mobilization can be aroused from its current anemic state and delibera- tion can be promoted by convergence of academic resolution of technical challenges and practitioners’ recognition of its benefits. My assumption is not that later stages of the Fischhoff sequence are better than earlier ones, but that CCC is more likely to achieve its goals by using the range of strategies best suited for the goal and situation.
A final comment addresses the heterogeneity of leverage points and levers CCC should exploit, de- spite potential contradictions. Temporal and struc- tural gaps between aims and opportunities, and be- tween attitudes and behaviors, offer potential for personal and social change with sufficient creativity and support (Ref. 34, p. 483; Ref. 103, p. 521–522). For communicators to seize these chances—and, es- pecially, to aid people individually and collectively to identify, appreciate, and exploit them to achieve their own goals—they must be attuned to the partic- ularities of people’s lived situations at several scales simultaneously. This will require both researchers and practitioners to be patient, imaginative, and reflexive.
7. CONCLUSIONS
There is wide agreement—if more among the- orists than in practices of governments, activists, and scientists—that information provision alone is a weak tool for climate change communication: “Lack of understanding and concern is not the limiting fac- tor” (Ref. 18, p. 325) in household and organizational actions to mitigate or adapt to climate change. Less agreed, or even noticed, are the differing response efficacies within, as well as across, such communi- cation types as persuasion, social movement mobi- lization, and deliberation. Not everything works, but success depends upon matching a strategy to appro- priate goals, audiences, resources, and contexts, and far too often the necessary careful research and de- sign has not been done.(17) The aim of this article has
been to provoke self-reflection and creativity among climate change communicators.
One need not accept that social engineering im- plied by persuasion and mobilization is doomed to failure(5) to consider a broader and more flexible approach to CCC, whether that includes delibera- tion or simply a willingness to accept uncertainty, surprise, and more-than-occasional disappointment as inevitable results of CCC as well as of climate change. Narrowly focused CCC, whether for infor- mative, persuasive, or democracy-building purposes, is to be expected, particularly by those convinced it is “the overriding project of this generation” on which alone “future generations will judge us” (Ref. 5, p. 339). The CCC program I discuss here—mitigating of and adapting to climate change—differs on the surface from that of the Hartwell Paper,(185) which emphasizes energy diversification, short-term sus- tainability, and enhancement of social resiliency. Yet except for my willingness to make climate change a more explicit focus where (occasionally) feasible, my suggestions for CCC are consistent with those of the Hartwell Paper and its co-author Sarewitz:(14)
a successful politics of climate will be advanced upon the pursuit of multiple agendas, pursued along politi- cally feasible lines, for their own sakes, with progress toward climate management as a contingent benefit of the successful pursuit of these agendas.
My message here has been that CCC need not be harmed by self-inflicted wounds, including those of excessively narrow instrumentality.(49) Diversity alone will not save us either; I have tried to indi- cate some limitations of alternative persuasion, so- cial movement mobilization, and deliberation ap- proaches. But the hopeful stance behind diverse thinking about CCC is that success is more likely by attempting than not attempting the seemingly im- possible.(186) Perhaps persuasion will convince every- one; social movement mobilization will enroll some and force others; deliberation will allow everyone the chance to build unexpected dreams together. Self- understanding, like truth, may not be as liberating as claimed, but introspection might offer CC communi- cators a springboard to renewed creativity, commit- ment, and success.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Thanks are due to Prof. Nicholas Pidgeon, Cardiff University, whose invitation to present a talk at the Workshop on Climate Change Perceptions,
Perspective 987
Risk Communication and Public Engagement, July 20–22, 2010, Cumberland Lodge, Windsor Great Park, United Kingdom offered me the chance to make these observations. Workshop attendees, and two anonymous reviewers, also helped improve this article.
REFERENCES
1. Weber EU. Experience-based and description-based per- ceptions of long-term risk: Why global warming does not scare us (yet). Climatic Change, 2006; 77:103–120.
2. Cox R. Environmental Communication and the Public Sphere (2nd edition). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 2010.
3. Fischhoff B. Risk perception and communication unplugged: Twenty years of process. Risk Analysis, 1995; 15:137– 145.
4. Moser S, Dilling L (eds). Creating a Climate for Change: Communicating Climate Change and Facilitating Social Change. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2007.
5. Hulme M. Why We Disagree About Climate Change: Un- derstanding Controversy, Inaction and Opportunity. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2009.
6. Schweizer V. Deliberative democracy to create a climate for change. Behavior, Energy and Climate Change Conference, Washington, DC, November 15–18, 2009.
7. U.S. National Research Council. Public Participation in En- vironmental Assessment and Decision Making. Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 2005.
8. U.S. National Research Council. Adapting to the Impacts of Climate Change. Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 2010.
9. U.S. National Research Council. Advancing the Science of Climate Change. Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 2010.
10. U.S. National Research Council. Informing an Effective Response to Climate Change. Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 2010.
11. U.S. National Research Council. Limiting the Magnitude of Climate Change. Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 2010.
12. Kasemir B, Schibli D, Stoll S, Jaeger CC. Involving the public in climate and energy decisions. Environment, 2000; 42:32–42.
13. Renn O. Risk Governance: Coping with Uncertainty in a Complex World. London: Earthscan, 2008.
14. Sarewitz D. Does climate change knowledge really mat- ter? Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change, 2011, 2:475–481.
15. U.K. Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions. Development of the UK’s Campaign to Stimulate Public Action to Protect the Environment. London, UK: DETR, 2000.
16. U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. RISA Workshop Report: Looking Ahead at Climate Ser- vice, Assessment, and Adaptation. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Commerce, 2010.
17. Fischhoff B. Communicating about the risks of terrorism (or anything else). American Psychologist, 2011; 66:520– 531.
18. Weber EU, Stern PC. Public understanding of climate change in the United States. American Psychologist, 2011; 66:315–328.
19. Pidgeon NF, Lorenzoni I, Poortinga W. Climate change or nuclear power—no thanks! A quantitative study of public
perceptions and risk framing in Britain. Global Environmen- tal Change, 2008; 18:69–85.
20. Stern PC, Fineberg HV (eds). Understanding Risk: Inform- ing Decisions in a Democratic Society. Washington, DC: Na- tional Academy Press, 1996.
21. Renn O. Risk Governance: Coping with Uncertainty in a Complex World. London: Earthscan, 2008.
22. Akrich M. User representations: Practices, methods and so- ciology. Pp. 167–184 in Rip A, Misa TJ, Schot J. (eds). Man- aging Technology in Society: The Approach of Constructive Technology Assessment. London: Pinter, 1995.
23. McCright AM, Dunlap RE. The politicization of climate change and polarization in the American public’s views of global warming, 2001–2010. Sociological Quarterly, 2011; 99:491–503.
24. Douglas M, Wildavsky A. Risk and Culture: An Essay on the Selection of Technological and Environmental Dangers. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1982.
25. Thompson M, Ellis R, Wildavsky A. Cultural Theory. Boul- der, CO: Westview Press, 1990.
26. Kahan DM, Slovic P, Braman D, Gastil J. Fear of democ- racy: A cultural critique of Sunstein on risk. Harvard Law Review, 2006; 119:1071–1109.
27. Schwartz SH. Universals in the content and structure of val- ues: Theoretical advances and empirical tests in 20 coun- tries. Pp. 1–65 in Zanna M (ed). Advances in Experimen- tal Social Psychology. Vol. 25. New York: Academic Press, 1992.
28. Bilsky W, Janik M, Schwartz SH. The structural organization of human values—Evidence from three rounds of the Eu- ropean Social Survey (ESS). Journal of Cross-Cultural Psy- chology, 2010; 42:759–776.
29. Crompton T. Weathercocks and Signposts: The Environ- ment Movement at a Crossroads. Godalming, UK: World Wildlife Fund, 2008.
30. Habermas J. Theory of Communicative Action. Vol. 2. Boston, MA: Beacon Press, 1984, 1987.
31. Renn O, Webler T, Wiedemann P (eds.) Fairness and Com- petence in Citizen Participation: Evaluating Models for En- vironmental Discourse. Norwell, MA: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1995.
32. Witte K. Putting the fear back into fear appeals: The ex- tended parallel processing model. Communication Mono- graphs, 1992; 59:329–349.
33. Foust CR, Murphy WO. Revealing and reframing apoca- lyptic tragedy in global warming discourse. Environmental Communication, 2009; 3:151–167.
34. Emirbayer M, Goldberg C. Pragmatism, Bourdieu, and col- lective emotions in contentious politics. Theory and Society, 2005; 34:469–518.
35. Scott JC. Weapons of the Weak. New Haven, CT: Yale Uni- versity Press, 1985.
36. Lopez A. Defusing the cannon: An organic media approach to environmental communication. Environmental Commu- nication, 2010; 4:99–108.
37. Pidgeon N, Fischhoff B. The role of social and de- cision sciences in communicating uncertain climate risks. Nature Climate Change, 2011; 1(7): Available at www.nature.com/nclimate/archive/issue.html?year=2011. Accessed on October 19, 2011.
38. Stern PC. Contributions of psychology to limiting climate change. American Psychologist, 2011; 66:303–314.
39. Miller CA. Energy technology. Soapbox post at Con- sortium for Science, Policy and Outcomes, Novem- ber 20, 2009. Available at: http://www.cspo.org/soapbox/ view/091120P6LW/.
40. Nisbet MC. Communicating climate change: Why frames matter for public engagement. Environment, 2009; 51: 12–23.
988 Johnson
41. Bostrom A, Morgan MG, Fischhoff B, Read D. What do people know about global climate change? I. Mental mod- els. Risk Analysis, 1994; 14:959–970.
42. Kahan D. Fixing the communications failure. Nature, 2010; 463:296–297.
43. Whitmarsh L. What’s in a name? Commonalities and dif- ferences in public understanding of “climate change” and “global warming.” Public Understanding of Science, 2009; 18:401–420.
44. Antal M, Hukkinen JI. The art of the cognitive war to save the planet. Ecological Economics, 2010; 69:937–943.
45. Norgaard KM. “We don’t really want to know”: Envi- ronmental justice and socially organized denial of global warming in Norway. Organization and Environment, 2006; 19:347–370.
46. Norgaard K. Living in Denial: Climate Change, Emotions, and Everyday Life. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2011.
47. McKenzie-Mohr D. Fostering sustainable behavior through community-based social marketing. American Psychologist, 2000; 55:531–537.
48. Gilligan J, Dietz T, Gardner GT, Stern PC, Vandenbergh MP. The behavioural wedge: Reducing greenhouse gas by individuals and households. Significance, 2010; 17–20.
49. Corner A, Randall A. Selling climate change? The limita- tions of social marketing as a strategy for climate change public engagement. Global Environmental Change, 2011; 21:1005–1014.
50. Guagnano G, Stern PC, Dietz T. Influences on attitude– behavior relationships: A natural experiment with curb- side recycling. Environment and Behavior, 1995; 27:699– 718.
51. Stern PC, Dietz T, Abel T, Guagnano GA, Kalof L. A social- psychological theory of support for social movements: The case of environmentalism. Human Ecology Review, 1999; 6:81–97.
52. Ajzen I. The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Be- havior and Human Decision Processes, 1991; 50:179–211.
53. Gifford R. The dragons of inaction: Psychological barriers that limit climate change mitigation and adaptation. Ameri- can Psychologist, 2011; 66:290–302.
54. Nerlich B, Koteyko N, Brown B. Theory and language of climate change communication. Wiley Interdisciplinary Re- views: Climate Change, 2010; 1:97–110.
55. Schwartz SH, Bilsky W. Toward a theory of the universal content and structure of values: Extensions and cross cul- tural replications. Journal of Personality and Social Psychol- ogy, 1990; 58:878–891.
56. Baldwin R. Football and climate change: Strange bedfellows or a means of going beyond the usual suspects in encourag- ing pro-environmental behavioural change? Local Environ- ment, 2010; 15:851–866.
57. Fiske AP. Structures of Social Life: The Four Elemen- tary Forms of Human Relations. New York: Free Press (Macmillan), 1991.
58. Craig-Lees M, Hill C. Understanding voluntary simplifiers. Psychology and Marketing, 2002; 19:187–210.
59. Stern PC. Psychology and the science of human– environment interactions. American Psychologist, 2000; 55:523–530.
60. Dietz T, Stern PC (eds). New Tools for Environmental Pro- tection: Education, Information, and Voluntary Measures. Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 2002.
61. Mitchell-Jackson J. Welcome home: Using ethnographic re- search to understand residential energy practices. Behavior, Energy and Climate Change Conference, Washington, DC, November 15–18, 2009.
62. Jenkins H. A business opportunity model of corporate social responsibility for small and medium sized enterprises. Busi- ness Ethics: A European Review, 2009; 18:21–36.
63. Pinceti S. Green jobs: Siloing the environment to a specialty niche. Annual Meeting of the Association of American Ge- ographers, Washington, DC, April 14, 2010.
64. Henning A. The illusion of economic objectivity: Linking lo- cal risks of credibility loss to global risks of climate change. Journal of Risk Research, 2008; 11:223–235.
65. Stern, PC, Aronson E, Darley JM, Hill DH, Hirst E, Kemp- ton W, Wilbanks TJ. The effectiveness of incentives for residential energy conservation. Evaluation Review, 1986; 10:147–176.
66. Gallagher KS, Muehlegger EJ. Giving green to get green: Incentives and consumer adoption of hybrid vehicle tech- nology. Journal of Environmental Economics and Manage- ment, 2011; 61:1–15.
67. Hoffman AJ. Linking organizational and field-level analyses: The diffusion of corporate environmental practice. Organi- zation and Environment, 2001; 14:133–156.
68. Bingham S. Climate change: A moral issue. Pp. 153–166 in Creating a Climate for Change: Communicating Cli- mate Change and Facilitating Social Change. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2007.
69. DeHanas DN. Broadcasting green: Grassroots environmen- talism on Muslim women’s radio. Sociological Review, 2010; 57:141–155.
70. Chess C, Johnson BB. Information is not enough. Pp. 223– 233 Creating a Climate for Change: Communicating Climate Change and Facilitating Social Change. New York: Cam- bridge University Press, 2007.
71. Haines A, McMichael AJ, Smith KR, Roberts I, Woodcock J, Markandya A, Armstrong BG, Campbell- Lendrum D, Dangour AD, Davies M, Bruce N, Tonne C, Barrett M, Wilkinson P. Public health benefits of strate- gies to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions: Overview and implications for policy makers. Lancet, 2009; 374:2104– 2114.
72. Nemet GF, Holloway T, Meier P. 2010. Implications of incorporating air-quality co-benefits into climate change policymaking. Environmental Research Letters, 5: 9. Available at: http//iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/5/1/ 014007/pdf/1748-9326 5 1 014007.pdf. Accessed October 19, 2011.
73. Winston K. Activists cite health over climate in push for methane cuts in EPA oil rules. Risk Policy Report, 4 January 2010; 5–6.
74. Maibach EW, Nisbet M, Baldwin P, Akerlof K, Diao G. Reframing climate change as a public health issue: An exploratory study of public reac- tions. BMC Public Health, 2010; 10:299. Available at: http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2458/10/299. Accessed October 19, 2011.
75. Orr DW. Death and resurrection: The future of environmen- talism. Conservation Biology, 2005; 19:992–995.
76. Feygina I, Jost JT, Goldsmith RE. System justification, the denial of global warming, and the possibility of “system- sanctioned change.” Personality and Social Psychology Bul- letin, 2010; 36:326–338.
77. Griskevicius V, Tybur JM, Van den Bergh B. Going green to be seen: Status, reputation, and conspicuous conservation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 2010; 98:392– 404.
78. Ferguson MA, Branscombe NR. Collective guilt mediates the effect of beliefs about global warming on willingness to engage in mitigation behavior. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 2010; 30:135–142.
79. Shaw A, Sheppard S, Burch S, Flanders D, Wiek A, Carmichael J, Robinson J, Cohen S. Making local futures tangible—Synthesizing, downscaling, and visualizing climate change scenarios for participatory capacity building. Global Environmental Change, 2009; 19:447–463.
Perspective 989
80. O’Neill SJ, Hulme M. An iconic approach for represent- ing climate change. Global Environmental Change, 2009; 19:402–410.
81. Berk RA, Fovell RG. Public perceptions of climate change: A “willingness to pay” assessment. Climatic Change, 1999; 41:413–446.
82. Hamilton LC, Keim BD. Regional variation in perceptions about climate change. International Journal of Climatology, 2009; 29:2348–2352.
83. Zahran S, Brody SD, Grover H, Vedlitz A. Climate change vulnerability and policy support. Society and Natural Re- sources, 2006; 19:771–789.
84. Brody SD, Zahran S, Vedlitz A, Grover H. Examining the relationship between physical vulnerability and public perceptions of global climate change in the United States. Environment and Behavior, 2008; 40:72–95.
85. Albrecht G, Sartore G, Connor L, Higginbotham N, Freeman S, Kelly B, Stain H, Tonna A, Pollard G. So- lastalgia: The distress caused by environmental change. Aus- tralasian Psychiatry, 2007; 15:895–898.
86. Zaalberg R, Midden C, Meijnders A, McCalley T. Prevention, adaptation, and threat denial: Flooding experi- ences in the Netherlands. Risk Analysis, 2009; 29:1759–1778.
87. Shackley S, Deanwood R. Stakeholder perceptions of cli- mate change impacts at the regional scale: Implications for the effectiveness of regional and local responses. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 2002; 45:381– 402.
88. Johnson BB. Advancing understanding of knowledge’s role in lay risk perception. RISK: Issues in Health & Safety, 1993; 4:189–212.
89. Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership. Available at: http://www.trcp.org/component/content/frontpage.html. Accessed 2 May 2010.
90. Wong-Parodi G, Dowlatabadi H, McDaniels T, Ray I. Influ- encing attitudes towards carbon capture and sequestration: A social marketing approach. Environmental Science and Technology, 2011; 45:6743–6751.
91. Freeman CP. Meat’s place on the campaign menu: How US environmental discourse negotiates vegetarianism. Environ- mental Communication, 2010; 4:255–276.
92. Smith A, Watkiss P, Tweddle G, McKinnon A, Browne M, Hunt A, Treleven C, Nash C, Cross S. The Validity of Food Miles as an Indicator of Sustainable Development. London: DEFRA Publications, 2005.
93. Weber CL, Matthews HS. Food-miles and the relative cli- mate impacts of food choices in the United States. Environ- mental Science and Technology, 2008; 42:3508–3513.
94. Lawson N. Time for a climate change plan B. Wall Street Journal, 22 December 2009, A-23.
95. Reser JP, Swim JK. Adapting to and coping with the threat and impacts of climate change. American Psychologist, 2011; 66:277–289.
96. Verplanken B, Wood W. Interventions to break and create consumer habits. Journal of Public Policy and Marketing, 2006; 25:90–103.
97. Gardner GT, Stern PC. Environmental Problems and Hu- man Behavior (2nd edition). Boston, MA: Pearson Custom, 2002.
98. Black JS, Stern PC, Elworth JT. Personal and contextual in- fluences on household energy adaptations. Journal of Ap- plied Psychology, 1985; 70:3–21.
99. Norgaard KM. “People want to protect themselves a little bit”: Emotions, denial, and social movement nonparticipa- tion. Sociological Inquiry, 2006; 76:372–396.
100. Doherty TJ, Clayton S. The psychological impacts of global climate change. American Psychologist, 2011; 66:265–276.
101. Randall R. Loss and climate change: The cost of parallel nar- ratives. Ecopsychology, 2009; 1:118–129.
102. Lertzman R. The myth of apathy: Psychoanalytic explo- rations of environmental degradation. Unpublished doctoral thesis. Cardiff, Wales: Cardiff University, Cardiff School of Social Sciences, 2010.
103. Carrigan M, Moraes C, Leek S. Fostering responsible com- munities: A community social marketing approach to sus- tainable living. Journal of Business Ethics, 2011; 100:515– 534.
104. Leiserowitz AA. American risk perceptions: Is climate change dangerous? Risk Analysis, 2005; 25:1433–1442.
105. Cools M. Shifting towards environment-friendly modes: Pro- filing travelers using Q-methodology. Transportation, 2009; 36:437–453.
106. Dethman L. Challenges and rewards of comparing seven West Coast segmentation studies. Behavior, Energy and Cli- mate Change Conference, Washington, DC, November 15– 18, 2009.
107. Maibach E. Global warming’s six Americas. Behavior, En- ergy and Climate Change Conference, Washington, DC, November 15–18, 2009.
108. Wolf J, Brown K, Conway D. Ecological citizenship and cli- mate change: Perceptions and practice. Environmental Poli- tics, 2009; 18:503–521.
109. Featherstone H, Weitkamp E, Ling K, Burnet F. Defining issue-based publics for public engagement: Climate change as a case study. Public Understanding of Science, 2009; 18:214–228.
110. Prochaska JO, DiClemente CC. Stages and processes of self- change in smoking: Toward an integrative model of change. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 1983; 51:390– 395.
111. Weinstein ND. The precaution adoption process. Health Psychology, 1988; 7:355–386.
112. Weinstein ND, Rothman AM, Sutton SR. Stage theories of health behavior: Conceptual and methodological issues. Health Psychology, 1998; 17:290–299.
113. Astyk S. Moloch’s children: Do climate change skeptics and climate change activists need to agree? Casaubon’s Book, 2009. Available at: http://www.energybulletin. net/node/50856/, Accessed on May 12, 2010.
114. Hopkin M. Climate sceptics switch focus to economics. Na- ture, 2007; 445:582–583.
115. Stewart CJ. A functional approach to the rhetoric of social movements. Central States Speech Journal, 1980; 31:298– 305.
116. Bell R. Christine Todd Whitman says clean air, not climate, should be focus of energy talks. Greenville, South Carolina. News, March 3 cited in ClimateWire, March 4, 2010. Avail- able at: www.eenews.net/climatewire/print/2010/03/04/10.
117. Moser SC, Dilling L. Making climate hot: Communicating the urgency and challenge of global climate change. Envi- ronment, 2004; 46:33–46.
118. Weingart P. Risks of communication: Discourses on climate change in science, politics, and the mass media. Public Un- derstanding of Science, 2000; 9:261–283.
119. McCright AM, Dunlap RE. Defeating Kyoto: The conserva- tive movement’s impact on U.S. climate change policy. So- cial Problems, 2003; 50:348–373.
120. Oreskes N, Conway EM. Merchants of Doubt. New York: Bloomsbury Press, 2010.
121. Johnson BB. Ethical issues in risk communication: Continu- ing the discussion. Risk Analysis, 1999; 19:335–348.
122. Fischhoff B. Non-persuasive communication about matters of greatest urgency: Climate change. Environmental Science and Technology, 2007; 41:7204–7208.
123. MacKenzie D, Wajcman J (eds). The Social Shaping of Tech- nology. Milton Keynes, UK: Open University, 1985.
124. Bijker WE, Hughes TP, Pinch TJ (eds). The Social Con- struction of Technological Systems: New Directions in the
990 Johnson
Sociology and History of Technology. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1987.
125. Ockwell D, Whitmarsh L, O’Neill S. Reorienting climate change communication for effective mitigation: Forcing peo- ple to be green or fostering grass-roots engagement? Science Communication, 2009; 30:305–327.
126. Brulle RJ. From environmental campaigns to advanc- ing the public dialog: Environmental communication for civic engagement. Environmental Communication, 2010; 4: 82–98.
127. Oberschall A. Social Conflict and Social Movements. Engle- wood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1973.
128. Jenkins JC, Perrow C. Insurgency of the powerless. Ameri- can Sociological Review, 1977; 42:249–267.
129. Tarrow S. Power in Movement. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1994.
130. McAdam D, Tarrow S, Tilly C. Dynamics of Contention. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2001.
131. Cohen JL. Strategy or identity. Social Research, 1985; 52:663–716.
132. Melucci A, Challenging Codes. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1996.
133. Snow DA, Rochford EB, Jr, Worden SK, Benford RD. Frame alignment processes, micromobilization, and move- ment participation. American Sociological Review, 1986; 51:464–481.
134. Jasper JM. The Art of Moral Protest. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 1997.
135. Diani M. The concept of social movement. Sociological Re- view, 1992; 40:1–25.
136. Bourdieu P. The social space and the genesis of groups. The- ory and Society, 1984; 14:723–744.
137. Bourdieu P. Pascalian Meditations (tr. Nice R). Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 2000 (1997).
138. Bourdieu P. Masculine Domination (tr. Nice R). Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 2001 (1998).
139. Snow DA, Benford RD. Ideology, frame resonance, and par- ticipant mobilization. International Social Movement Re- search, 1988; 1:197–217.
140. Stern PC, Dietz T, Black JS. Support for environmental pro- tection: The role of moral norms. Population and Environ- ment, 1986; 8:204–222.
141. Bickerstaff K, Walker G. Risk, responsibility and blame: An analysis of vocabularies of motive in air-pollution(ing) discourses. Environment and Planning A, 2003; 34:2175– 2192.
142. Bickerstaff K, Simmons P, Pidgeon N. Constructing respon- sibilities for risk: Negotiating citizen–state relationships. En- vironment and Planning A, 2007; 40:1312–1330.
143. Hale S. The new politics of climate change: Why we are fail- ing and how we will succeed. Environmental Politics, 2010; 19:255–275.
144. Agyeman J, Doppelt B, Lynn K, Hatic H. The climate– justice link: Communicating risk with low-income and mi- nority audiences. Pp. 119–138 in Creating a Climate for Change: Communicating Climate Change and Facilitating Social Change. New York: Cambridge University Press.
145. Brulle R. Personal communication, 20 May 2010. 146. Cox JR. Beyond frames: Recovering the strategic in cli-
mate communication. Environmental Communication, 2010; 4:122–133.
147. Haines HH. Black radicalization and the funding of civil rights: 1957–1970. Social Problems, 1984; 32:31–43.
148. Bosso CJ. The color of money: Environmental groups and the pathologies of fund raising. Pp. 101–130 in Cigler AJ, Loomis (eds). Interest Group Politics (4th edition). Wash- ington, DC: CQ Press, 1994.
149. Bosso C. Seizing back the day: The challenge to environ- mental activism in the 1990s. Pp. 53–74 in Vig NJ, Kraft ME
(eds). Environmental Policy in the 1990s: Reform or Reac- tion?(3d edition). Washington, DC: CQ Press, 1997.
150. Derville T. Radical activist tactics: Overturning public rela- tions conceptualizations. Public Relations Review, 2005; 31: 527–533.
151. Nye M, Hargreaves T. Exploring the social dynamics of proenvironmental behavior change: A comparative study of intervention processes at home and work. Journal of Indus- trial Ecology, 2009; 14:137–149.
152. Williams J. The phenomenology of global warming: The role of proposed solutions as competitive factors in the pub- lic arenas of discourse. Human Ecology Review, 2000; 7: 63–72.
153. Brulle RJ. Politics and the environment. Pp. 385–406 in Le- icht KT, Jenkins JC (eds). The Handbook of Politics: State and Civil Society in Global Perspective. New York: Springer, 2010.
154. Vliegenthart R, van Zoonen L. Power to the frame: Bring- ing sociology back to frame analysis. European Journal of Communication, 2011; 26:101–115.
155. Lounsbury M, Ventresca M, Hirsch P. Social movements, field frames and industry emergence: A cultural-political perspective on U.S. recycling. Socio-Economic Review, 2003; 1:71–104.
156. Fenton Communications. About us. Available at: http://www.fenton.com/about-us/. Accessed on October 23, 2009
157. Lakoff G. Don’t Think of an Elephant! Know Your Values and Frame the Debate. White River Junction, VT: Chelsea Green, 2004.
158. Moraes C, Szmigin I, Carrigan M. Living production- engaged alternatives: An examination of new consump- tion communities. Consumption, Markets and Culture, 2010; 13:273–298.
159. Antonio RJ, Brulle RJ. The unbearable lightness of politics: Climate change denial and political polarization. Sociologi- cal Quarterly, 2011; 52:195–202.
160. Ramsey K. Adapting (to) the “climate crisis”: Activism, gov- ernmentality, and the politics of mobility in Seattle. An- nual Meeting of the Association of American Geographers, Washington, DC, April 17, 2010.
161. Cigler AJ, Loomis BA. Introduction: The changing nature of interest group politics. Pp. 1–33 in Cigler AJ, Loomis BA (eds). Interest Group Politics (3rd edition). Washington, DC: Congressional Quarterly Press, 1991.
162. Jenkins JC. Democratic politics and the long march on global warming: Comments on McCright and Dunlap. So- ciological Quarterly, 2011; 52:211–219.
163. Jasanoff S. Heaven and earth: The politics of environ- mental images. Ch. 1, pp. 31–52 in Martello ML, Jasanoff S (eds). Earthly Politics: Local and Global in Environ- mental Governance (Politics, Science, and the Environ- ment). Cambridge: Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 2004.
164. Moser SC. Talk of the city: Engaging urbanites on climate change. Environmental Research Letters, 2006; 1:10. Avail- able at stacks.iop.org(ERL/1/014006.
165. Burgess J. Sustainable consumption: Is it really achievable? Consumer Policy Review, 2003; 13:78–84.
166. Hornborg A. Zero-sum world: Challenges in conceptualizing environmental load displacement and ecologically unequal exchange in the world-system. International Journal of Com- parative Sociology, 2009; 50:237–262.
167. Victor P. Managing Without Growth: Slower by Design, Not Disaster. Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar, 2008.
168. Foster JB. The Ecological Revolution: Making Peace with the Planet. New York: Monthly Review Press, 2009.
169. Jackson T. Prosperity Without Growth. London: Earthscan, 2009.
Perspective 991
170. Schnaiberg A. The Environment: From Surplus to Scarcity. New York: Oxford University Press, 1980.
171. Sen A. Identity and Violence: The Illusion of Destiny. New York: W.W. Norton, 2006.
172. Mol APJ, Sonnenfeld DA (eds). Ecological Modernisation Around the World: Perspectives and Critical Debates. Lon- don: Frank Cass, 2000.
173. York R, Rosa EA. Key challenges to ecological moderniza- tion theory: Institutional efficacy, case study evidence, units of analysis, and the pace of eco-efficiency. Organization and Environment, 2003; 16:273–288.
174. Miller CA. International review of geoengineering. Soap- box post at Consortium for Science, Policy and Out- comes, 2010, March 19. Available at: http://www.cspo.org/ soapbox/view/100319P4WK/.
175. Gober P, Kirkwood CW, Balling RC, Jr., Ellis AW, Deitrick S. Water planning under climatic uncertainty in Phoenix: Why we need a new paradigm. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 2009; 100:1– 17.
176. Satterfield T, Slovic P, Gregory R. Narrative valuation in a policy judgment context. Ecological Economics, 2000; 34:315–331.
177. Dietz T. Climate risk management and deliberative pro- cesses. Pp. 20–22 in Climate Change Perceptions, Risk Com- munication and Public Engagement. Cumberland Lodge, Great Windsor Park, UK, 2010.
178. US National Research Council. Understanding Risk: In- forming Decisions in a Democratic Society. Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 1996.
179. Gregory R, Fischhoff B, McDaniels T. Acceptable input: Us- ing decision analysis to guide public policy deliberations. De- cision Analysis, 2005; 2:4–16.
180. Rowan KE. Why rules for risk communication are not enough: A problem-solving approach to risk communica- tion. Risk Analysis, 2006; 14:365–374.
181. Tidwell M. Consider using the N-word less: Voluntary ac- tions didn’t get us civil rights, and they won’t fix the climate. http://grist.org/feature/2007/09/04/change redux/index.html; Brook A (and 26 others). The power of voluntary actions: Social scientists respond to Mike Tidwell. http://gristmill. grist.org/story/2007/9/11/13338/9554; Tidwell M. Forget the light bulbs: Part II: Tidwell responds to scientists respond- ing to Tidwell. http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2007/9/20/ 131247/105.
182. Jeffers JM. Conceptualising climate hazards: Reflections on adaptation, vulnerability and decision-making in coastal cities. Annual Meeting of the Association of American Ge- ographers, Washington, DC, April 17, 2010.
183. Jablonski CJ. Promoting radical change in the Roman Catholic Church: Rhetorical requirements, problems, and strategies of the American bishops. Central States Speech Journal, 1980; 31:282–289.
184. Zaller JR. The Nature and Origins of Mass Opinion. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1992.
185. Prins G, Galiana I, Green C, Grundmann R, Hulme M, Korhola A, Laird F, Nordhaus T, Pielke R Jr, Rayner S, Sarewitz D, Shellenberger M, Stehr N, Tezuka H. The Hartwell paper: A new direction for climate policy after the crash of 2009. Available at: http://www2.lse.ac.uk/ researchAndExpertise/units/mackinder/theHartwellPaper/ Home.aspx. Accessed October 19, 2011.
186. Kaufman L. In Kansas, climate skeptics embrace cleaner energy. New York Times, 18 October 2010 (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/19/science/earth/19fossil. html? r=2&hp).
Copyright of Risk Analysis: An International Journal is the property of Wiley-Blackwell and its content may
not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written
permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.