Climate change communicators’ carbon footprints affect their audience’s policy support

Abstract

Global warming is caused mainly by CO2 emission from burning fossil fuels and is beginning to have large negative impacts on human well-being and ecosystems (IPCC 2014; IPCC 2018). Policies that mitigate CO2 emissions will require public support. Here, we examine how support for several possible decarbonization policies varies as a function of the personal carbon footprint of a researcher who advocates the policy. We find that people are more likely to support policies if the advocate for these policies has a low carbon footprint. Replicating our prior work, we find that the communicators’ carbon footprint massively affect their credibility and intentions of their audience to conserve energy (Attari, Krantz and Weber 2016). Our new finding is that their carbon footprint also affects audience support for public policies advocated by the communicator. In a second study, we show that the negative effects of a large carbon footprint on credibility are greatly reduced if the communicator reforms their behavior by reducing their personal carbon footprints. The implications of these results are stark: effective communication of climate science and advocacy of both individual behavior change and public policy interventions are greatly helped when advocates lead the way by reducing their own carbon footprint.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Notes

  1. 1.

    In Attari et al. (2016), α was around .87 for the 15 vignettes without high home energy use but only about .76 for the 3 high home energy vignettes.

  2. 2.

    The three behavioral intentions are analyzed in separate logistic regressions. These three dichotomous responses were part of a set of seven yes/no items, presented together in one section of the survey. The multivariate structure of these seven responses was analyzed in Attari et al. (2016) but does not add much of interest beyond modest intercorrelation of the intentions.

  3. 3.

    see, e.g.: http://noflyclimatesci.org/

References

  1. Attari SZ, Krantz DH, Weber EU (2016) Statements about climate researchers’ carbon footprints affect their credibility and the impact of their advice. Clim Chang 138:325–338

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Carvalho A, van Wessel M, Maeseele P (2017) Communication practices and political engagement with climate change: a research agenda. Environ Commun 11:122–135

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Chapman L (2007) Transport and climate change: a review. J Transp Geogr 15:354–367

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Clayton S, Devine-Wright P, Stern PC, Whitmarsh L, Carrico A, Steg L, Swim J, Bonnes M (2015) Psychological research and global climate change. Nat Clim Chang 5:640

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Dietz T, Gardner G, Gilligan J, Stern PC, Vandenbergh M (2009) Household actions can provide a behavioral wedge to rapidly reduce US carbon emissions. Proc Natl Acad Sci 106:18452–18456

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Gallup (2017) U.S. Conservatives outnumber liberals by narrowing margin

  7. Gardner G, Stern P (2008) The short list: the most effective actions U.S. households can take to curb climate change. Environ Magazine 50:12–24

    Google Scholar 

  8. Geels FW, Sovacool BK, Schwanen T, Sorrell S (2017) Sociotechnical transitions for deep decarbonization. Science 357:1242–1244

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Hansen J, Johnson D, Lacis A, Lebedeff S, Lee P, Rind D, Russell G (1981) Climate impact of increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide. Science 213:957

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Holdren JP, Ehrlich PR (1974) Human population and the global environment: population growth, rising per capita material consumption, and disruptive technologies have made civilization a global ecological force. Am Sci 62:282–292

    Google Scholar 

  11. Hovland, C. I., I. L. Janis & H. H. Kelley (1953) Communication and persuasion; psychological studies of opinion change

    Google Scholar 

  12. IPCC (2014) Climate change 2007: impacts, adaptation and vulnerability. In Contribution of Working Group II to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

  13. IPCC (2018) Global warming of 1.5C - summary for policymakers. In Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

  14. Kalmus P (2017) Being the change: live well and spark a climate revolution

    Google Scholar 

  15. Kotcher JE, Myers TA, Vraga EK, Stenhouse N, Maibach EW (2017) Does engagement in advocacy hurt the credibility of scientists? Results from a randomized national survey experiment. Environ Commun 11:415–429

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Kraft-Todd GT, Bollinger B, Gillingham K, Lamp S, Rand DG (2018) Credibility-enhancing displays promote the provision of non-normative public goods. Nature 563:245–248

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Le Quéré, C., S. Capstick, A. Corner, D. Cutting, M. Johnson, A. Minns, H. Schroeder, K. Walker-Springett, L. Whitmarsh & R. Wood (2015) Towards a culture of low-carbon research for the 21 st century

    Google Scholar 

  18. Leiserowitz AA, Maibach EW, Roser-Renouf C, Smith N, Dawson E (2013) Climategate, public opinion, and the loss of trust. Am Behav Sci 57:818–837

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Levine AS, Kline R (2017) A new approach for evaluating climate change communication. Clim Chang 142:301–309

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Maibach EW, Roser-Renouf C, Leiserowitz A (2008) Communication and marketing as climate change–intervention assets: a public health perspective. Am J Prev Med 35:488–500

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Nordhaus WD (2007) To tax or not to tax: alternative approaches to slowing global warming. Rev Environ Econ Policy 1:26–44

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Ockwell D, Whitmarsh L, O'Neill S (2009) Reorienting climate change communication for effective mitigation: forcing people to be green or fostering grass-roots engagement? Sci Commun 30:305–327

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Pidgeon N, Fischhoff B (2011) The role of social and decision sciences in communicating uncertain climate risks. Nat Clim Chang 1:35–41

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Pidgeon N, Demski C, Butler C, Parkhill K, Spence A (2014) Creating a national citizen engagement process for energy policy. Proc Natl Acad Sci 111:13606–13613

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Scheufele DA (2014) Science communication as political communication. Proc Natl Acad Sci 111:13585–13592

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Walton DN (1987) The ad hominem argument as an informal fallacy. Argumentation 1:317–331

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Wynes S, Nicholas KA (2017) The climate mitigation gap: education and government recommendations miss the most effective individual actions. Environ Res Lett 12:074024

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

Funding for this project was provided by the National Science Foundation (SES–0951516) and the O’Neill School of Public and Environmental Affairs at Indiana University Bloomington. We thank Steven Bakovic and Andrew Barnes for research support.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Contributions

S.Z.A. and D.H.K. designed research; S.Z.A. collected the data; S.Z.A. and D.H.K. analyzed data; and S.Z.A., D.H.K., and E.U.W. wrote the paper.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Shahzeen Z. Attari.

Ethics declarations

This research was approved by Indiana University’s Internal Review Board at the Office of Research Administration, and informed consent was received from all participants.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Electronic supplementary material

ESM 1

(DOCX 214 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Attari, S.Z., Krantz, D.H. & Weber, E.U. Climate change communicators’ carbon footprints affect their audience’s policy support. Climatic Change 154, 529–545 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-019-02463-0

Download citation