Advertisement

What’s the Worst Thing that Can Happen?—A Simple Exercise to Communicating and Reasoning About Climate Change

  • Markus WillEmail author
  • Joost Platje
Chapter
Part of the Climate Change Management book series (CCM)

Abstract

Climate communication has so far not being very successful in fostering behavioral changes of individuals and inducing political interventions. There is a gap between knowledge and behavior and there is a tendency to postpone serious action with the reason that science is not settled about the extent of impacts and the effectiveness of counter action. However, the preposition of the authors is that there is no much sense in waiting for something to be proven, but there is a necessity for making a rational decision between “doing something” or “doing nothing”. Instead of waiting for scientific proof, the question is reframed to what is the best bet in the face of uncertainty and low probability, high impact events. A structured exercise and facilitation guideline is presented as a tool for lecturers and teachers, to generally discuss about climate change within a rational framework. Making use of the Craven’s grid, after its inventor Greg Craven, its limits are assessed and opportunities for further development are derived. The grid can be developed into an instrument that may prepare participants for understanding small probability, high impact events. As such, the exercise can be very useful for discussing climate change issues, but also other events which are grounded in the increasing complexity of systems.

Keywords

Climate change communication Precautionary principle Complexity X-events 

References

  1. Allan H (2011) Debrief: a reflective tool for workplace based learning. https://www.kcl.ac.uk/lsm/research/divisions/meded/teachers/resources/debrief.pdf. Accessed 8 Apr 2016
  2. Blumen R (2010) Must we do something, anything, about global warming? Published on Mises Institute. https://mises.org/print/8326. Accessed 5 Aug 2016
  3. Casti JL (2013) X-Events—complexity overload and the collapse of everything. HaperCollins Publishers, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  4. Cooke RM (2015) Messaging uncertainty in climate change. Nat Clim Change 5(8–10) doi: 10.1038/nclimate2466CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Corner A, Venables D, Spence A, Poortinga W, Demski C, Pidgeon N (2011) Nuclear power, climate change and energy security: exploring British public attitudes. Energ Policy 39(9):4823–4833. doi: 10.1016/j.enpol.2011.06.037CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Craven G (2010) What’s the worst that could happen? A rational response to the climate change debate. Perigee Book by Penguin Group, New York, USAGoogle Scholar
  7. Crutzen PJ (2006) Albedo enhancements by stratospheric sulfur injections: a contribution to resolve a policy dilemma? Clim Change 77(2006):211–219CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Curry J (2011) Reasoning about climate uncertainty. Clim Change 108:723–732CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Curry JA, Webster PJ (2011) Climate science and the uncertainty monster. Bull Am Meteorol Soc 2011:1677–1682. doi: 10.1175/2011BAMS3139.1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. EEA (2001) Late lessons from early warnings: the precautionary principle 1896–2000. European Environment Agency, LuxembourgGoogle Scholar
  11. EEA (2013) Late lessons from early warnings II: science, precaution, innovation. European Environment Agency, LuxembourgGoogle Scholar
  12. Ehrlich PR, Ehrlich AH (2013) Can a collapse of global civilization be avoided? Proc R Soc B 280:20122845. doi: 10.1098/rspb.2012.2845CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. FAO Food and Agriculture Organization of the UN (2008) Biofuels—prospects risks and opportunities. RomeGoogle Scholar
  14. Fitkau HJ, Kessel H (1981) Umweltlernen: Veränderungsmoeglichkeiten des Umweltbewusstseins. Modelle-Erfahrungen. Schriften des Wissenschaftszentrums Berlin. Vol 18, 1st ed. Königstein/Ts.: HainGoogle Scholar
  15. Fliegenschnee M, Schelakovsky M (1998) Umweltpsychologie und Umweltbildung: eine Einführung aus humanökologischer Sicht. Facultas Universitäts Verlag, WienGoogle Scholar
  16. Gifford R, Kormos C, McIntyre A (2011) Behavioral dimensions of climate change: drivers, responses, barriers, and interventions. WIREs Clim Change 2(6):801–827. doi: 10.1002/wcc.143CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Giddens A (2009) The politics of climate change. Polity Press, Cambridge, UKGoogle Scholar
  18. Gloede F (2007) Unfolgsame Folgen—Begründungen und Implikationen der Fokussierung auf Nebenfolgen bei TA, Technikfolgenabschätzung—Theorie und Praxis Nr. 1, 16. Jg., März 2007Google Scholar
  19. Hacking I (1972) The logic of Pascal’s Wager. Am Philos Q 9(2):186–192. http://www.jstor.org/stable/20009437
  20. Hagen B, Middel A, Pijawka D (2015) European climate change perceptions: public support for mitigation and adaptation policies. Environ Pol Gov. doi: 10.1002/eet.1701CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hájek A (2012) Pascal’s Wager. In: Edward N. Zalta (ed) The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2012 Edition). http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2012/entries/pascal-wager/, http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/pascal-wager/. Accessed 5 Aug 2016
  22. Harris JM, Roach B, Codur AM (2015) The economics of global climate change. Global Development and Environment Institute, Tufts University, MedfordGoogle Scholar
  23. Heckendorn P, Weisenstein D, Fueglistaler S, Luo BP, Rozanov E, Schraner M, Thomason LW, Peter T (2009) The impact of geoengineering aerosols on stratospheric temperature and ozone. Environ Res Lett 4(4):045108, 1–12. doi: 10.1088/1748-9326/4/4/045108CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Hegerl GC, Solomon S (2009) Risks of climate engineering. Science 325:S 955–956CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Hines JM, Hungerdford HR, Tomera AN (1986) Analysis and synthesis of research on responsible pro-environmental behavior: a meta-analysis. J Environ Educ 18(2):1–8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. IPCC 2014 Climate change 2014: Synthesis Report. [Core Writing Team, Pachauri RK, Meyer LA (eds) Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Geneva, Switzerland, pp 151Google Scholar
  27. Jordan J (2006) Pascal’s Wager: pragmatic arguments and belief in god. Clarendon Press, OxfordCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Kahan DM (2014) Making climate-science communication evidence-based—all the way down. http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2216469
  29. Kahnemann D (2011) Thinking, Fast and Slow. Farrar, Straus and Giroux, New York USAGoogle Scholar
  30. Kollmuss A, Agyman J (2002) Mind the gap—why do people act environmentally and what are the barriers to pro-environmental behavior. Environ Educ Res 8(3):2002CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Leiserowitz A, Maibach E, Roser-Renouf C, Feinberg G, Rosenthal S (2016) Climate change in the American mind: March, 2016. Yale Program on Climate Change Communication, Yale University and George Mason University, New Haven, CTGoogle Scholar
  32. Leisner T, Müller-Klieser (2007) Aerosolbasierte Methoden des Climate Engineering—Eine Bewertung. Technikfolgenabschätzung – Theorie und Praxis 19. Jg., Heft 2, Juli 2010Google Scholar
  33. Lewandosky S, Rishbey J, Smithson M, Newell BR, Hunter J (2014) Scientific uncertainty and climate change: part I uncertainty and unabated emissions. Clim Change 124:21–37. doi: 10.1007/s10584-014-1082-7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Mann ME (2009) Defining dangerous anthropogenic interference. PNAS Proc Natl Acad Sci, USA, p 106Google Scholar
  35. Mastrandrea MD, Field CB, Stocker TF, Edenhofer O, Ebi KL, Frame DJ, Held H, Kriegler E, Mach KJ, Matschoss PR, Plattner GK, Yohe GW, Zwiers F (2010) Guidance Note for Lead Authors of the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report on Consistent Treatment of Uncertainties. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Available at http://www.ipcc.ch
  36. Meadows D (1999) Leverage points—places to intervene in a system. The Sustainability Institute, Hartland VT, USAGoogle Scholar
  37. Moser S (2010) Communicating climate change: history, challenges, process and future directions. WIREs Clim Change 1:31–53 (John Wiley & Sons, Ltd)Google Scholar
  38. Moser S (2016) Climate change communication. The International Encyclopedia of Geography: People, the Earth, Environment, and Technology. WileyGoogle Scholar
  39. Moser S, Dilling L (eds) (2007) Creating a climate for change: communicating climate change and facilitating social change. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  40. Moser SC, Dilling L (2010) Communicating climate change: closing the science-action gap. In: Norgaard Richard, Schlosberg David, Dryzek John (eds) The oxford handbook of climate change and society. Oxford University Press Inc., New YorkGoogle Scholar
  41. Moss R, Schneider S (2000) Uncertainties. In: Pachauri R, Taniguchi T, Tanaka K (eds) Guidance Papers on the Cross Cutting Issues of the Third Assessment Report of Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Switzerland, GenevaGoogle Scholar
  42. NAS National Academy of Sciences, U.S. (2015) Climate intervention—reflecting sunlight to cool earthGoogle Scholar
  43. Nerlich B, Koteyko N, Brown B (2010) Theory and language of climate change communication. Wiley Interdisc Rev Clim Change 1(1):97–110. doi: 10.1002/wcc.2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Newell B, Smithson M (2014) Uncertainty isn’t cause for climate complacency—quite the opposite. The Conversation. https://theconversation.com/uncertaintyisntcauseforclimatecomplacencyquitetheopposite25481
  45. Nordhaus WD (2008) A question of balance—weighing the options on global warming policies. Yale University PressGoogle Scholar
  46. Oppenheimer M (2005) Defining dangerous anthropogenic interference: the role of science, the limits of science. Risk Anal 25(6):1399–1407. doi: 10.1111/j.1539-6924.2005.00687.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Pidgeon N, Fischoff B (2011) The role of social and decision sciences in communicating uncertain climate risks. Nat Clim Change 1Google Scholar
  48. Platje J, Kampen R (2016) Climate justice from a club good perspective. Int J Clim Change Strat Manage 8(4):520–538CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Preuss S (1991) Umweltkatastrophe Mensch. Ueber unsere Grenzen und Moeglichkeiten, oekologisch bewusst zu handeln. Roland Asanger Verlag, HeidelbergGoogle Scholar
  50. Prins G, Rayner S (2007) The wrong trousers: radically rethinking climate policy. James Martin Institute for Science and Civilization, University of Oxford and the MacKinder Centre for the Study of Long-Wave Events, London School of EconomicsGoogle Scholar
  51. Prins G, Galiana I, Green C, Grundmann R, Korhola A, Laird F, Nordhaus T, Pielke Jnr R, Rayner S, Sarewitz D, Shellenberger M, Stehr N, Tezuko H (2010) The hartwell paper: a new direction for climate policy after the crash of 2009. Institute for Science, Innovation & Society, University of Oxford; LSE Mackinder Programme, London School of Economics and Political Science, London, UKGoogle Scholar
  52. Sandin P (2004) The precautionary principle and the concept of precaution. Environ Values 13(2004):461–475CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Sandin P, Peterson M, Hansson SO, Rudén C, Juthe A (2011) Five charges against the precautionary principle. J Risk Res 5(4)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Schellnhuber HJ (2010) Tipping elements in the Earth System. PNAS 106(49):20561–20563. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0911106106CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Shome, D, Marx, S (2009) The psychology of climate change communication—a guide for scientists, journalists, educators, political aides, and the interested public. Center for Research on Environmental Decisions, Columbia University, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  56. Stehr N (2015a) Democracy is not an inconvenience. Nature 525:449–450 (Macmillan Publishers)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Stehr N (2015b) Information, Power and Democracy: Liberty is a Daughter of Knowledge. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  58. Stern N (2007) The economics of climate change: the stern review. Cambridge University Press, New York and Cambridge, U.KCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Sterman J (2000) Business dynamics: systems thinking and modeling for a complex world. McGraw-Hill Education, New York CityGoogle Scholar
  60. Taleb NN (2007) The black swan—the impact of the highly improbable. Random House, New York CityGoogle Scholar
  61. Taleb NN, Read R, Douady R, Norman J, Bar-Yam (2014) The precautionary principle (with Application to the Genetic Modification of Organisms). Extreme Risk Initiative—NYU School of Engineering Working Paper Series. New YorkGoogle Scholar
  62. van der Sluijs JP, van Est R, Riphagen M (2010a) Room for climate debate: perspectives on the interaction between climate politics, science and the media. Rathenau Instituut-Technology Assessment, The HagueGoogle Scholar
  63. van der Sluijs JP, van Est R, Riphagen M (2010b) Beyond consensus: reflections from a democratic perspective on the interaction between climate politics and science. Curr Opin Environ Sustain 2(5–6):409–415CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. van der Sluijs JP, Turkenburg WC (2006) Climate change and the precautionary principle. In: Fisher E, Jones J, von Schomberg R (eds) (2006) Implementing the precautionary principle, perspectives and prospects, ElgarGoogle Scholar
  65. Weber EU, Stern PC (2011) Public understanding of climate change in the United States. Am Psychol 66:315–328CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. World Bank (2012): Turn down the heat—confronting the new climate normal. A Report for the World Bank by the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research and Climate Analytics. Washington DC, USAGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of Applied Sciences Zittau/GörlitzZittauGermany
  2. 2.WSB University in WrocławWroclawPoland

Personalised recommendations