Advertisement

Climatic Change

, Volume 154, Issue 3–4, pp 529–545 | Cite as

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

  • Shahzeen Z. AttariEmail author
  • David H. Krantz
  • Elke U. Weber
Article

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.

Notes

Author 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.

Funding information

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.

Compliance with ethical standards

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.

Supplementary material

10584_2019_2463_MOESM1_ESM.docx (214 kb)
ESM 1 (DOCX 214 kb)

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 138:325–338CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Carvalho A, van Wessel M, Maeseele P (2017) Communication practices and political engagement with climate change: a research agenda. Environ Commun 11:122–135CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Chapman L (2007) Transport and climate change: a review. J Transp Geogr 15:354–367CrossRefGoogle 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 5:640CrossRefGoogle 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 106:18452–18456CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Gallup (2017) U.S. Conservatives outnumber liberals by narrowing marginGoogle Scholar
  7. Gardner G, Stern P (2008) The short list: the most effective actions U.S. households can take to curb climate change. Environ Magazine 50:12–24Google Scholar
  8. Geels FW, Sovacool BK, Schwanen T, Sorrell S (2017) Sociotechnical transitions for deep decarbonization. Science 357:1242–1244CrossRefGoogle 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 213:957CrossRefGoogle 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 62:282–292Google Scholar
  11. Hovland, C. I., I. L. Janis & H. H. Kelley (1953) Communication and persuasion; psychological studies of opinion changeGoogle 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 ChangeGoogle Scholar
  13. IPCC (2018) Global warming of 1.5C - summary for policymakers. In Intergovernmental Panel on Climate ChangeGoogle Scholar
  14. Kalmus P (2017) Being the change: live well and spark a climate revolutionGoogle 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 11:415–429CrossRefGoogle 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 563:245–248CrossRefGoogle 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 centuryGoogle 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 57:818–837CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Levine AS, Kline R (2017) A new approach for evaluating climate change communication. Clim Chang 142:301–309CrossRefGoogle 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 35:488–500CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Nordhaus WD (2007) To tax or not to tax: alternative approaches to slowing global warming. Rev Environ Econ Policy 1:26–44CrossRefGoogle 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 30:305–327CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Pidgeon N, Fischhoff B (2011) The role of social and decision sciences in communicating uncertain climate risks. Nat Clim Chang 1:35–41CrossRefGoogle 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 111:13606–13613CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Scheufele DA (2014) Science communication as political communication. Proc Natl Acad Sci 111:13585–13592CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Walton DN (1987) The ad hominem argument as an informal fallacy. Argumentation 1:317–331CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Wynes S, Nicholas KA (2017) The climate mitigation gap: education and government recommendations miss the most effective individual actions. Environ Res Lett 12:074024CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Shahzeen Z. Attari
    • 1
    Email author
  • David H. Krantz
    • 2
  • Elke U. Weber
    • 3
  1. 1.O’Neill School of Public and Environmental AffairsIndiana University BloomingtonBloomingtonUSA
  2. 2.Department of Psychology & Center for Research on Environmental DecisionsColumbia UniversityNew YorkUSA
  3. 3.Andlinger Center for Energy and the Environment, Woodrow Wilson School, and Department of PsychologyPrinceton UniversityPrincetonUSA

Personalised recommendations