Anthropogenic climate change: how to understand the weak links between scientific evidence, public perception, and low-carbon practices

Abstract

This review article presents an overview of recent literature on: the scientific consensus about the attribution of climate change to anthropogenic sources; successes and failures to create a global policy regime to lower worldwide carbon emissions; recent developments in the public perception of climate change and associated risks; and the persistence of highly carbon-intensive practices in spite of scientific evidence on the attribution of climate change to anthropogenic causes. Holistic approaches to understanding patterns of consumption, focusing on ensembles of social practices, may explain this persistence, however, such approaches are still in their infancy with regard to developing proactive ideas for policies to promote low-carbon practices more effectively.

Objectives for Stakeholder Engagement in Global Environmental Assessments

“…Similarly to what was found in GEA documents, this includes the engagement of authors from diverse disciplines, institutional affiliations, geographic locations, and with a variety of areas of topical expertise [9,14,41]. However, stakeholders can also provide information in other roles stemming from a broader diversity of worldviews, beliefs and knowledge systems [7,[42][43][44][45][46]. For example, non-scientific stakeholders could contribute information based on cultural beliefs or experiences to the problem framing and to analyzing the potential success or failure of solution options, including co-benefits and side effects [47,48].…”

“…The literature stresses that while scientists involved in GEAs are experts in their fields, they are not necessarily experts in communication, requiring input from a broader group in order to improve understanding. This includes in particular ensuring that GEA messages fulfill a demand from end-users [5,20] and are framed appropriately [42,49]. Another crucial aspect is the role of stakeholders in interpreting information, making often complex and technical findings more usable [52], a highly pragmatic rationale akin to those which came up during interviews regarding this category of objectives.…”

Climate concerned but anti-nuclear: Exploring (dis)approval of nuclear energy in four European countries

“…However, due to the existence of universal environmental values typically framing nuclear energy as unsustainable, a pattern consistent across the four countries might also be deemed likely. investigated since the 1980s [9][10][11][12], through both in-depth academic studies [13][14][15] and continuous polling surveys [16][17][18]. Public concern about climate change often takes lower priority than other issues of public attention, such as a nation's overall economic situation, unemployment or most recently, migration policies, which people perceive to be more immediate risks and challenges.…”

Elements of success in multi-stakeholder deliberation platforms

“…Finally, participatory processes such as deliberation platforms have a number of objectives which are in and of themselves valuable from a normative perspective (Garard and Kowarsch, 2017b). For example, deliberation platforms can strengthen communication and understanding of the hugely diverse perspectives on complex policy problems (Andonova, 2006;Reid et al 2006;Reed, 2008;Engels, 2016), can increase the ownership felt by multiple actors over the processes and outcomes (Clark et al 2006;Cooper et al 2007;Cornwall, 2008), and can lead to social learning (Fabricius et al 2006;Leemans, 2008;Reed, 2008;Gerlak et al 2017).…”