
Americans Don’t Understand How Bad Climate Change Is or What They Can Do - jseliger
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/americans-climate-change-science_us_5c1a9692e4b03f9bd52cc8c3
======
PeterisP
Part of the blame lies in lack of resources for understanding the impact
properly. This article is a good example - it includes an infographic
([https://img.huffingtonpost.com/asset/5c1a989924000019008c883...](https://img.huffingtonpost.com/asset/5c1a989924000019008c8835.jpeg?ops=scalefit_720_noupscale))
listing vague global effects such as "Heavy rainfall up 7%" or "sea level rise
50cm" or "Crop yields in tropical regions down x%". That's _not_ anything
that's going to get a common person to think "oh, that's absolutely horrible"
\- 7% of heavy rainfall or 50cm sea level rise doesn't sound scary, and they
don't care about crop yields in tropical regions if they don't live there.
What _is_ needed is publicly available information on how climate change is
going to affect _them_ \- not global averages, but local impact. If you just
say "oh, it's going to be vaguely really bad after a long time on the other
side of the globe" then people reasonably won't choose to make any sacrifices
to prevent that.

Let's assume the currently likely scenario of 4 degree C average warming by
2100. The article quotes Ed Maibach, director of the George Mason University
Center for Climate Change Communication, that he finds it "to be nothing short
of terrifying". Okay, let's elaborate and present the actually terrifying
predictions to the people - where can I get them? Given that 4 degree global
warming scenario, what's the predicted local warming in Texas? Given the
global sea level rise, which parts of Florida are going to flood by 2100?
Given the predicted changes in rainfall, what is going to be the effect on
crop yields in Midwest? 2100 is too far away to be meaningful for most people,
what is the realistic bad case scenario by 2050 or 2070, what are the mid-term
impacts?

Don't just say "it's terrifying" but actually terrify people with data! And
not just any data, but data that's relevant to them personally; a Midwest
farmer doesn't care about crop yields falling in tropical regions (or might
even prefer it, less competition=higher prices) and vice versa - to
meaningfully convince a person living in Florida you need data about how
Florida is going to be affected; to convince a person living in London, you
need data about the expected impact on London. Is there such data available?

~~~
adrianN
If you want to scare people you can tell them that Phytoplankton is sensitive
to ocean warming and has been declining over the last century [1] (and the
situation has not improved since 2010 [2]). On land, plants don't really like
global heating either [3]. Together these effects directly threaten not only
the food chain, but oxygen supply itself.

[1]
[https://www.nature.com/articles/nature09268](https://www.nature.com/articles/nature09268)

[2] [https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/newfoundland-
labrador/ocean-p...](https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/newfoundland-
labrador/ocean-phytoplankton-zooplankton-food-web-1.4927884)

[3]
[https://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/article?id=10.1371/jou...](https://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/article?id=10.1371/journal.pbio.1002167)

~~~
PeterisP
That's a prime example of what I'm talking about - vague statements
("sensitive", "decline", "threaten") about global effects on complex systems
("the food chain").

What is the expected _specific_ , _immediate_ , _local_ effect of that? Can
you tell a particular person (the abovementioned Midwest farmer) some
particular clear consequence of phytoplankton decline he's going to
_personally_ experience in his lifetime (say, 2070) or the lifetime of his
kids (say, 2100) if he doesn't do the utmost to prevent climate change change
?

The articles you quoted make no really scary (to the target audience) claims
whatsoever. The third includes an expected impact on agriculture
([https://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/article/figure/image?d...](https://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/article/figure/image?download&size=large&id=info:doi/10.1371/journal.pbio.1002167.g002))
which shows neutral or even positive effects on agriculture in much of first
world (and horrible effects on Brasil and SE Asia, but that's not relevant to
the USA consumer whom we're asking to change habits).

------
captain_crabs
When this topic comes up, I always come back to this:
[http://worrydream.com/ClimateChange/](http://worrydream.com/ClimateChange/)
If you haven't - give it a glance!

------
pmiller2
What can one individual do when 25 corporations worldwide are responsible for
51% of carbon emissions, and 100 corporate entities are responsible for 71% of
emissions? [0]

—-

[0]: [https://www.sciencealert.com/these-100-companies-are-to-
blam...](https://www.sciencealert.com/these-100-companies-are-to-blame-
for-71-of-the-world-s-greenhouse-gas-emissions)

~~~
closeparen
Live a non-car-oriented lifestyle in a city, show up to zoning/land-use
hearings to support buildings that will enable as many others as possible to
do the same.

The auto and energy industries don't pollute because it's fun. They do it in
the course of fulfilling our demand for suburban lifestyles.

~~~
alacombe
Do you realize the infrastructure required to support your "green" urban
living ?

~~~
adrianN
What infrastructure is needed for urban living that is not needed much more
for suburban living?

~~~
pmiller2
Reliable, usable public transportation.

~~~
adrianN
Instead of public transportation you have many, many cars. Isn't that worse?

------
RickJWagner
As a conservative American (who believes the climate is changing), I don't
think the key to greater awareness is to make things seem more dire.

IMHO, the key is to ensure that every bit of news about climate change is
validated by unimpeachable sources. There have been more than a few incidents
where claims about the amount of damage coming have been exaggerated-- this
feeds doubts.

News sources (Fox included) regularly carry items that describe the problem.
If everyone believed what was written (even if they are only looking at Fox,
nowhere else) I really believe there would be more concern.

------
dahfizz
As Americans, what can we really do? China's emissions dwarf our own[0] and
the same is generally true for other kinds of pollution (plastic in the ocean
comes largely from China, etc).

The entire country of America could disappear tomorrow and it would not be of
huge consequence to climate change.

[0] [https://www.forbes.com/sites/rrapier/2018/07/01/china-
emits-...](https://www.forbes.com/sites/rrapier/2018/07/01/china-emits-more-
carbon-dioxide-than-the-u-s-and-eu-combined/#40e9fbe5628c)

~~~
ReptileMan
You could try making the dirty tech economically inferior on its own terms.
Then the clean will be adopted with blazing speed. Nobody burns oil and coal
because they like the smell.

~~~
zamalek
It's rapidly approaching that point already. The problem is politicians and it
seems as though we are powerless to change that.

~~~
ReptileMan
USSR showed that when politicians and economy colide heads on politicians
lose. Reality always wins at the end.

Supressing superior technology is extremely hard. If you succeed it is just
not superior enough.

------
NPMaxwell
This article, given the option of describing temperature increases as from "3
degrees to 7 degrees F", chooses to report them as "1.5 to 4 degrees C". It's
as if the thinking is, "Yeah, Fahrenheit makes these numbers look bigger and
almost every American is thinking about the heat on a hot summer day in
Fahrenheit, and would love to avoid adding another 7 degrees to a 100-degree
day, but ..."

~~~
foobar1962
> This article, given the option of describing temperature increases as ...
> "degrees F", chooses to report them as... "degrees C".

Could it be because every other civilised country on the planet uses the
metric system and wouldn't know wtf 3-7 degrees F is?

> almost every American is thinking about the heat on a hot summer day in
> Fahrenheit

Which sounds worse: going from 36C to 40C or 97F to 104?

~~~
NPMaxwell
I hadn't considered that the point of this article was to communicate outside
of the U.S. Sure. For the rest of the English-Speaking world, use Centigrade.

For the U.S. market, Farhenheit works better. At first look to an American,
104 is SEVEN greater than 97; 40 is only four bigger than 36; 36 is slightly
over freezing; and 40 is noticeably more comfortable. You might think that
Americans are going to think about ratios and worry that 40/36 might be
greater than 104/97, but 1) calculating ratios like that is not a common U.S.
thing, and 2) by using an arbitrary end point, Farhenheit discourages applying
ratios to temperatures.

On second look, for an American, those numbers should not be attended to at
all, because they are shrouded in the ambiguity of what you will get after you
do the math. About half of Americans can't do multi-step math even with pencil
and paper (according to the National Adult Literacy Survey of the National
Center for Educational Statistics in the U.S. government).

There is nothing misleading in translating to to Fahrenheit. Why sacrifice
rhetorical advantage by trying to make Americans more "civilised"? (Mind you,
on that front we're already doomed, spelling it "civilized".)

What this brings up is endowing Huffpost with automated localization.

~~~
foobar1962
> I hadn't considered that the point of this article was to communicate
> outside of the U.S. Sure. For the rest of the English-Speaking world, use
> Centigrade.

The article started with “Americans” and not “We” so I assumed it was written
for an international audience. I think the general theme of the article is
pretty global and not just applicable to Americans. I can see the same thing
happening here in Australia.

A small temperature change won’t have much affect on anything, really, except
where it does. Those places will be where the temperatures hover around
freezing point of water (in whatever units you choose). Regions that usually
have mild frost or snow in winter won’t get that any more. That will have a
huge change on the flora and fauna. Plant species that cannot tolerate frost
will invade and displace the natives.

In Australia the warming effect is being felt already by wine growers. Regions
previously too cold for grapes are being converted to vineyards. Regions
currently growing cold-climate grapes are being replanted to warmer climate
varieties.

------
qwerty456127
Almost nobody does, not just Americans.

------
ciconia
Most people living in the city (i.e. most of humanity) don't get climate
change.

------
ashildr
Half of US-Americans voted Trump and there’s a bigger than 0 probability that
they will, again. Whatever the result will be, the leading role the US had for
many countries is gone and will not be restored.

All hope is lost for that country, somehow the rest of the world will have to
figure out how to avoid the worst in climate change without the US.

------
alacombe
The French just uprose en masse, sometime very violently, against measures
said to be good for climate. So it's not _just_ about the Americans.

~~~
mosiuerbarso
To my knowledge, the recent French protest wasn't quite as black and white as
that.

The fuel tax Macron was planning was going to hit the rural middle/working
class and the poor the hardest.

On average, many of these people have to commute around 30 miles to work at
low paid service jobs. So their work commuting costs are a big part of their
monthly bills.

And then Macron came along and asked them if they'd kindly help with paying
some of the costs of climate change.

The proposed fuel bill didn't hit the people living in the cities as badly,
because, on average, they're better paid, have better public transport options
and live closer to their workplace.

You can understand why people living in rural towns and outside the cites got
a little-pissed off and decided to protest. The increase fuel tax was going to
hit them way harder than those living in the cities. And those poorer people
are being squeezed already, due to having a longer work commute, crap work
pay, crap job options, and worse public transport options.

Anyway, if you want more info on this listen to this video by the Mark Blyth.
He can explain it better than I ever can:
[https://youtu.be/Sk87JHTyozo?t=641](https://youtu.be/Sk87JHTyozo?t=641)

