Why “Being Scientific” Is a Losing Strategy for Climate Action
Science doesn’t persuade, but there is a way
Please enjoy this article. Then subscribe, free or paid. I appreciate your interest, and I appreciate the support of paid subscriptions!
As a new student and the University of Minnesota, I read my first scientific article about climate change in 1980. It was published in 1979. I read it as part of a literature review I completed for a class I had in environmental geography. All the articles were published in the 1970s. At that time, scientists called it “the greenhouse effect” and discussed how it would lead to global warming. Only later did the term become climate change.
Since that time, the statistics have mostly gotten worse. CO2 emissions, for example, increased by over 90% since 1970. A recent report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) says: “Since 1970 the global average temperature has been rising at a rate of 1.7°C per century, compared to a long-term decline over the past 7,000 years at a baseline rate of 0.01°C per century (NOAA, 2016; Marcott et al., 2013).” It provides the data to back it up. EPA demonstrates the results of these changes that are observable in the world: “The planet’s oceans and glaciers have also experienced changes — oceans are warming and becoming more acidic, ice caps are melting, and sea level is rising.” And, of course, there are well-documented floods, droughts, or intense rain, as well as more frequent and severe heat waves that resulted from climate change.
The science is clear. It’s been known since the 1970s. It was popularized more broadly with Al Gore’s Inconvenient Truth tour in 2006. Yet here we are fifty years later, and sixteen years after Gore’s publicity push, and everything is getting worse. Why?
There is a truism in sales and marketing, the area in which I spent most of my career. Here it is: “Facts tell, stories sell.” I can think of no better example to demonstrate the reality of this truism than the climate movement of the last 50 years. We have been pounding people with facts. Countless academic studies, think tank reports, Al Gore’s work, the Rocky Mountain Institute, The Sierra Club, and so many more. Facts, facts, and more facts. It’s been good. The knowledge is sound. We know the science. And yet…
25% of Americans — i.e., 83 million people — either doubt or deny the science.
Read that again. After fifty years of well-established science…
25% of Americans — i.e., 83 million people — either doubt or deny the science.
It is safe to assume that those 83 million people will do nothing to alter their carbon-rich lifestyle. They won’t stop driving, they won’t stop flying, they won’t reduce their meat consumption, they won’t degrow, and they won’t go solar or buy an EV because of climate change. They don’t believe there is climate change, so how can it ever motivate behavior change?
One implication is obvious. Anyone who quotes science to say, “The science says that if we all did X we could reduce carbon by Y,” must discount that carbon reduction by at least 25% because 25% of the population refuses to go along. In addition, depending on the action selected, many more may find that particular action unpalatable for a variety of reasons, and also choose not to go along. Could be an additional 1% or an additional 50%, but it will be more. So even if the science says that if we all do one thing to reduce carbon and it would have a big effect, human behavior is not going to comply. Too much of the population is not motivated to change, so the benefits claimed from such an approach will never materialize.
Science needs to continue to give us data and information — indeed, it is critical to do so. But as a weapon of persuasion, it had its chance. Fifty years of chance. Despite that, emissions increase, consumption increases, global temperature increases, etc. So what do we need to do if asserting science can’t achieve all we would like it to achieve?
We have two options: Expand the motivations for the desired consumer behavior or change the system to eliminate consumer choice.
Change Motivations
Using science, we can determine the behaviors we want to see adopted across society. We can make the case for those things scientifically to those for whom that method is effective. But for those not persuaded by the scientific argument, we could generate new and different motivations. For example, we know that electricity generated from solar arrays does not create emissions, so we could determine that it would be good for everyone to have solar panels on their home. Some people motivated by the science of climate change want to do their part and adopt solar panels on their rooftops. That’s pretty much how it is today — some people have already done this. Why haven’t more people done it? Well, 25% don’t believe the climate science, so they have no motivation whatsoever. Many more don’t have the upfront cash to put into it, so they hold back. More still are risk-averse regarding their roofs and their homes. What if they need a new roof? Moving the solar panels to build the roof and putting them back could be very expensive. Plus, people feel that if they make the investment and others don’t, there might be no impact on climate change anyway, In their view, they just end up with an expensive inconvenience and climate change goes unabated.
An autocratic government like China’s could certainly force everyone to install solar panels, but that is unlikely to ever happen in the US. The American alternative, however, might look at all these objections people have and find a way to mitigate them. Instead of tax credits for solar, which tend to favor people with enough income to benefit from tax credits, direct subsidies could be provided. Financing could also be provided in such a way that it guarantees a person’s electric bill will always be significantly lower than it would have otherwise been. Perhaps government insurance could be provided regarding roof replacements and the removal and replacement of the solar array. Note that I am not arguing for these things, necessarily, but using them to illustrate a way of changing people’s motivations. When putting solar on your roof goes from a large investment requiring owing taxes to get the tax credit and high risk (in the form of roof replacement or changes in electricity costs) to an obvious financial win with no risk and lower costs, people will do it. It doesn’t matter what you believe about the science any more — you’ll do it because it makes financial sense. The motivation has changed.
Any carbon reduction strategy recommended by the science will see increased adoption when viewed through the lens of human motivations. One’s judgment about those motivations is not relevant. What matters is how the person you want to change their behavior views the problem. Wherever we can create non-science-based motivations for climate-enhancing behaviors, we greatly expand the number of people willing to participate.
Eliminate Consumer Choice
The other option is to eliminate the anti-climate choice altogether. Today, for example, people can choose to buy a traditional internal combustion engine (ICE) car or an electric vehicle (EV). Likewise, many utilities provide power from traditional sources and they provide an opportunity to subscribe to a community solar garden or wind farm as an alternative. In both cases, the same 25% who don’t believe the science is unlikely to adopt the new climate-friendly product. Why should they? The non-climate choice has been effective, certain, understandable, and in most cases, less expensive. Those who do believe the science may or may not adopt the new products based on other motivating factors. The good thing is that people have a choice. The bad thing is also that people have a choice.
It wasn’t always this way. Both the automobile age and the age of electric generation have offered one and only one alternative — ICE cars and electricity from fossil fuels/nuclear. Did you want a car? ICE was the only option. Do you want electricity? You get what they give you by burning fossil fuels or nuclear. There were no options.
While it is good that we now have options, it is better that we are moving beyond options. We should accelerate this trend. There is no reason why the one and only one choice can’t be the climate-friendly option. What if there are no ICEs available at all, and the only option for a car is an EV? And what if the only electricity you can purchase comes from renewable sources because no one burns fossil fuels anymore? The good news is that this is happening.
Car manufacturers are making this change themselves. Audi says it will offer only EVs by 2026. Honda will only produce EVs by 2030. GM is making its Buick and Cadillac brands 100% EV by 2030, and all others by 2035. In effect, the industry is moving to eliminate the climate-destroying option because of perceived market forces. But the effect is that consumers will not have the choice of buying gas-burning vehicles.
Renewable electricity generation is lagging far behind where the auto industry is taking us. Wind and solar are growing rapidly, but they still account for a small fraction of global electricity generation. However, as the mix changes and renewables become 20%, 50%, and 80% of the electricity source, consumers buying that electricity no longer have a choice of buying the polluting, high-carbon variety. And they won’t care.
The new cars and the electricity generated from renewables will give people exactly what they expect as they have come to expect it. Cars get them where they are going reliably and safely, and electricity turns on the lights when they need it. But here’s the difference: That 25% who don’t accept the science? They are buying the solution anyway. That 1% to 50% who might otherwise not choose the climate-friendly alternative? They are buying the solution anyway. Participation in the solution becomes 100% because participation is involuntary. There’s no coercion. It’s just that there is no other choice.
A More Holistic Approach
Science has its role. We need science to define the problem and tell us what will work. Using its data and insights, we need to determine where the biggest impacts can be. People need to understand what will work best. But to get people to adopt the solutions, we need to turn to motivation, marketing, and the study of human behavior. Part of this is to restructure the incentives, part of it is to bake the solutions into the system, and part of it is to repackage the already existing facts. That’s called marketing. It is absolutely essential to changing the human behavior necessary to solve climate change.
Here are links to my other Substack newsletters. Please check them out and subscribe for free!
Get my poetry newsletter Soul Food: Poems by Anthony.
Get my newsletter on books called Arguments with Books.
Get Intertwine: Living Better in a Worsening World.
Anthony Signorelli
Ideas, insights, and imagination to help you live better in a worsening world. Topics include Men, #MeToo, and Masculinity; Postcapitalism; Climate Change; Digitalization and Cryptocurrency; Green Energy; Retirement and financial planning… basically everything that addresses making life better in this challenging time of history.