By Dick Bord (Penn State)
A. Issues raised concerning our inclusion of stakeholder groups:
1. Several attendees expressed concern that those at the bottom of the socio-economic scale be included as stakeholders. A related issue was whether there is enough grassroots representation. The fear was that the rich will get richer while the poor will bear a disproportionate burden of the negative impacts from climate change.
Ultimately, however, anything done for the socio-economically disadvantaged will have to come via government policy. Care must be taken to provide adequate safety nets while not creating incentives to settle and remain in high-risk areas.
2. Some concern was expressed for the absence of elected officials and policy makers. Support for bringing them into the network was voiced by a few participants.
3. Finally, there was some support for including representatives of financial institutions since they will be involved in paying for amelioration and mitigation.
B. Issues raised concerning what our assessments should address relative to stakeholder interests:
1. Questions raised frequently: Is climate change real, can accurate predictions be made and, can we put statistical estimates around event probabilities? A majority of climate scientists argue that it is real but, so far, accurate long-term prediction is impossible. Climate prediction is fraught with uncertainty. We know that there have been extreme events predating industrialization but we don't understand the mechanisms producing them. We would love to have the luxury of long-term research projects, good predictive equations, and 20 years of supportive funding. However, people want answers now. How do we effectively communicate the reality of climate change given the scientific uncertainty?
2. Surveys indicate that people are concerned, in a general way, about global warming. However, the intensity of that concern varies with dramatic weather events. As Unger's article in the American Sociological Review points out, the intensity of concern peaks during prolonged hot, dry spells but dissipates significantly with periods of cool, wet weather. People are concerned by what affects them in the here and now. Global warming is a low-salience issue. What preoccupies people are issues of building a good marriage and personal economics. People do not experience climate change, they experience hot or cold, wet or dry weather. The tie to climate change is a learned inference. Because of this, as stakeholder representatives point out, we should not be focusing on convincing people about the reality of climate change. Rather, to stimulate concern, we should focus on extreme events. People are aware of, and interested in extreme climate events.
3. During the course of the conference, over 150 different potential stakeholders were identified. Some participants pointed out that a very general report would be of limited utility to most of these groups. It was suggested that to be useful, our report should focus on specific outcomes tied to specific scenarios affecting specific interests (stakeholders). We need to narrow the focus to some crucial sector, and correspondingly narrow the focus of information provided to that sector, and try to make it relevant to their interests. For example, energy producers are a crucial set of stakeholders. What climate scenarios will have significant impacts on energy producers? If X happens, how will it affect energy producers? What will the relative costs-benefits be for energy producers from specific strategies of mitigation and/or amelioration?
4. Following from the above, it would be helpful to inventory responses to recent extreme weather events and catalog the coping mechanisms and their effectiveness. The response of the insurance industry is especially crucial to this task.
5. Focusing on extreme events, however, carries potential tremendous risk. If we have 5 or 6 years of relatively mundane weather, credibility could be damaged. We must be cautious about "crying wolf."
6. However, as news media coverage and modern movies indicate, dramatic events count. A focus on extreme events may be the only way to get people excited about climate change. Along with that focus, we need better prediction and better risk quantification. Scientists are working on the difficult process of providing this kind of information but we need to keep in mind that projecting climate change is a combination of art and science. As one speaker pointed out, there is a religious/faith dimension to this issue.
C. Issues concerning the distribution of information
1. Once we have the assessment, how do we best communicate its content to the people who need or want it? Participants correctly noted that the message must be targeted to the specific stakeholder's needs. The message must be well defined, concise, and appropriate.
2. But, what is the message? "Beware of climate change?" ... "Beware of negative impacts that could take place, perhaps from extreme events?" The most difficult aspect of information dissemination is getting people to want to read or be exposed to it. Again, as a speaker noted, people's plates are full. They have routine duties and concerns that take precedence over something as uncertain as climate change. Perhaps if extreme weather events continue, interest will build.
3. One of the conclusions coming from the stakeholder representatives is a given. We must get information about climate change into school science curricula.
4. The issue of credible communicators was raised. Remember, a credible communicator is someone you agree with or who shares your interests. Communicators should have some affiliation with the particular stakeholder group to help promote credibility.
Questions and comments…
How can we be credible if we're just a bunch of scientists who agree with each other?
The causation of climate change must be addressed first, then policy must be changed to make people utilize conservation. Make it good business to conserve. Also, the relationship must be made clearer between extreme events and climate change, in order for a focus on extreme events to be helpful with the climate change problem.
Congress should be made aware that studying climate change is very complicated. For example, we need valid modeling to predict how much CO2 will increase. Reaching the point that we get a final answer may be too late. We need a policy maker or someone credible to say that the change might be a terribly bad thing and we should act now even if we don't know for sure.
We do know a lot already--maybe not numbers, but possibly enough to get people concerned. We are questioning specifics. We shouldn't say we know nothing, or not enough. We have to convey that we do have some idea, and be careful where people place our information.
Action plans that are developed need to address or provide benefits that are not necessarily just for climate change. Cornell's lake source cooling is a good example. Not only are they reducing CFC use, but they're also saving costs in the long-term, and providing other benefits above and beyond reducing their contribution to global warming.
Good news as far as national policy: you don't need broad support to address the climate change issue, you only need absence of mass opposition, or mass ambivalence. We underestimate the impact of "experts" on the Congress. The majority really does take science seriously; it does matter on the policy side.
Companies see the value of pulling in stakeholders. Big business should pull in stakeholders, or a consultant could be brought in to get the message out to the different target audiences.