Uncommunicating Climate Change in the Trump Era: Influencing Public Policy by Attempting to Control the Message

The Role of Public Perception in Influencing Climate Change

Public perception is critical in stimulating government action on climate change because, in places such as the United States, public sentiment provides the basis from which public policy is formed and develops. ¹ For climate change, public perception is a key component as it categorically meets the definition of a wicked problem. It is a wicked problem because there are no easily identified solutions from a public policy standpoint. ² Indeed, researchers have noted that climate change may be described as something more than a traditional wicked problem, terming it a super-wicked policy problem. This is because climate change is a kind of problem that is highly resistant to a policy resolution. ³ The reasons have to do with fundamental free rider characteristics of climate change, a political tendency to give greater weight to immediate interests, significant discounting of its impacts (even when accepted), and a general path dependency that delays behavioral changes from both the public and political institutions. ⁴

Overcoming the inherent difficulties of translating the reality of climate change into tangible public policy involves, fundamentally, public support for those policy initiatives. Understanding how the public perceives the problem of climate change can help resolve the super-wicked problem by finding policy-windows based on public support toward aspects of climate change that, over time, engender further support and thus “stickiness” leading to new policy paths. ⁵ Thus, policy initiatives toward climate change occur most straightforwardly when the public perceives the risk of climate change, and through that perception supports government initiatives that work to lessen the impact of climate change. These so-called policy-windows rely on a shared messaging between government and the public. Government's role must be to properly communicate the objective reality and risks of climate change to the public. And, if done well, the public should respond by internalizing this message and signaling that government should respond to the threat through concrete policy initiatives. If government fails to communicate the danger of climate change, then the shared messaging apparatus is subject to failure. This is certainly true where the public has not internalized the reality and risks of climate change.

Recent Polling Data On U.S. Attitudes Toward Climate Change

Focusing on recent polling data in the United States, general acceptance of climate change (under the moniker of “global warming”) among Americans has been increasing over the past decade. ⁶ As of March 2016, 64% of U.S. adults indicate they are worried a “great deal” or “fair amount” about global warming, the highest percentage in Gallup polling on perceptions of climate change in 8 years. This is not to emphatically state that acceptance of climate change will never fall out of public favor: public opinion on such a diffuse subject as climate change is certainly subject to variability over time as polling indicates. ⁷ But it does suggest that the underlying fact of climate change is beginning to become embedded in the cultural narrative, which, as already argued, provides an important foundation for government action.

Beyond a general public acceptance of the phenomena of climate change itself in the United States, polling can also provide insights into the association between climate change and the legitimacy of institutions in measuring and understanding it. For example, in a March 2016 poll regarding 2015 being the Earth's warmest year since reliable record keeping, 69% of respondents believed the scientific measurements of record high temperatures were correct, while 27% believing those measurements are incorrect. ⁸ Young adults polled (18–34 years) were most likely to believe in the science supporting climate change (78%), whereas older adults (55+) were less inclined to believe in the science (65%). College graduates polled were most supportive of the scientific measurement of global warming (75%), whereas those with no college were least supportive at 67%. Finally, those polled identifying as democrats were most likely to believe in the accuracy of the science (84%), whereas those identifying as republican were the least likely (52%).

Beyond measuring support for the scientific measurement of climate change, this poll also measured causal attitudes toward climate change. Respondents were asked to assume climate change was occurring, and then were asked whether the 2015 record temperatures were mainly due to humans or natural causes. In this response, only 49% believed the warmth was human caused with 46% believing the cause of warming is attributable to natural changes in the Earth's temperatures—effectively an even split. The differentiation was deeper based on political affiliation, with 72% of those identifying democratic believing the warmth was human caused, whereas only 27% of those identifying republican believing the record warmth was human caused. College graduates slightly favored humans as causal agents of observed climate change (56%), whereas those with no college favored natural causes (53%). Respondents identifying as democrats substantially favored humans as the cause of climate change (72%), whereas those identifying as republicans favored natural causes at the same proportion (72%). Finally, the majority of young adult respondents (18–34 years) believe humans are agents in climate change (61%), whereas older respondents (55+) believe humans are not causal agents of climate change (54%).

Overall, these polling results as well as other recent polling already identified suggests that the public generally believes in the legitimacy of the science that helps to detect and understand climate change, but is otherwise divided when placing the responsibility for climate change on the actions of human beings. As the polling shows, this division is greatest in the categories of age, education, and political affiliation. Younger, well-educated, liberal members of society are more willing to associate the cause of climate change with human actions. Older, less-educated, and conservative U.S. citizens, while accepting of the science that measures climate change, are less willing to accept that humans are a major causal agent of the phenomenon.

Polling Data Results and the Trump Administration's Actions

The Trump administration's withdrawal from the 2015 Paris Agreement sends a clear message about climate change from the perspective of government: it is not a national priority on the global stage. In addition, other national actions including the proposed defunding of climate initiatives at the Environmental Protection Agency relay a similar message to the public. Arguably these actions challenge the very presumption of climate change as an observed phenomenon. And even where these actions can be seen to support the existence of climate change, they minimize the idea that humans are the cause, or at the least a primary cause, of observed climate change. This can impact the shared messaging between government and the public referenced earlier. Where the polling indicates public perception is unsettled on most issues associated with climate change, government messaging that minimizes the existence of climate change, the role of humans in causing climate change, and the legitimacy of scientific consensus can further marginalize public opinion, which, in-turn, can inhibit a unified government response.

The overall narrative being pushed by the Trump administration can undo the trend in public opinion noted earlier that is more accepting of climate change. This is because narratives help to frame our collective perceptions and experiences, which, in turn, help to influence our understanding of environmental problems. ⁹ When government provides a narrative that is either directly contrary to or otherwise downplays a human-centered understanding of observed climate change, then that misinformation can frustrate public perception. This leads to a gap between the scientific understanding of climate change and the social construct that emerges from a misinformed public. Furthermore, we believe something to be true not only based on science but also how that information conforms to the values, beliefs, and norms we have adopted—our individual and collective worldview. ¹⁰ As such, the narrative that is chosen to express climate change is critical. Equally critical is how that chosen narrative harmonizes with government action, for example, whether the policy reinforces a climate change narrative or whether it contradicts that narrative. When the Trump administration pushes a narrative that contradicts accepted science, it encourages public perception to also move away from scientific conclusions. If public perception does indeed move away from the fact of climate change, including the critical aspects of human agency, then it is more likely that government policy, at least at the federal level, will follow in a similar direction.

Potential Impacts on Environmental and Climate Justice

It is well documented that climate change disproportionately impacts marginalized communities. ¹¹ One question is what effect will the Trump administration's actions have on public policy toward climate change both nationally and globally moving forward. In terms of global impact, it does not currently appear that the United States pulling out of the Paris Agreement is negatively influencing other countries who have committed themselves to the international accord. There also seems to be a current commitment among regional and state governments in the United States to continue developing and implementing policies that fundamentally accept both the existence of climate change and the role of humans as the major driver of observed change. But, as noted earlier, the overall public sentiment toward climate change in the United States is unsettled. A majority of the country accepts climate change, and that acceptance was as high as it has ever been observed in 2016. But that majority acceptance has yet to include the all-important acceptance of human activity as the major contributor to observed change. This is likely where the Trump administration's action may have its greatest impact: increasing the already existing uncertainty in the minds of many Americans about their individual and collective role in causing climate change.

Scientists have almost uniformly called for major policy actions to be implemented immediately to reduce the risk of so-called worst-case scenarios in global climate change assessments. ¹² Most prescriptions have to do with significantly reducing carbon-intensive activities to limit the amount of warming. ¹³ But even these prescriptions accept that past and current actions have placed the Earth on a trajectory toward a certain amount of warming. ¹⁴ And that accepted warming is currently causing impacts that are disproportionately affecting marginalized communities. ¹⁵ Thus, under these conditions, any efforts that limit immediate government action will only attenuate and heighten the impacts of climate change.

The argument being made here is that the Trump administration's current actions not only have the capacity to hamper U.S. and global climate change initiatives in the short term, but also if those actions influence public opinion away from accepting climate change (and importantly the role of humans in causing climate change), then they can have long-term consequences. It has taken decades for public opinion in the United States to move toward some consensus on climate change. By sending an anticlimate change message, the Trump administration is not only helping to define U.S. policy today, but it is also helping to sow the seeds of public uncertainty for the future. That public uncertainty can thwart future administrations that are more accepting of the facts of climate change, making important public policy initiatives difficult to implement. For those working in the environmental and climate justice community, the importance of public education in the face of an ambiguous government narrative on climate change cannot be overstated. The Trump administration's current stance will do little to push the public toward climate change acceptance, and the consequences of this stance has the potential to harm generations of humans.