The Game of Global Domination

I went to a talk last Friday sponsored by the School of Communications here at American University. Some colleagues had alerted me to it and I was very intrigued by the topic, “The Perception of Risk: Why Our Fears So Often Don’t Match the Facts.” The seminar was given by David Ropeik, a consultant and author, whose new book “How Risky Is It, Really” looks at the interplay between perception and risk. Understanding how to effectively communicate scientific issues, like global climate change, is acutely dependent upon your audiences preconceived notions. Ropeik argues that when we start discussing a risk – for example: a clear, odorless liquid caused over 3,800 deaths in 2001, yet the government does not regulate its use – we stop thinking rationally. The example I used, of course, is drowning by water. An example that Ropeik used in his talk cited the extra number of automobile deaths that occurred after 9/11 from people deciding to drive instead of fly … even though flying is a statistically safer mode of transportation. People’s perception of “risk” is not motivated by rational decision making.

Risk Communication: The Game of Global Domination.

As a scientist, this rubs me the wrong way. Even though I know I am not a rational actor at all times (just ask my wife), I still like to think of myself as a level-headed guy who makes informed and sound decisions. But, Ropeik reminds us that this is not always the case. The reason that I am bringing this up on the blog is that it plays a huuuuge role in determining how journalists/scientists/pundits/politicians can effectively discuss topics like global climate change. As a scientist, I look at the climate change data, listen to the researchers, do my best to understand their claims, and come to the conclusion that, yes, pumping more CO₂ into the atmosphere is a horrible idea. However, when most people hear “Global Warming” they have already decided that they don’t care because the probabilities that the scientist cite are just that, probabilities. If we act on the threat of global climate change, they KNOW that their way of life will have to change. This is a real risk and should not be considered lightly.

As someone who thinks that the risk of inactivity on global climate change far outweighs the risk of change, how do I best communicate the threat of anthropogenic CO₂? And, as someone who is interested in how science policy gets played out, how do we write effective policy for energy initiatives that will get enough support from the general population that it becomes law? Fortunately, after the talk, I got to be a fly on the wall for a conversation between Ropeik, Matthew Nisbet (a colleague of mine at American who writes a BIG-TIME blog – as opposed to our little venture – focusing on communication and science policy), and Declan Fahy (another colleague at American and an expert in science journalism). Being the noob that I am, I learned a lot about effective framing of scientific results and policy, which my wife (a strategic communications specialist — who is shaking her head while she is reading this) probably could have told me all about. Everything needs to start with a policy that caters to our collective psyche as Americans. Policy needs to be consistent with the scientific data at hand and ultimately effective (duh). But, policy is crafted by realizing what it is that makes us American and understanding how the effects of the new law are going to be accepted by all Americans. (i.e. A law that works in Germany won’t necessarily work in America … no one will buy into it).

I think the reason I subconsciously like Tom Friedman’s writing so much is that he frames the climate change debate in such an effective manner by discussing risks that all of us are acutely aware of. In our last post, I discussed how Friedman is concerned that we are losing “Green” jobs to China. He doesn’t mention rising surface temperatures. He doesn’t talk about loss of permafrost. He doesn’t bring up encroaching tide-waters. The threat of inactivity on global climate change is the loss of more jobs to China. This is an argument, no matter your political stripes, that everyone can buy into. In Friedman’s article today, he calls out our inability to stay focused and dive into national projects with a “whatever-it-takes” mentality. He does this in comparison to China’s nimble and impressive development in the very recent past. Again, he’s setting us (all of us) up by using a risk that we ALL can buy into.

So stay tuned … hopefully we can start getting out a message that actually works!

-mrh

A quick note to our California readers (who must also be California citizens … you can’t claim Tennessee as your home state – you know who you are). Please be sure to vote to keep AB32 on the books. This law puts teeth and money into developing alternative energy sources and sets a cap on statewide CO₂ emissions. It is up for a vote this November and is under threat from lots of campaigning by big oil companies. Please do your part!