If localized harm is the primary driver of public opinion on expected climate impact, how do we reconcile the competing timelines of impact (harm) vs action? If the harms of climate change are lagged, which they certainly seem to be, is there a way to shift public opinion before someone's house is on fire or underwater?
To me, the timelines seem diametrically at odds with one another. It is not until we reach an extreme threshold of harm that opinion begins to change, at which time action is taken to reconcile the harm, but it is likely too late to see an immediate (or more importantly, meaningful) change to the harm.
I do hope/think that there is a solution to this error in reasoning that seems rooted in flawed human perception of future harm (re: COVID pandemic). In preparation for a job interview, my brother passed an idea by me; use AR technology to simulate localized air quality given an increasingly worsening climate. Unfortunately, the "polarization of science" (which perhaps extends to a "polarization of technology"?) does not seem to help the cause here - but if people can begin see the impacts of climate change as a personal, apolitical, and legitimate threat, maybe we've got a shot...
I'll address this, at least partly, in Part III. In short, I think that connecting visible consequences to invisible threats is key. For example, Rachel Carson in "Silent Spring" was able to connect an invisible threat (dangers posed by excessive pesticide use) to a visible outcome (the imagery of a silenced spring, devoid of birdsong). This approach succeeded in establishing the modern environmental movement.
The focus on future impacts is compelling to many people, but for many others I believe a more emotional line of rhetoric that focuses on visible/present/local harms is going to be more convincing.
If localized harm is the primary driver of public opinion on expected climate impact, how do we reconcile the competing timelines of impact (harm) vs action? If the harms of climate change are lagged, which they certainly seem to be, is there a way to shift public opinion before someone's house is on fire or underwater?
To me, the timelines seem diametrically at odds with one another. It is not until we reach an extreme threshold of harm that opinion begins to change, at which time action is taken to reconcile the harm, but it is likely too late to see an immediate (or more importantly, meaningful) change to the harm.
I do hope/think that there is a solution to this error in reasoning that seems rooted in flawed human perception of future harm (re: COVID pandemic). In preparation for a job interview, my brother passed an idea by me; use AR technology to simulate localized air quality given an increasingly worsening climate. Unfortunately, the "polarization of science" (which perhaps extends to a "polarization of technology"?) does not seem to help the cause here - but if people can begin see the impacts of climate change as a personal, apolitical, and legitimate threat, maybe we've got a shot...
I'll address this, at least partly, in Part III. In short, I think that connecting visible consequences to invisible threats is key. For example, Rachel Carson in "Silent Spring" was able to connect an invisible threat (dangers posed by excessive pesticide use) to a visible outcome (the imagery of a silenced spring, devoid of birdsong). This approach succeeded in establishing the modern environmental movement.
The focus on future impacts is compelling to many people, but for many others I believe a more emotional line of rhetoric that focuses on visible/present/local harms is going to be more convincing.