![]() ![]() Would I get condescending and give him a science lecture, challenging his lack of deep knowledge on the issue while asserting my own? Or would I begin to judge him and his lifestyle, critiquing his choice of car, house, vacation habits, or any one of the multitude of “unsustainable” activities that we all undertake? Or might I begin to pontificate on the politics of the issue, complaining of the partisan split on the issue and the corporate influence on our political system? These are all plausible and unpleasant scenarios that lead people to avoid this topic. And I can imagine the hesitation he may have had in broaching this topic. He was trying to find out if he could trust me enough to listen to what I had to say, to figure out if I was part of his cultural community, his tribe. Greg was not challenging my ideas he was questioning my motives. He replied, “So what do you think about Al Gore?” I told him that I thought Al Gore had called needed attention to the issue but that, unfortunately, perceptions of his partisan identity also helped to polarize the issue. ![]() His next question was, “Are you a Democrat or Republican?” I told him that I was an independent. He asked, “Do you mean like climate change? That’s not real, is it?” I told him that the science was quite compelling and that the issue was real. But one day, Greg, a fellow golfer, asked me, “Hey, Andy, what do you do for a living, anyway?” I told him that I was a professor and that I studied environmental issues. I play in a casual summer golf league that is as much about beer-drinking banter as it is about hitting a golf ball. We may not be suited to it, but here we are. We did not ask for this role, but we cannot abjure it. ![]() We have become, by the power of a glorious evolutionaryĪccident called intelligence, the stewards of life’s continuity It makes a powerful case for a more scientifically literate public, a more socially engaged scientific community, and a more thoughtful mode of public discourse. The book supports this argument by explaining the sources of organized economic and ideological resistance and extracts lessons from major cultural shifts in the past to engender a better understanding of the problem and motivate the public to take action. In this context, efforts to present ever increasing amounts of data, without attending to the deeper values that are threatened by the conclusions they lead to, will only yield greater resistance and make a social consensus even more elusive. ![]() The public develops positions that are consistent with their preexisting values and with those held by others within the referent groups of which they are part. It is about values, culture, worldviews and ideology. Its central message is that the social debate around climate change is no longer about carbon dioxide and climate models. Building upon the award-winning Stanford Social Innovation Review article “ Climate science as culture war,” this book presents evidence and research to help demystify the opposing cultural lenses through which science is interpreted. How Culture Shapes the Climate Change Debate is a concise and accessible presentation of the social science insights into why people accept or reject the science of climate change, and what to do about it. How Culture Shapes the Climate Change Debate ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |