Joint written evidence submitted by Dr Emily Shuckburgh and Dr Rosie Robison (CLC029)

 

  1. This evidence is submitted by Dr Emily Shuckburgh (British Antarctic Survey) and Dr Rosie Robison (Global Sustainability Institute, Anglia Ruskin University). It does not include, nor does it necessarily reflect the views of the British Antarctic Survey or the Global Sustainability Institute.
  2. Declaration of interest: both authors undertake research into climate science communication. Emily Shuckburgh undertakes research into climate science and has published extensively in this area, she is Chair of the Royal Meteorological Society’s Climate Science Communications Group, she also advises government departments on climate change on behalf of the Natural Environment Research Council.
  3. Regarding the subject of this select committee inquiry, many observers now consider that the provision of information by experts does not on its own strongly influence public opinion or behaviour regarding issues with a scientific basis (health, climate change etc.). This has led to a rejection of an 'information deficit model' in favour of promoting a two-way conversation between the public and experts as a more constructive and effective approach, and thus a focus on a goal of ‘public engagement’ rather than ‘public understanding’.


What is the current state of public understanding of what is meant by climate change? How has this changed in recent years?

  1. Less than half (41%) the UK public say they know 'a fair amount' or 'a lot' about climate change (Shuckburgh et al, 2012). This percentage has dropped from around 53% in 2006-9, although this may simply reflect an increased awareness of the complexity of the issue.
  2. A consistently large percentage of the UK public think that the climate is changing: 80% in 2011 (Shuckburgh et al, 2012).
  3. A significant minority believe that the seriousness of climate change has been exaggerated: 44% in 2011 (Shuckburgh et al, 2012).
  4. People most commonly believe climate change is caused by a combination of human activity and natural processes (46%), with 28% considering it to be mainly or entirely human activity and 20% mainly or entirely natural process (Shuckburgh et al, 2012).
  5. There has been a trend of decreasing concern about climate change in the UK over recent years, from 82% at least fairly concerned in 2005 to 63% in 2011 (Shuckburgh et al, 2012). The ‘finite pool of worry' (Weber, 2010) hypothesis states that as worry about other risks to which people are exposed (such as the financial crisis) increases, the concern given to other issues diminishes.
  6. Many members of the public have particular aspects of climate change/climate science they are motivated to learn more about due to personal connections. These may be related to their work, their leisure activities, their family and friends, or past personal experience e.g. of weather/climate related events.
  7. Our experience is that many non-expert members of the public do have a wide ranging and subtle understanding of climate change, are able to grasp new concepts, and are willing to engage in debate.
  8. When asked what things contribute to climate change, people most frequently (47%) state ‘road transport’ (Shuckburgh et al, 2012).
  9. Various studies have found that there is a tendency for people to conflate climate change with other environmental issues and to understand climate change in terms of the broader concept of ‘pollution’.
  10. The British Social Attitudes surveys have found that a large percentage of people (71% in 2010), when prompted, say coal, gas or oil contribute to climate change. Energy use in some form or another was mentioned, unprompted, by almost half (47%) of the UK public in 2011 (Shuckburgh et al, 2012) as a contributor to climate change. However, only 19% specifically mentioned gas/electricity use at home or by businesses - it is possible that this failure to make an immediate association may influence people’s attitudes to policy.
  11. When asked in 2011 what the consequences of climate change are, 40% of respondents cited only impacts which are geographically and psychologically distant, generic increases in temperature, or a different environmental problem, or stated that they envisage no consequences (Shuckburgh et al, 2012).

Which voices are trusted in public discourse on climate science and policy? What role should Government Departments, scientific advisers to Government and publicly funded scientists have in communicating climate science?

  1. Despite public surveys consistently indicating that more than two-thirds of the public trust scientists to tell the truth generally (and therefore being amongst the most trusted professions) a significantly lower percentage (38% in 2011 and 52% in 2013; data from Shuckburgh et al 2012 and British Science Association 2013) have been found in surveys to agree that ‘climate scientists can be trusted to tell us the truth about climate change'.
  2. Trust in all authority groups to give correct information on climate change has fallen in recent years (see figure below) and there has been a significant increase in the percentage who say that they trust none of the groups to give correct information on climate change. In 2011, 10% trusted the government, 13% government scientists and 51% independent scientists (e.g. university research centres) to give correct information on climate change.
  3. (figure from Shuckburgh et al, 2012)
  4. There is ongoing debate over what may have influenced these trends, including the climate science controversies of winter 2009/10 and external factors influencing public trust in UK institutions more generally. Within a focus group setting, people often express concern that scientists or other communicators may have vested interests, in particular with regards to sources of funding. 
  5. Many members of the public feel that scientists are probably best placed to talk about issues regarding climate science, but that they are not always the best communicators. Many members of the public, understandably, are not very familiar with specific academic/research institutions, and certainly not with individual scientists. Such information therefore does not necessarily help them to assess the reliability of information.

How could public understanding of what is meant by climate change be improved? What are the main barriers to this? Does the media have a positive role to play?

  1. It should be noted that what constitutes ‘public understanding' will be seen differently by different actors, through the lens of what is seen as problematic with current levels of 'understanding'. It is important to ask - what is assumed would be different if public understanding of what is meant by climate change was 'improved'? We emphasise again that 'engagement', which necessarily includes an openness to feedback from the public which could inform the scientific or policy process, is now seen as the most constructive strategy.
  2. At a joint public meeting of the Royal Meteorological Society and the Royal Geographical Society (with IBG), on Communicating Climate Science, attended by 200 people working in science, media, policy, and the interested public, several challenges were identified by the speakers and audience, including: the desire of scientists to use impartial language, which may be difficult for the public to relate to and reduce their confidence in the communicator, the significant challenge of communicating uncertainty, and the question of how much climate science is even necessary/important for the public to have knowledge of (Robison and Shuckburgh, 2013)..
  3. Public awareness of the state of the scientific consensus could arguably be improved. Despite repeated analyses showing that the vast majority of climate scientists accept anthropogenic climate change as a reality, under two-thirds (60%) of the UK public agree with the statement ‘most scientists agree that humans are causing climate change’ (Shuckburgh et al, 2012).
  4. Focus group participants from the Shuckburgh et al, 2012 study wanted more simple diagrams or graphs to explain climate change stories in the news media, they appreciated simple language and everyday examples, where numbers were included they wanted them put in context, and simple explanations of mechanisms that could be easily understood helped to build trust in a story. They also found ‘indicators of change’ compelling because these were seen as factual and impartial.
  5. More effort could be placed on testing scientific explanations in advance on sample groups to check they are not misconstrued by the public. The communication of scientific uncertainty is particularly challenging and would strongly benefit from such a strategy.
  6. The use of new and innovative ways of engaging with the public on climate change should be encouraged and their value assessed in a systematic way.
  7. Barriers to public engagement on climate change include: an understandable reluctance of scientists to speak about polemic issues in situations where they may be asked to comment on aspects beyond their scientific expertise; the low level of public understanding of scientific uncertainty; awareness levels amongst both the scientific and policy communities of the non-cognitive based reasons why someone might accept or not accept information, (i.e. those reasons more bound up in emotion). 
  8. Arguably more leadership and support could be provided by scientific research organisations (including funders) to further encourage scientists to become involved in public engagement activities. Sharing among these organisations of ideas for public engagement and analysis of their success would also be welcomed. Public engagement activities take considerable time, recognition needs to be given to those scientists who conduct this work with dedication and skill, and an appropriate support structure needs to be maintained.
  9. Television was the source of climate science news most cited by focus group participants in the Shuckburgh et al, 2012 study. Television documentaries can provide critical background information to later engage people in news reports. Features of a news report that make it more interesting to people include: a) relevance (stories related to UK future projections, to UK extreme weather and to UK wildlife were preferred); b) a strong narrative; c) ‘new’ information, which could mean a new angle on established information; d) positive stories; e) non-alarmist but passionate delivery of the information; and f) the inclusion of information concerning how people might use the scientific results.

How important is public understanding in developing effective climate change policy?

  1. There may be some level of knowledge that is necessary for the public to be able to engage fully in the debate about climate change policy, but it is not the only consideration. Also important may be an increased opportunity for the public to talk about what climate change means for the individual or for society as a whole, the recognition that the public have much to offer scientists as well as vice versa, and transparency in science results/reporting.
  2. Many focus group participants in the Shuckburgh et al, 2012 study noted that they obtained their knowledge of science through school, including via their children and grandchildren. Ensuring there is a comprehensive representation of climate change and climate science in the National Curriculum is therefore important.

What evidence is there that public attitude to climate science affects their engagement with energy policies or initiatives?

  1. Shuckburgh et al, 2012 found that measures of public interest, engagement and trust associated with climate science are positively correlated with concern about climate change and willingness to change behaviour, while the belief that climate change is exaggerated is negatively correlated. However cause and effect could not be determined. Indeed many have suggested that values and political beliefs may be more important than scientific knowledge in determining public attitudes to climate change and policy.
  2. An increased focus on efforts to communicate the science in open and transparent ways and to move away from a one-way communication ‘information deficit’ model approach to embrace instead two-way engagement approaches may help foster a more trusting relationship between the public and scientists. 

Does the Government have sufficient expertise in social and behavioural sciences to understand the relationship between public understanding of climate science and the feasibility of relevant public policies?

  1. In the Shuckburgh et al, 2012 study we attempted to gather together previous polling statistics regarding public attitudes to climate change obtained by government departments and other bodies. It would be helpful to maintain such a database and to ensure a consistency going forward across government in terms of the wording and interpretation of polling questions.
  2. More resources could be made available to adopt a systematic approach to the testing and evaluation of communications messages surrounding climate change and to maintain an on-going assessment of public attitudes to climate change. This is a critical gap.
  3. We note that it is very easy to slip back to a 'deficit model' mindset, even when one is aware of the limitations of this approach. In part because this is the first thing the public themselves will often say is needed (more education is the answer, people just ‘don't know’ etc). It may also partly be because alternative models of engagement feel too difficult/time consuming/costly to implement, or are less straightforward in terms of measuring results.
  4. We would be happy to give evidence to the Committee in person if helpful, but this is not requested.
  5. Copies of our report, written together with Nick Pidegon, Climate Science, the Public and the News Media (Shuckburgh et al, 2012), and a summary of a meeting on Communication of Climate Science that we recently convened (Robison and Shuckburgh 2013) can be downloaded from: http://www.antarctica.ac.uk/staff-profiles/webspace/emsh/journals.html

References

Taylor, E. (2011). “Environment.” In British Social Attitudes 28, Editor, A. Park, NatCen Social Research. Retrieved 12th December 2011, from http://www.natcen.ac.uk/study/british-social-attitudes-28th-report

Robison, R. and Shuckburgh.E. (2013), Meeting report: Communicating Climate Science, Weather 68(4): 87

Shuckburgh, E., Robison, R. and Pidgeon, N. (2012). Climate Science, the Public and the News Media. Living With Environmental Change

Weber, E. U. (2010). “What shapes perceptions of climate change?” Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews - Climate Change 1(3): 332-342.

April 2013