Exploratory Geovisualization of the Character and Distribution of American Climate Change Beliefs

2021 ◽  
Vol 13 (1) ◽  
pp. 67-82
Author(s):  
Johnathan W. Sugg
Keyword(s):  
Climate Change ◽  
United States ◽  
Risk Perceptions ◽  
The United States ◽  
Self Organizing Map ◽  
The Public ◽  
Choropleth Maps ◽  
Nuanced Understanding ◽  
Change Beliefs ◽  
Self Organizing

AbstractAmericans remain polarized about climate change. However, recent scholarship reveals a plurality of climate change opinions among the public, with nontrivial support for a range of awareness, risk perceptions, and policy prescriptions. This study uses publicly available opinion estimates to examine the geographic variability of American climate change opinions and maps them as regions that share similarities or differences in the character of their beliefs. The exploratory geovisual environment of a self-organizing map is used to compare the support for 56 different climate opinions across all counties in the United States and arrange them into a spatially coherent grid of nodes. To facilitate the exploration of the patterns, a statistical cluster analysis groups together counties with the most similar climate beliefs. Choropleth maps visualize the clustering results from the self-organizing map. This study finds six groups of climate beliefs in which member counties exhibit a distinct regionality across the United States and share similarities in the magnitude of support for specific opinions. Groups that generally exhibit high or low levels of support for climate change awareness, risk perceptions, and policy prescriptions vary in their relative support for specific opinions. The results provide a nuanced understanding of different types of climate change opinions and where they exist geographically.

Public Knowledge, Scientific Literacy, Numeracy, and Perceptions of Climate Change

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jaime Gilden ◽  
Ellen Peters
Keyword(s):  
Climate Change ◽  
United States ◽  
Cognitive Ability ◽  
Scientific Literacy ◽  
Political Identity ◽  
The United States ◽  
Public Knowledge ◽  
The Public ◽  
The Difference ◽  
Change Beliefs

It is a widely accepted scientific fact that our climate is changing and that this change is caused by human activity. Despite the scientific consensus, many individuals in the United States fail to grasp the extent of the consensus and continue to deny both the existence and cause of climate change; the proportion of the population holding these beliefs has been stable in recent history. Most of the American public also believe they know a lot about climate change although knowledge tests do not always reflect their positive perceptions. There are two frequent hypotheses about public knowledge and climate change beliefs: (a) providing the public with more climate science information, thus making them more knowledgeable, will bring the beliefs of the public closer to those of climate scientists and (b) individuals with greater cognitive ability (e.g., scientific literacy or numeracy) will have climate change beliefs more like those of experts. However, data do not always support this proposed link between knowledge, ability, and beliefs. A better predictor of beliefs in the United States is political identity. For example, compared to liberals, conservatives consistently perceive less risk from climate change and, perhaps as a result, are less likely to hold scientifically accurate climate change beliefs, regardless of their cognitive abilities. And greater knowledge and ability, rather than being related to more accurate climate change beliefs, tend to relate to increased polarization across political identities, such that the difference in beliefs between conservatives and liberals with high cognitive ability is greater than the difference in beliefs between conservatives and liberals with low cognitive ability.

scholarly journals The Social Oikos

2021 ◽  
Vol 7 (1) ◽  
pp. 20-32
Author(s):  
Michael Lee Humphrey
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
The United States ◽  
The Self ◽  
Ancient World ◽  
Public And Private ◽  
The Public ◽  
The Core ◽  
The Social ◽  
Nuanced Understanding ◽  
Core Points

In one of the foundational articles of persona studies, Marshall and Barbour (2015) look to Hannah Arendt for development of a key concept within the larger persona framework: “Arendt saw the need to construct clear and separate public and private identities. What can be discerned from this understanding of the public and the private is a nuanced sense of the significance of persona: the presentation of the self for public comportment and expression” (2015, p. 3). But as far back as the ancient world from which Arendt draws her insights, the affordance of persona was not evenly distributed. As Gines (2014) argues, the realm of the household, oikos, was a space of subjugation of those who were forced to be “private,” tending to the necessities of life, while others were privileged with life in the public at their expense. To demonstrate the core points of this essay, I use textual analysis of a YouTube family vlog, featuring a Black mother in the United States, whose persona rapidly changed after she and her White husband divorced. By critically examining Arendt’s concepts around public, private, and social, a more nuanced understanding of how personas are formed in unjust cultures can help us theorize persona studies in more egalitarian and robust ways.

scholarly journals Comparing the effects of climate change labelling on reactions of the Taiwanese public

2020 ◽  
Vol 11 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Li-San Hung ◽  
Mucahid Mustafa Bayrak
Keyword(s):  
Climate Change ◽  
General Public ◽  
Risk Perceptions ◽  
Climate Change Risk ◽  
Public And Private ◽  
Behavioural Intentions ◽  
The Public ◽  
The Media ◽  
Change Beliefs ◽  
Climate Crisis

AbstractScientists and the media are increasingly using the terms ‘climate emergency’ or ‘climate crisis’ to urge timely responses from the public and private sectors to combat the irreversible consequences of climate change. However, whether the latest trend in climate change labelling can result in stronger climate change risk perceptions in the public is unclear. Here we used survey data collected from 1,892 individuals across Taiwan in 2019 to compare the public’s reaction to a series of questions regarding climate change beliefs, communication, and behavioural intentions under two labels: ‘climate change’ and ‘climate crisis.’ The respondents had very similar responses to the questions using the two labels. However, we observed labelling effects for specific subgroups, with some questions using the climate crisis label actually leading to backlash effects compared with the response when using the climate change label. Our results suggest that even though the two labels provoke similar reactions from the general public, on a subgroup level, some backlash effects may become apparent. For this reason, the label ‘climate crisis’ should be strategically chosen.

scholarly journals Look to Windward: The Michigan Environmental Protection Act and the Case for Atmospheric Trust Litigation in the Mitten State

2021 ◽  
pp. 275
Author(s):  
Jonathan Coumes
Keyword(s):  
Climate Change ◽  
United States ◽  
Environmental Protection ◽  
Public Trust ◽  
The United States ◽  
Natural World ◽  
Potential Relief ◽  
The Public ◽  
State Constitutions ◽  
History Of

Failure to address climate change or even slow the growth of carbon emissions has led to innovation in the methods activists are using to push decisionmakers away from disaster. In the United States, climate activists frustrated by decades of legislative and executive inaction have turned to the courts to force the hand of the state. In their most recent iteration, climate cases have focused on the public trust doctrine, the notion that governments hold their jurisdictions’ natural resources in trust for the public. Plaintiffs have argued that the atmosphere is part of the public trust and that governments have a duty to protect it. These types of lawsuits, known as Atmospheric Trust Litigation, have foundered on the shoals of courts wary of exceeding their powers, whether granted by Article III or state constitutions. The trouble in many cases, including Juliana v. United States, has been standing. Courts balk at declaring that any one actor has the power to affect climate change. Since they usually think one actor can’t fix the climate, redressability is out the window. Even if courts get past redressability, they believe the scale of any potential relief is just beyond the ability of a court to order. The number of lawsuits that have been filed suggests that that reasonable minds can differ, but most judges have found plaintiffs do not have standing before clearing the cases off their dockets. This Note contends that at least one state remains fertile ground for an atmospheric trust lawsuit. Michigan’s 1963 Constitution implies that the atmosphere is within the public trust, and the Michigan Environmental Protection Act, passed to carry out the state’s constitutional duties towards the natural world, does away with most, if not all, of the standing issues that have stymied climate cases across the nation. Motions, briefs, and equitable relief are not the only way to avoid the onset of what could be the greatest calamity in the history of humanity, but in Michigan, at least, Atmospheric Trust Litigation may well be what breaks and rolls back the carbon tide.

scholarly journals An Assessment of Public Perceptions of Climate Change Risk in Three Western U.S. Cities

2019 ◽  
Vol 11 (2) ◽  
pp. 449-463 ◽  
Author(s):  
Abigail Sullivan ◽  
Dave D. White
Keyword(s):  
Climate Change ◽  
Collective Action ◽  
Risk Perceptions ◽  
Metropolitan Areas ◽  
Personal Responsibility ◽  
Mail Survey ◽  
The United States ◽  
Public Perceptions ◽  
Climate Change Risk ◽  
The Public

Abstract Risk perceptions influence individual and collective action related to climate change, and there is an important gap between public and expert perceptions of climate change risk, especially in the United States. Past studies have found that on average 40% of the American public believe climate change will affect them personally. We contribute a study of climate change risk perceptions in the metropolitan areas of three western U.S. cities (Denver, Colorado; Las Vegas, Nevada; Phoenix, Arizona), assessing overall patterns and drivers. A representative mail survey (N = 786) of the general public in these cities revealed that 60% of respondents identified climate change as personally risky, with the perception that it will impact either their family or their city in the next 30 years. Our results indicate that the gap in risk perceptions between the public and experts may be decreasing, although we discuss several limitations and reasons why this result requires further investigation. Using regression models, we analyze factors that are hypothesized to drive risk perceptions and discover that pro-environmental worldview and perceived personal responsibility are the most influential predictors. We discuss the implications of our results for fostering collective action to address climate change in dry, western U.S. metropolitan areas.

Current Legal Developments Climate Change and the Constitutional Obligation to Protect Natural Resources: The Pennsylvania Atmospheric Trust Litigation

Climate Law ◽  
2017 ◽  
Vol 7 (2-3) ◽  
pp. 209-226
Author(s):  
Samvel Varvaštian
Keyword(s):  
Climate Change ◽  
United States ◽  
Human Rights ◽  
Natural Resources ◽  
State Government ◽  
Constitutional Law ◽  
Public Trust ◽  
The United States ◽  
The Public ◽  
Public Trust Doctrine

When it comes to climate litigation, environmental plaintiffs in the United States have demonstrated a remarkable ingenuity in terms of utilizing various legal avenues to compensate for the persisting regulatory gaps. In the last few years, the public trust doctrine and constitutional law have been present among these, in an attempt to put the risks associated with climate change on the map of human rights in relation to the environment and natural resources. However, despite a nationwide occurrence of such lawsuits, courts have been cautious in their approach to them. Similar lawsuits have emerged outside the United States, in Europe and Asia, demonstrating some viability. This analysis addresses the recent litigation in Pennsylvania, where petitioners asked the court to order the state government to take action on climate change and to declare such action a constitutional obligation under the state’s Constitution. 1

scholarly journals Technocratic Structures of Climate Policy: Dead-end Debates, Neat Narratives and Manipulative Machiavellianism

2013 ◽  
Vol 2 (4) ◽  
pp. 119
Author(s):  
Taylor A. Murray
Keyword(s):  
Climate Change ◽  
United States ◽  
Climate Policy ◽  
Policy Making ◽  
Climate Change Policy ◽  
The United States ◽  
The Public ◽  
Large Influence ◽  
Change Policy ◽  
Dead End

The contemporary models of climate change policy-making in the United States are particular to this decade. The increased role for experts and expert-led policymaking is unprecedented. However this power has been paradoxical. This paper argues that an excessive role for science in discussions of climate change has undermined the public’s role, and has thus undermined the efforts on behalf of policymakers to pass comprehensive climate change policy. Two main aspects of the excessive role for science in the formation of climate policy were found to be 1. the large influence of dissenting scientists on the debate, and 2. the alienation of the public from the discourse. Further, possible scenarios for policymaking, which better balance the roles of experts, the public, and policymakers, are discussed and frameworks for the future are outlined.

In Science We Trust—Or Don’t We?

Uncertainty ◽  
2019 ◽  
pp. 46-59
Author(s):  
Kostas Kampourakis ◽  
Kevin McCain
Keyword(s):  
Climate Change ◽  
United States ◽  
Scientific Community ◽  
Public Perception ◽  
The United States ◽  
Political Orientation ◽  
Science Knowledge ◽  
The Public ◽  
The People ◽  
Consensus View

Scientists are experts in their respective domains because they have the knowledge, credentials, experience, and affirmation of their peers. They are, therefore, the experts when it comes to scientific matters. But individual scientists cannot know everything. Consequently, what matters is not the views of individual scientists but the collective and consensus view of the scientific community. However, the public is divided on the issue of whether to trust science and scientists. Polls in the United States show that scientists are relatively highly respected compared to other professionals, but, at the same time, about half of the people only have some trust in scientists. Worse than that, political orientation rather than science knowledge seems to have a major impact on attitudes toward science. Finally, even though there is a consensus view among scientists on topics like climate change, the public perception is that scientists are divided on such issues.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document