When asked about major threats to their country, Europeans are more likely than Americans to cite global climate change, according to arecent Pew Research Center survey.Just 56 percent of Americans see climate change as a major threat, versus an average of 64 percent of Europeans surveyed.Why the difference' Like climate data itself, data regarding public concern for climate change are noisy. Public response can vary depending on whats going on in the news that week. Surveys of these types of surveysfind no single explanationfor how the public perceives the threat of climate change.Of course, many explanations exist. As a climatologist who has taught university classes and given public lectures on global climate change for 30 years, I find it clear that public concern about climate change has evolved dramatically over the past three decades. In the U.S., now more than ever, it seems tied to ideology.Knowing the factsDoesscientific literacyinfluence responses' Some psychologists think so. Indeed,some surveysshow that Europeans have significantly greater scientific knowledge about the causes of climate change than Americans.Its possible that such knowledge translates into a sense of responsibility for mitigating climate change. But having more general scientific knowledge is not as relevant as knowingspecifically about climate change.A persons outlook on the world can also complicate matters.Another recent Pew surveyfound that Americans are more likely to believe they control their own destiny and that they tend to prioritize individual liberty, while Europeans tend to value the role of the state to ensure no one in society is in need.Research on the respective roles of scientific literacy and worldview reaches different conclusions.Psychologist Sophie Guy and colleagues arguethat knowing the causes of climate change makes people more willing to accept the reality of climate change or to moderate their ideological opposition to it.By contrast, Yale scholarDan Kahan and colleaguesfind that people with the highest level of scientific literacy often use that literacy to retain and justify prior beliefswhat they call the polarizing impact of science literacy. In other words: Im smart, Ive read the evidence and it confirms my prior understanding. Climate change reflects athreatnot only to ones local environment, but also to ones worldview.Political affiliationWhen you look more closely at recent survey responses in the U.S., the most striking and consistent finding is thatpolitical affiliationinfluences perceptions of climate change.In the U.S., Democrats report, at consistently higher rates than Republicans, that climate change exists. Merely substituting the term global warmingnow a politically charged catchwordfor climate changemakes the differences larger.The divide between parties within the U.S. far exceeds the divide found between the U.S. as a whole and Europe. Political divisions also exist in Europe, and public opinion polls in theU.K.andNorwayshow that party similarly influences the perceived threat of climate change. However, theres some evidence that the U.S. Republican Party isanomalous among conservative partiesinternationally. In other words, U.S. Republicans are more starkly anti-climate change than other conservative parties internationally.Its possible that the strong two-party system in the U.S. leads to a more binary mode of thinking on this issue that does not accurately represent that of the scientific community. SociologistAaron McCright and his colleaguesargue that the high number of Americans identifying with the political right explains why the U.S., unlike other wealthy countries, isless concernedabout climate change.Closing the gapSome suggest that the political divide has fueled an industry of climate change deniers and skeptics, distorting public perception about climate change science. Science historians Naomi Oreskes and Erik Conway argue in their bookMerchants of Doubtthat denial is about more than the science. Its about political and economic systems that individuals hold dear. It also can result fromdifferences in professional culture or personal values.In the U.S., many of the most vocal skeptics and deniers of climate change emerge fromconservative think tanksthat revere theindustrial capitalist system.In Europe, differences between countries can also be explained by thevoices of conservative think tanks and the media, but these voices are more influential in the U.S. than anywhere else because of the two-party system. Partisan clashes about climate change emerge from influential, well-funded sources that wield great influence onCongress, the media and ultimately the public. By contrast, most European countries have more than two parties, and arguably the political influence of corporations is lower.Given the political divide on climate change in the U.S., addressing this 21st-century threat will require creative thinking thatrecognizes different worldviewsand beliefs in climate change.The U.S. House Climate Solutions Caucusis a step in the right direction.SEE ALSO:Why one region of the US will survive climate change better than any other, according to urban plannersJoin the conversation about this storyNOW WATCH: The 5 best hidden features from the latest iPhone update
Click here to read full news..
