Climate change: Why is there still a gap between public opinion and scientific consensus, and how can we close it?

1. Scientific Consensus vs. Public Perception

Scientific Consensus

• Agreement Level: Approximately 97% of climate scientists agree that human activities, such as burning fossil fuels and deforestation, are major contributors to global warming.
• Implications: This consensus reflects a robust understanding of climate science, supported by extensive research and evidence. It indicates a high level of confidence in the human impact on climate change.

Public Awareness and Perception

• Variation by Region: Awareness and acceptance of climate change science vary globally. In Europe, there is generally stronger public consensus on climate change compared to the United States.
• In the United States: Only 12% of Americans are aware of the scientific community’s near-total agreement on climate change. This is influenced by several factors, including:
  • Disinformation: Misinformation campaigns that cast doubt on scientific findings.
  • Media Portrayal: Media often presents climate change as a contentious issue, giving undue weight to fringe opinions.
  • Cognitive Biases: Psychological tendencies, such as confirmation bias, can affect how people perceive and accept climate science.

Ideological Divides

• Political Affiliations: In the U.S., there''s a significant political divide:
  • Democratic Voters: About 82% believe in the substantial role of human activities in climate change.
  • Republican Voters: Only 38% share this belief.
• Impact on Policy: These divisions affect climate policy support and implementation, leading to polarized responses to climate action.

2. Challenges in International Response

Global Commitments

• Paris Agreement: The 2015 Paris Agreement aims to limit global warming to well below 2°C, with efforts to cap it at 1.5°C. However, key issues persist:
  • Non-Binding Commitments: The agreement’s targets are not legally binding, leading to varying levels of commitment and implementation.
  • Lack of Enforcement: There are no strong enforcement mechanisms to ensure countries meet their targets.

Implementation Issues

• Free-Riders: Some countries benefit from global emission reductions while not contributing equally to the costs of mitigation.
• Inconsistent Efforts: Implementation of climate policies is uneven, with some countries and sectors lagging significantly behind in their efforts.

3. Emissions and Progress

Current Emissions Trends

• Projections: Emissions were expected to rise by 16% by 2030 under pre-Paris Agreement policies. Current projections suggest a 3% increase, but this still falls short of the reductions needed to meet global temperature targets.
• Challenges: Reductions required are substantial:
  • To stay within 2°C: Emissions need to fall by 28%.
  • To stay within 1.5°C: Emissions need to fall by 42%.

Case Study: China

• Emissions Increase: In 2023, China’s energy sector saw a 5.2% increase in emissions.
• Required Reductions: To meet global targets, an unprecedented reduction of 4-6% in 2025 is needed.

4. Complexity of Climate Change Solutions

Fossil Fuel Dependency

• Demand Trends: Global demand for fossil fuels has not yet peaked. It is anticipated to peak by 2030 if certain conditions are met, such as:
  • Increased Electric Vehicle Uptake: Accelerated adoption of electric vehicles.
  • Slow Economic Growth in China: Slower growth combined with increased investments in renewable energy.

Investment Dynamics

• Fossil Fuels vs. Clean Energy: Investments in oil and gas averaged $0.75 trillion annually from 2016 to 2023, while clean energy investments reached $1.8 trillion in 2023. This indicates a shift towards cleaner energy but still shows significant ongoing investment in fossil fuels.
• Rebound Effects: Long-term rebound effects can counteract reductions in resource use. For instance, improved efficiency in one area may lead to increased overall consumption.

5. Local Costs vs. Global Benefits

Disparity in Costs and Benefits

• Global vs. Local Impact: The benefits of reducing carbon emissions are global and long-term, while the costs are often immediate and local. This creates a challenge for justifying climate action on a local level.
• Development Practices: In developing countries, such as India, reliance on coal and less environmentally friendly practices continue despite evidence of long-term benefits from emission reductions.

6. Behavioural and Economic Perspectives

Classical Economics vs. Bounded Rationality

• Classical Economics: Assumes that individuals will act rationally to maximize their well-being given adequate information and resources.
• Bounded Rationality: Herbert Simon’s concept suggests that human decision-making is limited by cognitive capacities, available information, and time constraints. This results in simplified decision-making processes.

Cultural and Societal Factors

• Liquid Modernity: Zygmunt Bauman’s concept describes a transition from stable, solid modernity to a more fluid and unstable form, leading to less consistent behaviors and values.
• Individualism and Hedonism: Gilles Lipovetsky’s ideas highlight a culture focused on immediate gratification and individual desires, which can conflict with the long-term commitment needed for effective climate action.

7. Reconciling Climate Action with Human Behaviour

Understanding Decision-Making

• Complexity: Recognizing the complexity of human decision-making and the impact of cognitive biases is crucial in designing effective climate policies.
• Ethical Considerations: Addressing climate change requires balancing immediate personal desires with long-term ethical commitments and societal goals. This involves acknowledging and addressing biases and inconsistencies in both individual and collective behaviors.