Here we focus on how to better communicate climate change issues in the United States. As one of the predominant greenhouse gas emitters, the US contribution to the climate-change problem is disproportionately large, ranking only behind China in greenhouse gases emitted each year, but far above China on an average per capita per person basis. On average as of each person in the United States emits about 17 tonnes of CO 2 per year although of course some emit more, some emit less , compared to 7 tonnes per person in China, and less than 2 tonnes per person in India.
For each pathway, we point out what has worked, where some problems have become evident, and where improvements can be made. We then explain how proper framing of the issues targeted to particular audiences can increase the reach of climate communication, and give examples in the realm of religion and politics.
Common Ground: Lessons and Legends from the World¿s Great Faiths
Throughout, we offer examples of how the University of California is already involved in, and has the potential to be particularly effective at, delivering messages about climate change. Finally, we offer recommendations for how the UC system can contribute to information-transfer in ways that will help jumpstart the social change required to scale up carbon-neutral solutions. While we aim this chapter primarily at better communication strategies for the United States, we recognize the importance of communicating on a global scale, and that different approaches are required in different nations.
Some of the differences in perceptions between developed and developing countries are outlined in Table 1. Awareness apparently increased after considerable media coverage of the 21st Conference of the Parties COP21 climate meetings held in Paris in December , where more than countries agreed that climate change was a serious global problem and in principle agreed to address it.
Such statistics mean that most Americans actually do recognize the reality of climate change, and a growing number but still a minority regard it as a serious problem that will affect their lives. However, accepting that climate change is occurring does not necessarily translate into feeling it is an actionable issue. Those in the Alarmed category are generally supportive of efforts to combat climate change, and are unlikely to have their opinions swayed. Those in the Dismissive category are relatively sure that climate change is not a problem, and are also unlikely to change their minds, no matter how much more information they receive.
The same applies to the Doubtful category, although they are somewhat less dogmatic than the Dismissives. Therefore, targeted communication directed to these subgroups has great potential to make a difference. The flip side, of course, is that the Six Americas study and the afore-mentioned surveys reveal that at least a third of the American public fail to recognize that humans cause climate change, and less than half feel that climate change is serious enough to warrant fast action. This reflects a stark disconnect between public perception and reality, and reveals that the need for better communication is very real.
The challenge is to correct such misperceptions while also communicating the new knowledge that is constantly emerging about climate disruption and its solutions. Ten Common Climate Myths versus Facts. See other papers in this volume for information that underpins the myth-busting statements. Communication can be a tangled web, especially when there is risk and uncertainty. Still, five communication pathways have been useful to communicating information about climate disruption in the past: traditional journalism including broadcast media like TV and radio , digital communication including social media, education, communication by scientists, and communication by special interest groups.
Because the confluence of these will continue to be the primary means of informing the general public about climate communication, it is useful and informative to look at each of the pathways, especially where they have been effective and where improvements are needed, and how they inter-relate. A critical piece of information in this regard is how often messages about climate change actually reach Americans through journalism-based media.
In , the Yale Project on Climate Communication reported that there is much room for improvement. The perception that news is not reaching them may reflect a lack of interest in news or a paucity of reporting about climate change although at times there is considerable coverage of high-profile, momentous meetings and concerted efforts that target climate change, for instance, Climate Week, held in New York in September, , and the COP21 climate meetings, held in Paris in December, Still, universities and other educational institutions can play an active role in incorporating learning activities about current events, especially climate change, into diverse parts of their curricula.
From the perspective of the media, increasing the frequency of climate-change reporting, including climate change messages into programming, and framing messages appropriately see the Framing section below can also help. Given the myriad news stories that compete for print space and airtime, there are real barriers to the former. Such competition can result in pressure on editors to bump stories about climate disruption to make room for other news. A further problem is that more and more news media are cutting back on investigative and science journalism.
Because of these realities, the need to properly frame and accurately report what climate-change coverage does make it into the media is doubly important. While media coverage has been instrumental in raising public awareness of climate disruption, it has not motivated coordinated action nor has anything else. This could be due to many factors, which have the net effect of sending mixed messages to the general public. For instance, journalists sometimes present factual information about climate change in a superficial or imprecise manner because they lack expertise about the more nuanced details.
Also, given that climate change involves probability, risk, and uncertainty about the future, generating clear, coherent messages can be challenging. There is also the problem of how to boil down complex messages about high-risk outcomes, while still conveying that potential catastrophes can be avoided by taking appropriate steps. Journalism depends on its readers, and trying to draw in a large readership can lead to an overemphasis of doom and gloom, especially with more threatening messages.
In other cases, there is pressure from editors to emphasize information related to novelty or controversy around the issues, rather than the issues themselves. Most these problems can be helped by fostering ongoing dialogs between journalists and the scientists, provided, of course, that the scientists are willing to and skilled at communicating their discoveries see the section below on Science Communication. Once the facts of a story are well understood, what is needed is communication that lets people effectively incorporate the information into their own worldviews in a way that builds consensus and yields collective action see Framing section below.
In this context, there is a tradeoff between emphasizing solutions versus problems. People may be more receptive to positive messages, but it is also necessary to convey information that includes urgency, potential losses, and bleak realities. In fact, the value of dystopian—or even apocalyptic—visions can focus minds on bad future outcomes and how to avoid them, if we act soon. Examples include statements that appropriately link the California drought and wildfires to climate change, while emphasizing the need for pragmatic response at all levels, starting with the individual [ 13 , 14 ].
Such messaging appears to be working: Californians have indeed stepped up to support his vision, for instance, by dramatically reducing water use during the current drought [ 15 ]. The key is to honestly communicate both the bleak outlook if no action is taken, and what solution s will avert dire consequences. Online media are becoming more important to disseminating news and fostering the creation of user content. More and more people are going to social media outlets such as Facebook, blogs, Twitter, Reddit, and YouTube to access or comment on current news about climate change [ 16 ].
By late , well over 2. And an analysis of 1. An important aspect of digital media is that they provide novel opportunities for rating, recommending and linking to other materials, especially new ways to mobilize and engage people online [ 18 ]. Digital media also provides new ways to communicate: climate change institutions, centers and advocates embed multiple digital media approaches into their websites and other communications.
Climate change researchers also provide and maintain awareness of the most recent issues, tools, conference, funding, and results through social media and research websites. Smartphones allow downloadable applications for climate change stories and videos, measurement of local conditions, and sponsorship or donation opportunities. Particularly significant for targeted communication is the demographics associated with digital media use. The under group is also more likely to follow breaking news through social media than the over group, who rely more on television.
Print media still is used by all age groups, but by fewer of the under group. Such trends show how digital media are becoming increasingly important to transmitting information to young people, our future leaders. Thus, training the next generation of communicators—including journalists, scientists, and educators—to create and use digital content will be imperative in the years to come.
The University of California can be very helpful here. The system has many programs that promote research on environmental communication, including those listed in Table 3. While the general public depends on news and other media for information about climate change, they usually trust scientists as the ultimate sources of the information, even somewhat more than they trust family and friends. That insight comes from the poll by the Yale Project on Climate Communication, mentioned above, which revealed only a few major sources of climate information are commonly trusted by more than half of Americans.
This trust imbued by the public means that scientists play a crucial role in communicating climate change. It is challenging for scientists to communicate their discoveries accurately yet clearly. On the one hand, the sum of scientific information about climate change tells us the future holds more certainty than ever before in human history: Decades of data and models converge, with high confidence, to verify that global temperature has risen and will continue to rise due to past and current human activities that are changing atmospheric composition.
The same body of information yields high confidence—virtual certainty—that the impacts of the resulting climatic disruption will cause expensive and socially disruptive problems for the global society, including rising seas that drown parts of highly-populous cities, increased frequency of extreme weather events and wildfires that cause loss of life and property, and shortages of such essentials as food and water.
On the other hand, there is uncertainty inherent in forecasting specific climate impacts in specific places because the climate system is very complex, and the future greatly depends on how humans will act to limit future greenhouse gas emissions, growth rates, technology trajectories, and spatial patterns of industrialization and consumption, among other choices. This sets up a very real tension between knowledge and uncertainty.
However, when scientists stress what they do know—while still acknowledging the uncertainty—it can be remarkably effective, as demonstrated by efforts that have taken that approach in connecting scientists directly with policy makers, religious leaders, and the general public.
Such efforts have been useful in helping to base policy positions and decisions—such as international climate negotiations exemplified by the Conference of the Parties COP meetings, subnational agreements such as the Under2MOU [ 24 ], and local and regional initiatives such as the Pacific Coast Climate Pact [ 25 ]—on sound science because they acknowledge scientific consensus on major points, rather than quibbling over details that do not change the overall picture, and they convey accurate scientific information stripped of jargon, in terms their target audiences can relate to.
Successful scientific communication to policy makers also tends to involve informative advocacy , a communication style that clearly lays out the facts and general targets needed to achieve a result, rather than prescriptive advocacy , which specifies particular paths a policy maker should take [ 26 ]. Prescriptive advocacy can also compromise the very reason that the public tends to trust scientists: a reputation for objectivity.
Given that scientists form an important link in the chain of communication about climate change, communication efforts will benefit from offering science communication as part of the training of scientists, where scientists are trained, that is, within universities. This can be achieved by increasing opportunities to link scientists with journalists and other communication experts in meaningful, lasting collaborations, and by creating a reward system for graduate students and faculty that bridge the science-communication divide, both for the scientists and the communication specialists involved in the collaborations.
Upon entering the university, some students are skeptical about climate change. Others are indifferent to it. Many have a fractured understanding of how climate change works, including its causes and consequences. This is often because they have received little or no formal instruction in climate-change science as children. The result is that few are able to identify key problems, and few have acquired appropriate language to talk about it.
This situation now has the potential to change rapidly. The emergence of the Next Generation Science Standards NGSS in K instruction and guiding framework developed by the National Research Council offers an ideal way to integrate climate science into pre-university curricula, because the new framework presents the practices of science, disciplinary core ideas, and cross-cutting concepts across all domains of science.
California has adopted the NGSS and school districts statewide are expected to develop resources, strategies, and activities to teach to the core ideas. Climate change and climate systems figure prominently in the Earth and space sciences domain of NGSS, and the importance and the applications of climate science to society are implied throughout [ 27 ] Wysession Because K teachers often lack the resources or even the expertise needed to effectively teach climate science, mergers of university resources with the K community are critically needed, and the UC System is well-positioned to provide the needed help through its teacher-training and educational outreach programs.
As one example of an effective approach, the UC Museum of Paleontology UCMP is developing instructional support and resources for teaching about climate change at the K through university levels via web-based programs, as it already has successfully for teaching evolution and understanding science Table 3. The UC System can also educate the public about climate change through its numerous venues for the arts, theater, interactive and static museum exhibits, and film programs.
These venues reach sectors of society that often are typically turned off by science and technology, and touch people at an emotional level, where the biggest changes can happen. After all, emotions are known to drive the way people reason and make decisions [ 28 , 29 ]. Grant et al. Duxbury, Ginnarchi, and Merrick describe various projects [ 30 , 31 , 33 ], including visual arts, performance, and new media, designed to communicate climate change.
Images and visual displays have been central to the development, representation, and communication of science and technology [ 34 , 35 ]. More and more, popular media are presenting information about climate change, and doing so in a variety of entertaining ways. For example, each day more than half a million viewers watch TED talks [ 36 ]. Many climate myths Table 2 have become popularized through well-organized disinformation campaigns funded by constituencies motivated by ideologies or economic interests at odds with the science on climate disruption [ 38 , 39 , 40 ].
Ironically, these disinformation campaigns illustrate just how important effective communication can be in swaying public opinion.
The critical lessons of talking directly to top policy makers and the power of clear, compelling press releases and good media relations need to be taken to heart and replicated in efforts to communicate the reality of human-caused climate change and its impacts. The climate-denier campaigns have also shown that lying, cherry-picking facts, and personal attacks are effective in swaying public opinion. Obviously, such communication tools have no place in the fact-based communication necessary for informing the public about the reality of climate change.
This will involve collaboration across disciplines, including stronger linkages between those in the sciences who intimately know the scientific facts, those in communication fields who can find effective ways to target the same audiences the disinformation is swaying, and students who can provide an untapped source of discovering disinformation, and who will benefit by pedagogy that teaches them hands-on ways to counter it. All the communication pathways discussed above can be improved by developing better ways to frame messages for given target audiences, and by using general communication techniques summarized in Table 4.
Framing is an effective communication tool for drawing attention to, legitimizing, and providing an interpretive context for abstract, complex, or unfamiliar information. Even small shifts in wording or grammatical form can lead to significant differences in how people reason about situations and events, including likelihood of occurrence [ 44 ]. Framing is pervasive in public discourse about social issues. Frames in the context of environmental issues often concern public engagement [ 49 , 50 ], such as national and global security, morality and social justice, social progress, economic development, scientific and technical uncertainty, public accountability and governance, national security, polar bears, money, catastrophe, justice and equity, and collective action.
When it comes to attitudes about climate change, health frames can have robust effects [ 51 ]. Frames related to economic gains versus losses are also robust in this domain, and so are those pertaining to local versus distant impacts [ 52 ]. Image frames—familiar ones include polar bears, refineries, and climate change refugees—can also be important. A recent study of climate change news stories in United States newspapers [ 53 ] identified common frames such as government and politics, science and the people who do it, keeping track of human impacts—mostly undesirable impacts—to the environment, and the Earth heating up, among others.
Scientists, journalist, and advocates need to carefully consider and evaluate which frames they use in both text and visual components of climate change communication. Effectively framing of information requires understanding an audience and anticipating reactions to positive and negative messages. When negative messaging is effective, it tends to be so in the context of verifying that a bad outcome is inevitable without action, while at the same time providing a practical and effective solution, and a sense of personal efficacy. In this context, it is critical to communicate that there are already feasible solutions at hand, and that practical steps can in fact be taken.
Past communications about climate change often emphasized the problems more than the solutions.
- Faith, Reason, Science and Religion.
- See a Problem?.
- Chapter 9. Establishing Common Ground: Finding Better Ways to Communicate About Climate Disruption!
- Screening torture : media representations of state terror and political domination?
So, indeed, many sectors have misconceptions about some of the more feasible solutions, including the extent to which technology is already available to mitigate climate disruption, the feasibility of transitioning off of fossil fuels, and the ability of society at large to deal with such large-scale problems. As demonstrated in other papers in this volume, the requisite technological, policy, and economic solutions are at hand and ready to be implemented.
Communicating such solutions more widely and more explicitly is urgently needed. Some examples are listed in Table 5 these and others are discussed in more detail in [ 23 , 54 , 55 , 56 , 57 , 58 , 59 , 60 ]. Evidence that people work together to quickly solve problems as complex as the current climate-change crisis when they decide solutions are needed.
Challenges related to framing come in many different forms. One problem relates to the perception of risk. Messages about climate change typically include some degree of uncertainty. It is difficult or even not possible to pinpoint exactly when a particular event will occur, and exactly what effect it will have on a particular individual or group.
This makes it difficult to perceive how much risk can be inferred, and how or even whether it should influence activities. Linguistic details can also pose challenges for framing messages for the general public. In the area of political language, for instance, it is known that minor wording changes in messages about political candidates can lead to different perceptions of past actions and whether or not they will be elected. Effective framing requires knowing the target audience and knowing how to tailor messages for that particular group.
- Art Making & Studio Spaces: Unleash Your Inner Artist: An Intimate Look at 31 Creative Work Spaces!
- Navigation menu;
- AP English Literature and Composition!
- RE Classes By Age.
This becomes challenging when there is significant cultural diversity. We see this in California, the most populous and diverse state in the nation. Its complex social and cultural fabric requires a resilient approach to framing climate change messages, especially given that different cultures hold different views about public engagement in societal issues and what counts as urgent.
Different language backgrounds mean different ways of talking about and reasoning about uncertainty, and risk. For people who speak English as a second language, elements of their first language tacitly carry over into their own systems of communicating and reasoning. In addition, people in different regions of California or the nation may care much more about one set of issues than another.
For instance, people in the inland areas of California, where water rights and the impact of drought on agriculture are burning issues, may not be receptive to messages that emphasize rising sea levels. Such individuals may be more responsive to framing that emphasizes the need to scale back water use. In this same vein, grape growers in Napa Valley may be more open to messages that emphasize solutions for climate disruption than almond growers in the Central Valley.
There are, in round numbers, two billion Christians in the world, a billion and a half Muslims, a billion Hindus, half a billion Buddhists, and hundreds of millions practicing other religions. As such, it offers a powerful avenue of communication on climate change issues, including to those living in both developed and developing countries. A recurring theme in these proclamations is the detrimental impacts on humanity as a whole, on fellow human beings, and on other animals, plants, and nature that continued climate disruption will cause, and the ethical and moral responsibility that we have to protect the planet that nurtures us.
Many of these declarations are very recent—within the last year or two—so the jury remains out as to their efficacy in shifting societal opinion. However, given the emotional and moral links many people have with their religion, as well as the relative independence of religious leaders from market and electorate pressures, this may be one of the most powerful ways to communicate key messages about climate change. With this recognition, religious scholars have been actively exploring how engagement with religion can enhance communication about climate change and motivate action.
Earlier , Holmes Rolston III, a philosopher of science and theologian at Colorado State University who would later win the Templeton Prize for his work, published Environmental Ethics: Duties to and Values in the Natural World , his first sustained attempt to ground a moral obligation to preserve the environment in compatibility with the evolutionary story of its origins [ 73 ].
The Educational Framework
Brian Swimme, a philosopher working in cooperation with Tucker, published The Journey of the Universe with a companion DVD in [ 74 ], aiming to present the scientific story of the universe in a way that might motivate action by inspiring awe and devotion [ 75 ]. What scholars of religion, as distinct from religious leaders proper, typically do when addressing the topic of religious environmentalism is observe, report, and reflect upon the different intra-religious paths or conceptual frames taken by religiously different groups as they converge upon cognate environmental action.
One example of this is Roger C. Gottlieb tracked down a set of American groups who had dared to take concrete action addressing different environmental issues in different venues, each time proceeding from the principles of a different religion. Recently, he has assembled a conceptually richer set of potential starting points or frames in The Oxford Handbook of Religion and Ecology [ 77 ].
At the same time, the direct engagement of scientists with religious leaders has proven extremely effective in disseminating information in the climate change crisis. Pictured left to right are Prof. To the left and behind Monsignor Sorondo is Prof. It is tempting to attribute this stark political divide to unequal provision of and access to information, especially since multiple studies show that Americans increasingly live in homogenous communities that can become echo chambers that reinforce pre-existing biases.
Yet, years of research on public misperceptions about other issues on which there is a scientific consensus shows that the problem is not information. It is known that simply providing people with factual information is not an effective way to correct misperceptions about science or policy [ 78 , 79 , 80 ].
The problem is not that people do not know the facts or the scientific consensus; rather, they hold personal or group identities that make them unwilling to acknowledge certain beliefs [ 81 ]. In that context, ameliorating the partisan divide requires building social relationships that model different linkages between information and group identities.
One way this can come about is through receiving information from a trusted source within a particular identity group. For example, it may be important in changing some Republican views that the United States military leaders and national security advisors are now more vociferously and strongly acknowledging climate change as a chief threat to national security, in no uncertain terms. A case in point is the efforts of high-ranking officers who have commanded the armed forces, including the Navy, Air Force, Army, and Marines, and who comprise the Military Advisory Board of the CNA Corporation, an influential national security think tank.
These military leaders have authored two recent reports that mince no words. We never have it. The Pentagon [ 85 ] and Department of Defense [ 86 ] also have recently issued reports that convey similar themes. Such direct communications from trusted sources the military can be much more effective in swaying opinions of the undecided sector of the Republican community than hearing the same message from someone whose political identity is different.
A second way to communicate climate change issues in traditionally unaccepting political communities is through the everyday relationships people form in their personal and social lives [ 87 ]. In her study of evangelical Christianity, for instance, sociologist Lydia Bean finds that the linking of religious and political views comes not through sermons delivered by the clergy. Instead, people learn to link their religious and political identities through Bible study leaders, PTA leaders, or bake sale organizers who become role models of how to live a Christian life, and have particular ways of processing and understanding things like climate science [ 88 ].
In this context, collaborations between communicators, economists, and the business community are becoming increasingly important. One role of communicators here is to evaluate and accurately convey the facts that underpin or reject commonly held perceptions about the impacts of climate mitigation on the average consumer.
For example, a popular argument against climate mitigation is that it will cost jobs. But recent trends and projections suggest the opposite is true. At the national level, job growth in the renewable industry is outpacing job growth in the fossil fuel industry as well. In , the solar industry created more new jobs than coal mining, oil and gas drilling, pipeline construction, and conventional power generation together [ 90 ]. That same study found that shifting to renewable energy creates more jobs per megawatt of power installed, per unit of energy produced, and per dollar of investment, than producing energy from fossil fuels [ 91 ].
While the total yearly cost of meeting new energy needs with renewables sounds enormous—about half a trillion dollars per year as of —it could in fact be entirely covered by a tiny addition to present electricity charges, an increment of only 1 cent per kilowatt-hour in industrialized countries like the United States and many in Europe, and about 2 to 5 cents per kilowatt-hour in other places [ 92 ]. Such information is eye-opening for many people who hold the belief that energy transition costs would be prohibitively high. This framing is effective because it presents the issues in terms of what is familiar and viable.
At the corporate level, there are also important communication opportunities. More and more business leaders now recognize the value of substantially reducing their greenhouse gas emissions to stem climate change, both for their own bottom line and out of moral and ethical considerations or corporate social responsibility efforts [ 93 ]. Major corporations are also increasingly joining efforts led by Non-Governmental Organizations to combat climate change.
Such commitments send a powerful message to the general public about the reality of climate disruption, the need to guard against the risks it poses for continued prosperity, and the commitment of leaders in the private sector to take action. Motivating action requires finding ways to make people feel like what they do matters, in the context of their particular ideology and personal agency. Instead, research shows that the transformative work of developing agency happens when people are in relationship with each other.
Social relationships are powerful because of their potential to transform the motivations, interests, and capacities that people need for political action [ 98 , 99 , , ]. The social interactions that form the basis of these relationships do not have to be happenstance; instead, civic and political organizations and other institutions of democracy can strategize ways to intentionally cultivate them. For example, it is possible to create digital and physical spaces, and to employ organizing strategies, that are designed to bring people into relationship with each other, and structure those relationships in ways that help them scale their work [ ].
Such approaches are most successful when institutional support is adequate. Too often, schools, civic organizations, churches, and other such institutions find themselves struggling to devote resources to the patient work of building the space through which people can develop capacities for democratic action. Universities and other institutions that bring together people can serve a valuable role in this regard.
Given its mission and existing infrastructure, the University of California and many other universities are ideally situated to create and maintain the spaces and opportunities needed for people to develop relationships across political and cultural divides. Effective communication about climate change and its impacts is essential to fostering the social changes needed to attain carbon neutrality. The communication challenge is to frame the issues appropriately, and use a variety of traditional and digital media, to reach diverse target audiences, and to enable more interactions between communicators who use different approaches.
All are critically important. If messages are framed inappropriately, people close their ears. And if the ties between journalists, scientists, digital media experts, and educators are not strong, mixed or confusing messages can emerge, as has happened to varying degrees in the past when the different communication sectors have not taken full advantage of the expertise available in complementary sectors. However, when proper framing and strong interactions between the different communication pathways occur, the results have been encouraging.
For example, coverage in mainstream journalism has been shifting toward clearer reporting of the scientific consensus on climate change, and toward making connections between local events the public cares about like Hurricane Sandy, or drought conditions and extreme wildfires in the West and the global problem of climate disruption caused by elevated greenhouse gas emissions. Such journalism has the potential to change the debate through well-researched, accurate reporting, which can be facilitated by close interactions with scientists who are willing to reach across their disciplinary boundaries.
At the same time, climate scientists are increasingly recognizing the value of reaching out to communicate more broadly, and it is becoming more common for them to take lessons from successful journalistic approaches, employ social media, and hone personal interaction skills to become more effective at doing so [ 23 , 38 , 58 , , ]. Moreover, a new generation of communicators can now take advantage of the billions of connected mobile devices—there are more than 6 billion unique mobile phone connections in the world, not to mention computers and other internet-enabled devices—to reach billions of people through social media.
And climate science is now being seen as an integral teaching tool in the Next Generation Science Standards, opening many avenues for integration of climate-change issues into the curricula across science, technology, humanities, and the arts. Still lagging is a coordinated effort to counter disinformation campaigns, probably in view of the fact that these have only recently become widely recognized. However, with recognition of the problem, efforts at the institutional level can provide an effective counterbalance.
Encouraging as these success stories are, we are still faced with the problem of extreme polarization about climate change in the American public, and this will not change without concerted efforts to effectively communicate the issues to a broader spectrum of society than is currently being targeted. In that task, the University of California is well positioned to make substantive, long-lasting contributions. Indeed, the Carbon Neutral pledge itself is a clear demonstration of a high level of commitment from a major research university to take serious steps to confront climate disruption through telling a new, empowering story.
Based on the information discussed above, we see clear ways that the University of California can accelerate its communication efforts to drive social change toward carbon neutrality. While these recommendations center on the UC system, they are applicable to many other universities as well. Johnson, L. President Lyndon B. The White House PWC Lee, T. Predictors of public climate change awareness and risk perception around the world. Leiserowicz, et al. Saad, L. Roser-Renouf, E. Lambin, E. Cook, J. Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature.
Das Shrestha, K. Solar power and arable winters in the gateway to Everest. Boykoff, et al. Bias as balance: global warming and the US prestige press. Sacramento Bee Siders, J. Associated Press Official: Californians Conserving Water in Drought. Boykoff, M. Who Speaks for the Climate? Elgesem, D. Structure and content of the discourse on climate change in the blogosphere: The big picture. Newell, R. Meeting the climate change challenge MC3 : The role of the internet in climate change research dissemination and knowledge mobilization.
American Press Institute Social and demographic differences in news habits and attitudes. Sierra Club IPCC Vatican Barnosky, A. The Anthropocene Review 1 1 : 78— Pacific Coast Climate Pact Hadly, E. Beyond science communication: informative versus prescriptive advocacy. Wysession, M. Implications for Earth and space in new K—12 science standards. Ariely, D. De Martino, B. Frames, biases, and rational decision-marking in the human brain.
Watch it on Youtube here: Newton's Neighbors. Nursery Care is provided for our youngest children upstairs in Cushing Hall, in a room adjacent to our large classroom. If you have young children who will be in the Nursery, please arrive early to connect with the caregiver and get your children settled.
Common Ground: Lessons and Legends from the World?s Great Faiths - Todd Outcalt - Google книги
Children in kindergarten through grade 8 attend the first part of the formal worship in the sanctuary with their families. This year we will be offering two different curricula. For the younger children ages , the program is called Webs of Wonder W. This program provides avenues for in-depth exploration of the diversity, commonality, and meaning of families. Production of what is always a creative version of The Christmas Story each year, and the intergenerational service project of packing fresh produce for clients of the Hingham Food Pantry before major holiday distributions are also part of the religious education we offer our youngsters.
Students in Grades 8 and higher have the opportunity to participate in three programs. Talk About, a group for high school students, is offered at Second Parish. Any student who wishes to participate and his or her parents should meet with Rev. Kelsch prior to enrolling. A monthly program for high school students, Talk About offers a place for young people to discuss issues on their minds.
Meeting in a relaxed atmosphere, they have a chance to voice their thoughts to Rev. Kelsch whose main role is to facilitate dialogue. The group will meet late Sunday afternoon once a month from October to April,. The Coming of Age Program provides an opportunity for young adults to explore and articulate their own spiritual and religious beliefs through workshops, conversations, lectures, and reflection. At the completion of the program, the students present their individual faith statements. The program presents a comprehensive approach to human sexuality in an age-appropriate manner and is based firmly on the values of respect, responsibility, justice and inclusivity.