\nclimate change is harmful to our health<\/a>, raising rates of cancer and of
\nrespiratory and neurological diseases. So why aren’t climate scientists taking advantage
\nof healthcare reform to spotlight these very real and worrisome connections?
\nWhat better platform from which to advocate for their own favorite cause: comprehensive
\nclimate legislation that sets a strict limit on greenhouse gases.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
Puzzled by the silence, I called Dr. Matthew Nisbet at
\nAmerican University in Washington, D.C. Nisbet is a strategic communications
\nspecialist who focuses on science, the environment and public health. Since his freshman science writing class
\nat Dartmouth College, Nisbet has been intrigued by how media portrayals of
\nscience issues, particularly controversial ones such as climate change, can shape
\npublic opinion and behavior and also public policy debates. Since then, he’s
\nbeen fascinated by the “intersection” of science and policy. “How could
\ngovernment agencies, science organizations and environmental groups, and also
\njournalists, be more effective at engaging the pubic, communicating about the
\nrelevance of these issues, motivating and enabling learning, and empowering
\nmembers of the public to participate politically and in their local
\ncommunities?” asks Nisbet. Good question, but first things first:<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
Q. A climate policy that <\/p>\n Matt NisbetAmerican UniversityA. In the 2007 IPCC report [that’s the United Nation’s <\/p>\n Oftentimes, with any social problem, and climate change is <\/p>\n Those are the narratives that have come to dominate news <\/p>\n Only recently has there been an emphasis on how climate <\/p>\n Q. So, there’s lots of evidence <\/p>\n A. It takes a kind of a top down stimulus from institutions <\/p>\n Q. You write about <\/p>\n A. Right now there isn’t an easy answer. There hasn’t been <\/p>\n Some of the general principles would be to first understand <\/p>\n Then the strategy would be to come up with a message design <\/p>\n Q. We’ve been talking <\/p>\n A. Despite the conventional wisdom that they’ve lost the <\/p>\n In the health reform debate, any efforts by scientists that <\/p>\n Q. So, the ongoing, <\/p>\n A. The White House has been pushing <\/p>\n But one area not getting enough Related Links:<\/strong><\/p>\n American Enterpise Institute Accidentally Makes the Case for Climate Legislation<\/a><\/p>\n Without affordable clean alternatives, South Africa turns to coal<\/a><\/p>\n
\nlimits the environmental pollutants that cause cancer, respiratory and other
\ndiseases would save billions of dollars—not to mention lives. That seems like
\na win-win, no? So, why has the climate science community been largely absent
\nfrom the healthcare reform debate?<\/strong><\/p>\n
\nIntergovernmental Panel on Climate Change], in the sections on human dimensions
\nof climate change, the public health consequences are detailed. The authors
\nalso talk about the deeper adaptation strategy in order to protect against
\nthese health consequences. The CDC<\/a> [Centers for Disease Control] and Howard
\nFrumkin in particular, has written a series of articles in places like the Journal of the American Medical Association<\/a> and the American Journal of Public Health<\/a> discussing the connection between climate change and public health and the need
\nfor adaptation. The Lancet<\/a> has
\npublished a whole series of synthesis articles on the research. So the efforts
\nwithin the academic literature are there.<\/p>\n
\nno different, once a particular narrative or frame of reference becomes locked
\nin about that issue it’s very difficult to break from that narrative. The
\ndominant narrative has been that climate change is an environmental problem
\nwith environmental impact, or it’s a political fight. That’s how it’s generally
\nbeen reported on by mainstream journalists. Conservatives have been focusing on
\nthe uncertainty of the science and the alleged devastating economic impact of
\nany action.<\/p>\n
\ncoverage and commentary. Those are the mental boxes that the public and policy
\nmakers apply to the issue. There’s a lot of momentum and traction to those
\ninterpretations, and it takes a lot of effort to interject new interpretations.<\/p>\n
\nchange connects to other problems and other sectors in society. For example, there’s
\nbeen a lot of focus on the economy, and action on climate change as a way to
\ngrow the economy. Climate change and public health has been dramatically under-communicated,
\nhistorically. Taking action on climate change should really be thought of in
\nterms of preventive health measures that make our communities better places to
\nlive, make our lives healthier, and also reduce costs in the long run. I’ve
\nmentioned to journalists the fact that the public health consequences of climate
\nchange have gotten very limited attention. An analysis I recently completed finds
\nthat historically The New York Times and the Washington Post have
\nmentioned public health consequences in fewer than 5 percent of articles about climate
\nchange. <\/p>\n
\nand awareness about the link between climate change and public health in the
\nscientific and public health communities, but that isn’t being mirrored in the
\nmainstream press coverage of either. How can we introduce new
\n“interpretations,” as you put it?<\/strong><\/p>\n
\nand opinion leaders, starting with the White House and major government
\nagencies. Imagine, for example, if you were to introduce new attention to the
\nissues with a Surgeon General’s report on the health consequences of climate
\nchange. Those reports have had a lot of moral authority in the past [think
\ntobacco], and they gain a lot of media attention. It’s a way to spread the
\ndiscussion of climate change across different segments of society.<\/p>\n
\n“framing” the scientific discussion, putting scientific findings in a more
\nunderstandable and personally relevant context. If you were a paid media
\nconsultant advising the climate science community, how would you suggest they take
\nadvantage of the current attention on healthcare reform to re-frame the debate
\nand advance their cause for action on climate change? Who should they be talking
\nto? What should they be saying? And how should they be saying it? <\/strong><\/p>\n
\nenough specific work done on connecting climate change to public health or
\nhealthcare reform. The first recommendation is that accomplishing that goal
\nwill take a lot of resources, because there’s so much competing noise around
\nthe healthcare debate and around climate change generally. Resources first need
\nto be spent on careful audience research and message development around climate
\nchange and public health. [Nisbet is studying just that.] <\/p>\n
\nthe segment of the public who are very concerned about healthcare reform but
\nalso ambivalent about climate change. That could be a number of different
\ngroups: it could be non-college educated suburban mothers who are concerned
\nabout health insurance for their families; it could be minority mothers living
\nin urban areas, who are concerned about health access for their kids and also
\nasthma, allergies and respiratory problems that their kids face; it could be people
\nprimarily concerned about the long-term cost of health insurance—male
\nindependents, who have more of a fiscal conservative orientation, who haven’t
\ndismissed climate change but don’t see it as a leading priority.<\/p>\n
\nthat connects the dots for those groups who are already sensitive to the
\nhealthcare debate, but not necessarily concerned about climate change. [You’d want] to push this
\ngroup of people into the coalition of groups around climate change by way of
\nthe health insurance debate. The key there is to identify the information
\nsources they use (news outlets, entertainment media, etc.), and design a
\nmessage that isn’t too focused on climate change as a problem, but rather the
\nactions on climate change need to be talked about in terms of their clear,
\ntangible benefits to health and healthcare cost.<\/p>\n
\nabout climate scientists doing more to explain the ramifications of climate
\nchange and promote action. But has the ongoing Climategate controversy hurt
\ntheir reputation and credibility? If they were to suddenly join the debate,
\nwould anyone even pay attention?<\/strong><\/p>\n
\npublic trust in the wake of Climategate, all the polling indicators both before
\nand after Climategate show that scientists generally, and climate scientists
\nspecifically have almost unrivaled public trust. Scientists are admired as a
\nprofession. Science is strongly trusted as an institution. The challenge is how
\nto use that communication capital successfully and not undermine it.<\/p>\n
\nappear too partisan are likely to undermine the public trust. So, if scientists
\nstarted running TV ads saying, “Support healthcare reform NOW,” brought to you
\nby a group of scientists, that’s probably not a wise activity. On the other
\nhand, if scientists were to partner with other opinion leaders in their
\ncommunities, such as business leaders or clergy, and sponsor community forums
\nabout the health risks of climate change and possible policy solutions, without
\na partisan agenda, that’s probably the role best suited for them.<\/p>\n
\nhigh-profile debate over healthcare reform is a great opportunity to start a
\ncontextual discussion about climate change; a kind of “teachable moment” to
\nexplain how climate change has very tangible and very personal health
\nconsequences. Are there other “teachable moments” out there, in disciplines
\nother than healthcare, that the climate community should target? <\/strong><\/p>\n
\nclimate change as an economic issue. Insurance companies, businesses and others
\nhave added climate change to the criteria by which they make decisions about
\nhealth and health coverage. There’s going to be a trickledown effect. The fact
\nthat climate change is a criteria is becoming institutionalized and will, down
\nthe road, influence members of these organizations and the wider public and
\nbegin to be reported on in the news media. [Stories about climate change] will
\nstretch beyond the science and environment beats, and become part of the health
\nand business beats and constitute more of the political coverage.<\/p>\n
\nattention is the focus on how the faith-based community is responding to
\nclimate change; not just religious communities discussing climate change as a
\nmoral issue, but also ethics experts at universities discussing the ethical
\nimplications of climate impacts. The idea that climate change is one of
\nsociety’s leading moral and ethical dilemmas is under-communicated. There’s
\nsome work on the part of ethicists to try and engage journalists about how to
\ncover these questions substantively. There’s an opportunity for environmental leaders,
\nscientists, and public health leaders to partner with religious leaders [on
\nthis issue].<\/p>\n