Interesting thought on what would work to persuade even the most staunch anti-climate change person. Obviously increase floods, hurricanes, forest fires, heat waves etc won't work. Imagine if it was something like crazy bumpy plane rides that finally convinces the last hold outs?
> Interesting thought on what would work to persuade even the most staunch anti-climate change person
I have some thoughts on this matter, let me know what you think. There are two types of reasons, one pertains to other views which interconnect in the political realm and the other is in framing.
First, the largest issue is that "climate change" is often. attached to various political causes. When someone presents something as "We need X to do Y" but they believe Y to be wrong/immoral/evil they rightly will become suspicious of what's being used to promote what they see as wrong. There are all sorts of political causes and buzzwords which get attached that send certain groups signals not to trust what's being claimed (Note [1]).
Second, the framing of the issue is often done poorly. Large impractical and unpopular efforts are put at the forefront, i.e. the recent stove controversies, instead of framing the issue around energy independence and personal safety/wellbeing. Regulations are framed in a way that primarily appeals to certain demographics, making the opposition less likely to trust root claims. There are various other examples that could be made.
These issues make it very hard for people trust root claims. When someone presents something which you deeply believe is wrong, on any number of political issues, and then in the next sentence says "oh yeah the world is coming to an end unless you vote for me" it makes complete sense, id even say it's rational, to be highly skeptical of the claims being made (though ideally someone wouldn't remain in a skeptical phase and instead would dig deeper).
---
1. For example, there is often an attachment of climate change with racial grievance politics which are widely contested for independent reasons. Phrases like "climate justice" and others often inherit a certain framing which not everyone accepts. Whether you think these things are good or not isn't the issue, it's the perception which then causes distrust.
This kind of framing also keeps us from imaginative solutions, because only one solution is implied to the exclusion of all others. Hence, the suspicion is that it is merely another political agenda. I think its probably why nuclear energy - which is a clear solution with the least disruption to our lives - is less prioritized. It also allows certain corporate interests to make even more profit off their preferred solution.
Do they need to be appealing? I think our focus should be on energy generation change (phase out coal, nat gas etc). I don't notice if the electricity running into my home comes from green sources (nuclear, wind, solar) or black (?) sources (coal, nat gas). I guess the 'appealing' part comes from the cost. At this point, it seems like green sources are cheaper, we should be building like crazy (I know that to an extend we are).
Plus the solutions are narrow in scope. For instance, we are led to believe that it will be solved if only we all buy electric cars. It might help for certain areas, but it is far from a complete solution. It comes off as a corporate grift.
Where rationality left only emotions rule, and populists know damn well how to use people's fears and other negative emotions to to milk them for either money or power... don't expect solving this would be so trivial, its more on the evolution of mankind as whole scale, or at least massively improving education with strong focus on less intelligent part of population
Corporate marketing departments have been pretty adept at promoting their products on the backs of this science. They are far from unintelligent. Populists, for all their deficiencies, are fairly adept at eventually detecting marketing ploys and gimmicks.
