How Liberals and Conservatives Can Talk About Climate change

Economics Issues from
Ed Dolan’s Econ Blog
How Liberals and
Conservatives Can Have a
Constructive Dialog about
Climate Change
Posted January 27, 2016
Terms of Use: These slides are provided under Creative Commons License Attribution—Share Alike 3.0 . You are free
to use these slides as a resource for your economics classes together with whatever textbook you are using. If you like
the slides, you may also want to take a look at my textbook, Introduction to Economics, from BVT Publishing.
!!!
???

Don’t Fear Dialog
 Many liberals are afraid to talk to
their conservative friends about
climate change
Conservatives’ minds are made up
They are all deniers
 Conservatives are afraid, too
Liberals’ minds are made up
Climate change is just a trick to
mask a big-government agenda
 Here are some reasons why dialog
is not only possible, but necessary!
January 27, 2016 Ed Dolan’s Econ Blog
!!!
???

Reason 1: Opinions differ, but not as much as you might think
 75% of liberal Democrats and 54%
of conservative Republicans think
climate change is happening and
human activity is contributing
 Only 6% of liberal democrats and
only 9% percent of conservative
Republicans think climate change is
not happening at all

The real debate is over climate sensitivity
 Climate sensitivity means
the amount of warming that
occurs if CO2
concentrations double
 Most liberals accept
estimates used by NASA,
IPCC, and other
mainstream organizations
Bars in chart give NASA
estimates of sensitivity
The latest IPCC report
gives a likely range of 1.5
to 4.5o C

Deniers are rare even among skeptical scientists
 There are few if any outright
global warming deniers left
even among scientists who
characterize themselves as
“skeptics” or “dissidents”
 Instead, they point to
sensitivity estimates in the
lower half of the IPCC range
 This chart shows that many
recent estimates fall in this
low range for both long-run
(ECS) and short-run (TCR)
sensitivity

Lower sensitivity does not justify doing nothing
 Both liberals and conservatives
should be willing to accept lower
sensitivity estimates as a
framework for dialog
 A focus on high estimates leads to
polarization between alarmism and
denialism
 Low sensitivity does not justify
doing nothing—it just means there
is a slightly longer window of
opportunity to take constructive
action before serious harm occurs
Range of future temperatures as
forecast by the IPCC
Source: https://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/spmsspm-
projections-of.html

Reason 2: People want more face-to-face discussion
 Many liberals are
content to leave
climate issues to
scientists and the
mainstream media
 Conservatives are
more likely to trust
what family, friends,
and neighbors say
 65% of Americans are interested in hearing
about climate change*
 71% of all Americans* (but only 38% of
conservatives**) trust scientists
 The mainstream media are the most
frequent source of news about climate
change, but only 27% of conservatives***
trust mainstream media
 67% of Americans trust what family and
friends tell them, but only 16% hear family
and friends talk about climate change at
least once a month*
Data sources:
* http://environment.yale.edu/climate-
communication/files/Global-Warming-CCAM-March-
2015.pdf;
**http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2012/03/29/study-
conservatives-trust-of-science-hits-all-time-low-
*http://www.gallup.com/poll/176042/trust-mass-media-
returns-time-low.aspx

Reason 3: Both sides can learn from dialog
No matter how sure you are of
your own point of view, you
cannot truly understand it until
you test it against opposing
opinions held by others
“He who knows only his own side of the case knows little
of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have
been able to refute them. But if he is equally unable to
refute the reasons on the opposite side, if he does not so
much as know what they are, he has no ground for
preferring either opinion... Nor is it enough that he should
hear the opinions of adversaries from his own teachers,
presented as they state them, and accompanied by what
they offer as refutations. He must be able to hear them
from persons who actually believe them...he must know
them in their most plausible and persuasive form.”
—John Stuart Mill
On Liberty

Facing the Challenge of Confirmation bias
 Conservatives and liberals are prone to
confirmation bias—the tendency to
pay more attention to sources that
agree with what we already think. We
get much of our news from “echo
chambers” where everyone agrees
 People are resistant to information that
is inconsistent with prior beliefs
 Confirmation bias poses a challenge to
dialog across ideological lines
Echo chamber at the
Dresden University of
Technology

Framing is the Key
 Proper framing is the key to overcoming
confirmation bias
 If liberals want conservatives to listen to
what they say about climate change, they
should present a message that is
perceived as consistent with other
conservative beliefs
 The same goes for conservatives—in
discussing climate change with liberals,
emphasize shared values, avoid
accusatory language

Unproductive Framing on the Liberal Side
 Alarmism does not resonate well with
conservatives—it turns listeners off and
triggers denial
 The 2009 climate documentary film
“Age of Stupid” illustrates how not to
approach the topic
Do not start by insulting your audience
Do not start with the worst possible
case. (This film assumes a rate of
warming that is at or beyond the upper
limit supported by IPCC models)
Promotional poster. Fair use exemption claimed for
purpose of criticism and commentary

Unproductive Framing on the Conservative Side
Accusations of bad faith are a bad way to
start a constructive dialog:
 “If you look at global warming alarmists,
they don't like to look at the actual facts and
the data.”
 “Today, the global warming alarmists are
the equivalent of the flat-Earthers. It used
to be . . . accepted scientific wisdom the
Earth is flat, and this heretic named Galileo
was branded a denier.”
 Global warming is a Trojan horse for
"liberal politicians who want government
power over the economy, the energy sector
and every aspect of our lives."
Ted Cruz quotes from
Washington Post,
March 25, 2015

Two Ideas for Good Framing
 Messages that emphasize shared
values of responsibility, duty, and
stewardship form a good basis for
dialog, especially when Christian
conservatives take part
 Messages that emphasize risk-
reduction, markets, and property rights
form a good basis for discussion
among people who have a background
in business
“Preservation of our
environment is not a partisan
challenge; it’s common
sense. Our physical health,
our social happiness, and
our economic well-being will
be sustained only by all of us
working in partnership as
thoughtful, effective
stewards of our natural
resources.”
–Ronald Reagan
July 11, 1984

Questionable Framing: Emphasis on Top-Down Regulation
Messages that emphasize top-down
government regulation and increased
government expenditures are a poor
starting point for dialog with conservatives
Just 10 percent of
conservatives would support
a candidate who says:
“Climate change is an urgent
challenge and therefore we
need to strengthen the EPA’s
restrictions on carbon
emissions and signiﬁcantly
subsidize clean energy.”
Source: Clearpath.org
http://polling.clearpath.org/docs/clearpath
_survey_report.pdf

Better framing: Emphasis on market-based approaches
Policy proposals that emphasize
incentives and market-based approaches
are a better basis for liberal-conservative
dialog than the command-and-control
philosophy
71 percent of conservatives
would support a candidate
who says:
“Climate change is a
challenge, and we need an
approach that is market-
based instead of one driven
by more top-down
government regulation
_survey_report.pdf

Better framing: Emphasis on risk management
 Both liberals and conservatives
understand the idea of insurance
 Conservative support for climate action
rises when the issue is framed as one
of risk management
who says:
“Even if we aren’t certain
what the climate will be
decades from now, we
should accelerate clean
energy now to minimize the
risk of serious climate
change effects or the need
for harsh regulation.”
_survey_report.pdf

Better framing: Emphasize a full range of benefits
Conservatives are more likely to get on
board when it is pointed out that clean
energy is a good thing regardless of who
is right about climate change
who says:
“We should expand the use
of clean energy regardless
of the debate over climate,
because it will reduce our
dependence on foreign oil,
reduce air pollution, and
improve public health.”
_survey_report.pdf

The Environment
vs.
The Economy

The environment vs. the economy
 Many progressives see climate
change as such a serious threat
that we should stop it at all
costs
 Their first instinct is to support
top-down regulations to stop
corporate pollution and force
consumers to change their
lifestyles
 Conservatives who show concern
about climate change worry more
about the cost of environmental
regulation
 They favor market-based policies
that provide incentives and
encourage innovation

Climate Change Action is Good Business
 Steps to reduce global warming are
good business practice
Product design
Clean production methods
Support for environmental causes
 A third of all consumers reward
companies that behave responsibly
by buying their products
 A quarter of consumers have
punished irresponsible companies

Economists Left and Right Agree on a Carbon Tax
Conservative and liberal
economists agree that the most
effective way to moderate climate
change is through a carbon tax
 Conservative perspective on
carbon tax: ClimateUnplugged
 Liberal perspective on carbon
tax: Citizens Climate Lobby
Larry Summers
Chief Economist
for Barack Obama
Greg Mankiw
Chief Economist for
George W. Bush

Key Framing Issue: Use of Carbon Tax Revenues
 Support for a carbon
tax depends critically
on how revenues from
the tax are used
 Support is low when no
use of revenue is
specified
Source: Issues in Energy and Environmental Policy, No. 13,
2014 U. Michigan and Muhlenberg College
http://closup.umich.edu/files/ieep-nsee-2014-spring-carbon-
tax.pdf

Support is stronger for a tax-and-rebate plan
 Support for a carbon
tax increases among
both Democrats and
Republicans when
revenue is returned as
a rebate
tax.pdf

Support is stronger still if revenue used for research
 Support is stronger still
if revenues are used to
fund clean energy
research
 This variant gets
majority support from
both Democrats and
Republicans
tax.pdf

Conservative-leaning Climate Websites
 Climate, Etc. ( http://judithcurry.com/ ) is a forum for cautious but open-minded climate
scientists. Conservatives who read this will learn that real climate scientists, even those
who criticize the political agenda of liberal climate activists, do not deny that the climate
is changing and that human activity is a significant cause of global warming
 Climate Unplugged ( https://climateunplugged.com/ ) offers fresh ideas to advance
effective climate and energy policy from libertarian and conservative perspectives. It
strongly supports carbon taxes as the most efficient and effective policy for dealing with
climate change.
 The Carbon Tax Center ( http://www.carbontax.org/ ) is a nonpartisan organization that
seeks to build a consensus for a carbon tax across the political spectrum.
 ClearPath ( http://www.clearpath.org/ ) is an organization founded by a wealthy former
entrepreneur to show why clean energy should be a conservative cause
 R Street Institute ( http://www.rstreet.org/tag/carbon-pricing/ ) maintains a page with
many links to conservative policy views on climate change

Liberal-leaning Climate Websites
 RealClimate (http://www.realclimate.org/ ) Is an explicitly nonpolitical forum for climate
research that includes contributions from climate scientists whose work is often cited by
liberals
 Climate Progress (http://thinkprogress.org/climate/issue/ )is the climate page of the
website ThinkProgress.org
 Citizens’ Climate Lobby (http://citizensclimatelobby.org/ ) is officially nonpartisan but is
regarded favorably by many liberals and progressives
 Center for American Progress (https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/green/view/ )
discusses climate change on the “energy and environment” section of its website

Further Reading on All Sides of the Issue
 “Why Conservatives Should Love a Carbon Tax,” Ed Dolan’s Econ Blog, July 1, 2013. First in a
series that also covers why progressives and libertarians, too, should love a carbon tax.
 “One Answer to Global Warming: A New Tax,” Greg Mankiw (formerly George W. Bush’s Chief
Economic Adviser), NYT, Sept. 16, 2007
 “A Progressive Carbon Tax Will Fight Climate Change and Stimulate the Economy,” Richard W.
Caperton, Center for American Progress
 But Will the Planet Notice? Gernot Wagner. In this book Wagner tells his fellow liberals why
climate change policy needs a grounding in sound economics.
 “Why We Support a Revenue-Neutral Carbon Tax,” George P. Shultz (Nixon Treas. Sec and
Reagan Sec. of State) and Gary Becker (Nobel Prize in Economics)
 “Breaking the Link between a Conservative World View and Climate Skepticism,” The
Conversation, Oct. 29, 2015 Prof. Andrew Hoffman, U. Mich.
 “A Conservative Answer to Climate Change,” The American Conservative, Dec. 9, 2015, Catrina
Rorke, R Street Institute
 “Climate Change: It’s Time for a Conservative Alternative,” Environmental Law Institute, Sept.
2013, Eli Lehrer, President, R Street Institute

Click on the image to learn more about
Ed Dolan’s Econ texts
or visit www.bvtpublishing.com
For more posts and slideshows, Follow Ed Dolan’s Econ Blog
Follow @DolanEcon on Twitter

How Liberals and Conservatives Can Talk About Climate change

More Related Content

Similar to How Liberals and Conservatives Can Talk About Climate change

More from Ed Dolan

Recently uploaded

How Liberals and Conservatives Can Talk About Climate change