A problem cannot be solved unless it is acknowledged, and the best way to acknowledge it is through discussion. This is especially relevant to climate change.
Climate has been a topic of national conversation for over four decades, particularly during extreme weather events associated with global warming, such as droughts, floods, heat waves, and hurricanes. However, between these emergencies, climate often becomes a secondary concern. Studies from 2015 and 2021 revealed that only 35% of Americans discuss climate change even occasionally. Since 2009, surveys have indicated that people are more likely to say they “rarely” or “never” discuss climate than “occasionally” or “often.” A recent study in PLOS Climate investigates this “climate silence” and suggests ways to overcome it.
Public discussion of political or social issues can be affected by a “spiral of silence.” The less a topic is discussed, the less likely people are to bring it up, leading to even fewer discussions. Conversely, increased discussion and debate encourage more people to participate. In the context of climate change, this leads to a “proclimate social feedback loop.” The authors of the PLOS One paper aimed to identify this loop or the lack thereof.
The research involved analyzing three existing studies from 2020 and 2021, encompassing over 3,000 participants who were surveyed about their beliefs and feelings regarding climate change. The surveys included questions on whether they believed in a scientific consensus on global warming, their certainty about its reality, their belief in human responsibility for it, their level of worry about it, the risk it posed to themselves, their families, and their communities, whether they viewed it as positive or negative, the efforts of their families and friends to combat it, the importance of such action for their family, friends, and themselves, and the frequency with which they encountered information about global warming in the media. Lastly, they were asked how often they discussed global warming with family and friends.
The surveys did not determine whether the initial variables caused the discussions, which is crucial for establishing causation, or if they simply coexisted. The new study employed statistical analyses to determine this.
According to Margaret Orr, a PhD student at George Mason University and lead author of the paper, the original surveys did not analyze the influence of independent variables on climate discussion but merely reported results without examining interactions between variables.
The researchers found that nearly all the variables, except for three, contributed to increased discussions about climate change. The three exceptions were the respondents’ personal conviction that climate change is happening, their belief in a scientific consensus, and their belief that humans are the cause. These factors would seem likely to initiate concern and discussion, and the researchers have some theories as to why they don’t.
Orr suggests that one potential reason for these variables not being significant predictors of climate discussion is the possibility of indirect effects. She posits that each of these three factors may lead to worry, which in turn may spark conversations.
The more these conversations occur, the better. Orr notes that previous research indicates that people are more likely to take action when asked by someone they like and respect. Climate conversations can help reverse the spiral of silence: as more people realize that others are concerned about climate change and support climate action, more people will discuss it.