cappp powerpoint

7/31/2019 CAPPP PowerPoint

1/36


2/36

Climate Change Science

IPCC Fourth Assessment Report: Climate Change 2007

There is high agreement and much evidence

thatglobal greenhouse gas emissions will continue to

grow over the next few decades. (3.1)

Anthropogenic warming could lead to some impacts

that are abrupt or irreversible, depending upon the

rate and magnitude of the climate change. (3.4)


3/36


4/36


5/36

Building Al Gores New Igloo:

[Climate change is] the greatest hoax ever perpetrated

on the American people. Sen. Jim Inhofe


6/36

A History of Policy Inaction

1997: Kyoto Protocol adopted. U.S. Senate unanimously

rejects ratification.

2003/5/7 McCain-Lieberman Climate Stewardship Act(s)

June 2009: Waxman-Markey bill passes house by 7 votes

July 2010: Waxman-Markey bill dies in the Senate

August 2010: Copenhagen Climate Conference nobinding emissions reduction targets


7/36

Media Coverage of Climate Change

The mass mediain conjunction with political elites

has become an important source of information about

climate change for the American public. (Reynolds et al)

As a result, most Americans are at leastminimallyaware of climate change.


8/36

Question of Interest

Coverage of climate change in the mass media is

scientifically accurate and informative for most

Americans. Yet policy policy continues to languish.

What features of mass media coverage of climatechange might explain this phenomenon?


9/36

Hypothesis

Mass media outlets devote relatively little coverage to

localized climate change impacts.


10/36

Theory Three Parts

1. Although most Americans believe climate change is real,

they do not prioritize it as a policy issue.

2. What explains this disconnect? Americans do not

prioritize climate policy because they do not understandhow climate change will affect them personally.

3. The public lacks this understanding because the news

sources they rely on for information, including print

media, rarely convey how climate change will impactlocalities.


11/36

Theoretical Investigation

Examine data from public opinion surveys on climate

change.

Review the scholarly literature to explain the findings

and in particular for evidence that Americans do notpossess local understandings of climate change.

Conduct a content analysis of print news media articles

to determine how climate change impacts are

geographically represented.


12/36

Part 1 Gauging Public Opinion

What do Americans think about climate change? My

methodology led me to compile surveys conducted from

2006-2011 by reputable organizations:

Brookings Institution Is climate change occurring?

Pew Research center Ranking public policy priorities

Gallup Ranking environmental problems

Gallup - Does global warming pose a threat to you?


13/36

Is Climate Change Occurring?

Source: Brookings Institute


14/36


15/36

Relative to

Other Issues:

Source: Pew Center


16/36

Is the Environment a Concern?

Source: Gallup


17/36


18/36

Part 2 Explaining the Disconnect

While a majority of Americans think climate change is

real, only a small minority believes that it is a

significant concern. Why is this?

To find the answer, I conducted a rigorous literaturereview of scholarly sources, focusing my search around

studies of climate change impacts, more targeted

survey-based studies, risk assessment, and so forth.


19/36

Leiserowitz 2003

Conducted a national mail-based survey

Question: how do Americans identify climate change

impacts as a function of space and time?

Findings

Conclusion: Americans think global warming will affect

distant places in distant times.


20/36


21/36

Scannell and Gifford 2011

Conducted a controlled study

Do people respond differently to climate change when

educated about local impacts?

Findings

Theory of place attachment

Distance skews risk assessments.


22/36

Tying Parts 1 & 2 together:

If the American public was informed about the localized

effects of climate change, they would be much more

inclined to support and prioritize efforts to combat it.

The fact that such prioritization is nonexistent suggeststhat the American public isnt properly informed.


23/36

Part 3 Content Analysis

Content analysis: a comparative assessment of how

climate change impacts are represented in the American

print news media.

Unit of analysis: 144 articles from the New York Times,the Washington Post, and the Houston Chronicle. (Lexis)

Date range: June 2006-May 2010. (48 articles per

paper).


24/36

Content Analysis Unit Selection

Lexis: Boolean search

Sampling method

Criteria for sampling eligibility: section, length,minimum keyword hits


25/36

Content Analysis Unit Coding

I assigned each article a Type Rating based on their

substantive content.

Type 1: Pure science/social science focused discussion

Type 2: Politically-focused discussion

Type 3: Miscellanea (such as features)

Some articles combined elements of both Types 1 and 2


26/36

Content Analysis - Impact Coding

Determining Local versus non-local what makes

the cut?

What doesnt count as an impact?


27/36

Findings: Quantity of Impacts

In the entire sample, 70 local impacts were mentioned,

and 377 non-local impacts were mentioned. This means

that of all impacts in the sample, 15.5% were local.

Is this a good methodology? It gives us a general picture,but it is highly imprecise.

Stronger methodology: count articles, not impacts.


28/36

Findings: Articles Sorted by Paper

New York Times 12/48 articles (25%) discussed at least

one local impact of climate change

Washington Post 8/48 articles (16.5%)

Houston Chronicle 13/48 articles (27%)

Across the entire sample, 33/144 articles (23%)

discussed at least one local impact.


29/36

Findings: Sorted by Type

Type 1 (science): 15/59 articles (25.5%) discussed at

least one local impact

Type 2 (politics): 10/64 articles (15.5%)

Types 1 & 2 (both): 4/12 articles (33%)

Type 3 (misc.): 4/9 articles (44.5%)


30/36

Findings: Sorted by Geography

New York Times: 7/48 articles (14.5%) mentioned at

least one impact in the Northeast United States

Washington Post: 3/48 articles (6%) mentioned at least

one impact in the Mid-Atlantic United States

Houston Chronicle: 8/48 articles (16.5%) mentioned at

least one impact in Texas or along the Gulf Coast

Total: 18/144 articles (12.5%) in the sample


31/36

Findings: Sorted by Severity

New York Times 7/48 articles (14.5%) mentioned at

least one severe local impact

Washington Post 7/48 articles (14.5%)

Houston Chronicle 10/48 articles (21%)

Total: 24/144 articles (16.5%) in the sample


32/36

Findings: Polar Bears

20/144 articles

(14%) mentioned

severe ecological

stresses on polar

bears as a result of

climate change.

Compare to local

geography/severity.


33/36

Do Findings Support the Theory?

Given the data that Ive collected, it appears likelythat

the print mass media tend to under-cover local impacts.

This provides evidence to support the hypothesis.

As for the broader research question, the findingssupport the notion that the mass media has not

adequately informed Americans about local impacts.


34/36

Caveats

Caveat 1: no basis for a brightline between sufficient

local coverage and insufficient coverage

Caveat 2: local newspapers may do a better job than

national prestige papers.

Caveat 3: other types of media, particularly television

news media, may have completely different

representations of impacts.


35/36

Why Are Local Impacts Ignored?

Articles that discuss national and international politics

and policymaking may not be appropriate venues to

insert local impacts.

The scientific literature on local impacts is tiny incomparison to the literature on broader impacts.


36/36

Questions?

cappp powerpoint

Documents