Climate Changers Podcast

Max Boykoff is the Director of the Center for Science and Technology Policy Research at the University of Colorado Boulder. Max’s research and creative work focuses on the transformation of carbon-based society and the cultural politics of science, climate change and environmental issues. In this interview, we explore how creative communication about climate change transcends talking past one another and “gotcha moments” and rather moves to meet people where they are. To be effective storytellers and open peoples minds to new ideas, we need to find areas where we have common ground and shared values and concerns and then use that common ground as a foundation for deeper engagement around climate change.

New Straits Times
by Rayyan Rafidi

Universiti Teknologi Mara (UiTM) recently marked a significant milestone after being named as one of the 35 partner institutions listed in the “Lancet Countdown: Tracking Progress on Health and Climate Change 2019”, a report published annually in The Lancet.

It joined the ranks of leading academic institutions and United Nations agencies, namely University College London and the World Health Organisation.

Each year, the report provides an assessment on the health effects of climate change, developments in the implementation of the 2016 Paris Agreement, and the health implications of these actions.

It draws on the expertise of climate scientists, ecologists, mathematicians, economists, social and political scientists and doctors.

The Lancet is one of the world’s most prestigious general medical journal with an impact factor of 53.102. This year’s report featured UiTM’s Faculty of Plantation and Agrotechnology senior lecturer Dr Meisam Tabatabaei Pozveh as a lead collaborator in biofuel research.

UiTM was given the honour to launch this year’s report. Held at UiTM Puncak Alam on Dec 12, the event comprised a series of climate change talks and a health exhibition.

In his speech via Skype, Lancet Countdown executive director Dr Nick Watts said the report served as a global monitoring system on the links between climate change and health.

“For far too long, climate change is seen as a phenomenon that affects only the environment. Understanding it and re-imagining it as a public health issue is important.

“Climate change actually looks like child malnutrition or the exacerbation of asthma. When we view climate change not as a tangible concept, but as a threat to human health, then we start to understand that no country is immune. Low-income countries are bearing the brunt of the impacts,” said Dr Watts.

University of Colorado Boulder’s Centre for Science and Technology Policy Research director Associate Professor Dr Maxwell Boykoff then took the stage to discuss the report’s key messages and highlights.

“First, the life of every child born today will be profoundly affected by climate change. Without accelerated interventions, it will define their health throughout their lives.

“The second key message urges us to limit the global average temperature rise to well below 2˚C above pre-industrial levels, which is the central objective of the Paris Agreement.”

An unprecedented challenge demanded an unprecedented response, he continued.

“The scale of our response does not commensurate with the immense scale of challenges. The report hopes to address that gap by wisely confronting climate change in the 21st century.” Read more …

BMJ Online
by Paul D. Thacker

When world leaders gathered in Madrid this December for the UN Climate Change Conference, there was a notable difference in media coverage of global warming. When I first started covering this topic, around fifteen years ago, climate change was an environmental story with much of the news appearing in the science section of American newspapers. That seems to have changed, with public health experts and physicians beginning to take centre stage, voicing increased concern that fossil fuel combustion and climate change are a threat to the health of both humans and medical practice. 

More and more studies continue to document how global warming is altering medical practice, and The Lancet and the World Health Organization recently released comprehensive reports detailing the health impacts of human caused climate change on people across the globe. During the UN climate conference, one panel examined the mutual benefits to public health from climate change and air pollution policies. “Reducing methane production from agriculture lets you tackle both air pollution and climate change,” says Margherita Tolotto, a policy officer at the environmental group EEB, who spoke on the panel that day. Tolotto says that around 64% of methane produced in the EU comes from agriculture. While a potent greenhouse gas, methane is a major source of ground-level ozone that harms human health, ecosystems, and food crops. 

In the last year, several journals have published studies pointing to the health effects of climate change, such as a new study in Nature Climate Change finding that hot weather is shortening gestation time, increasing delivery risk in pregnant women, and potentially harming infant health. The BMJ published a widely read analysis arguing that climate change threatens the achievement of effective universal healthcare. The WHO’s report surveyed 101 countries and found that only half have national health and climate change strategies, with the majority struggling to implement them. The most common climate change health risks, reported by these countries, were heat stress, followed by injury or death from extreme weather, and vector-borne diseases such as cholera, dengue or malaria. 

Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, the director-general of the World Health Organization, stated, “Climate change is not only racking up a bill for future generations to pay, it’s a price that people are paying for now with their health.”

The Lancet’s report is the third they have published on key climate change and public health indicators. “I believe we have funding to continue this monitoring through 2024,” says Max Boykoff, Director for the Center for Science and Technology Policy Research at the University of Colorado, and one of the review authors. The report states that climate change will shape the lives of every child born today, as people across the globe face weather extremes, changing patterns of infectious disease, and food and water insecurity. Limiting global average temperature rise to well below 2°C is still possible, however, the report authors argue.

“The only solution is to get rid of fossil fuels in power production, industry and transportation,” said Petteri Taalas, Secretary General of the World Meteorological Organization, which released its annual state of the global climate report last week. 

Boykoff adds that media coverage on climate change health effects have increased in recent years, and can foster ongoing education and vital conversations for everyday people, in all countries. One change to education is happening in America’s medical schools, which are now adding climate-related content to their curriculum. Medical students at Stanford developed a climate change and health elective that will start next year that involves lunch seminars with speakers addressing allergy and asthma, risk of fires, and other climate health problems. Similar classes and tweaks to curriculum are happening at other medical schools, as well.

However, such discussions appear to be upsetting to industry, which faces a number of lawsuits in the United States for their role in creating in the crisis. In a recent editorial, editors at JAMA noted, “Virtually every time JAMA publishes an article on the effects of pollution or climate change on health, the journal immediately receives demands from critics to retract the article for various reasons.” Read more …

AAAS Science Magazine
by Anne Q. Hoy

Scientists seek to inform Missouri and Colorado policy-makers and climate solutions for communities

The American Association for the Advancement of Science has partnered with pilot initiatives in Missouri and Colorado to integrate scientists with local and state policy-makers, community stakeholders, and the public to leverage scientific evidence and inform efforts to address varied local impacts of climate change.

The AAAS Local Science Engagement Network seeks to forge alliances among diverse and multidisciplinary groups of scientists, civic leaders, academic institutions, decision-makers, and representatives of scientific societies to advance regional responses to the flooding of agricultural lands, impacts of urban heat islands and droughts in Missouri, and premature snow melts, droughts, and suburb-encroaching wildfires in Colorado.

“Instead of focusing on global theoretical concepts of climate change or impacts that are happening in far-flung communities in this country or internationally, we want local scientists to talk about how they can inform local decisions that improve the lives of people sitting in the room,” said Dan Barry, director of AAAS’s Local Science Engagement Network.

More than a year in the making, the program was initiated by leaders in the scientific community and AAAS members seeking to establish a nationwide plan for supporting networks of scientists to engage with policy-makers and contribute solutions to the range of challenges facing local and state communities.

The climate work of the Local Science Engagement Network is supported by the Grantham Foundation for the Protection of the Environment, Benjamin and Ruth Hammett, Reinier and Nancy Beeuwkes, Rush Holt and Margaret Lancefield, the Atkinson Family Foundation, Gary and Denise David, the estate of Abraham Ringel, and other generous donors.

Going forward, the program aims to set up networks in three additional states, Barry said, to assist communities and state policymakers in implementing effective solutions to challenges raised by climate change with the help of fact-based and impartial scientific knowledge. The program’s current theme may grow into exploring other climate-related impacts, including rural poverty economy and public health concerns, he added.

The pilot network reflects a strategy long recognized by AAAS in expanding scientific engagement with the public, through the articulation of common goals, activities, and structures. Participants in Missouri and Colorado have pledged to take part in civic engagement that elevates the capacity of science through a host of public outreach activities and events.

Communities of scientists also are being assembled by program leaders in each state to serve as an advisory council made up of topical scientific experts willing to participate in policy discussions; share fact-based research drawn from local, regional, and national analyses; and author topical reports. The two pilot programs will collect scientific analyses and reports in electronic libraries to make such materials more accessible to stakeholders and the public.

“We’re hoping that positive solutions, real solutions will take root and that we’ll be able to start to engineer a little bit of social change where the value of science is reasserted,” said Barry. “Part of the problem we seek to address is that science has been intentionally and unintentionally marginalized as a tool for decision-making in this country.”

In Missouri and Colorado, participating scientists will be offered communications training through AAAS Communicating Science workshops that coach participants on fundamental communications techniques and on how best to engage with local and state policy-makers. The workshops, developed by the AAAS Center for Public Engagement with Science and Technology, are tailored to help scientists effectively share information with the public.

Local leaders now being selected in the two states offer a wealth of scientific experience. In Missouri, Rachel Owen, a Ph.D. soil scientist, will become program director of the Missouri Local Science Engagement Network when it launches in January.

The framework for the Missouri Local Science Engagement Network calls on Owen to ensure that the network provides science communications, civic engagement, and effective advocacy from AAAS and other partners and holds regular networking events to facilitate conversations among scientists, policy-makers, and local leaders.

The network plan in Missouri will enable the program to identify the diverse needs of different demographic, economic, and cultural regions in a state that spans from the sparsely populated Ozarks to more populated urban and suburban communities. The plan pledges to engage local stakeholders to ensure that evidence-based perspectives woven into climate solutions apply to diverse communities.

Owen already has received confirmations from seven scientists to serve on the Missouri Local Science Engagement Network’s advisory council. So far, the council has begun meeting to discuss everything from policy opportunities to communications and advocacy training. “We’re going to try to make it as easy as possible for them to bring science to the conversation,” she said.

The initial council members represent a varied group, including university faculty, representatives of the nonprofit The Nature Conservancy, and climate scientists, some of whom are active in Missouri’s Climate Action Coalition, a group of elected officials and community leaders throughout Kansas City who work with state policy-makers.

The council also includes Barbara Schaal, a former AAAS president, an evolutionary biologist, and dean and professor at Washington University in St. Louis. Schaal, like many AAAS leaders, has long advocated the need for the science community to engage with policy-makers and the public about the value of science.

In Colorado, Maxwell Boykoff, director of the Center for Science and Technology Policy Research at the University of Colorado Boulder, and Matthew Druckenmiller, a research scientist at the National Snow and Ice Data Center in the Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences, also are at work developing the Colorado Local Science Engagement Network set to launch in January.

The Colorado network will produce an annual report to be made up of focused and concise briefing papers on timely policy topics and explore noteworthy scientific advances. The briefs will be authored by a multidisciplinary group of Colorado scientists. Essays written by decision-makers, practitioners, and stakeholders also will be included to provide a mix of perspectives.

The report is intended to ensure that the latest scientific research is made publicly available to inform climate policy decisions facing Colorado lawmakers and to build a diverse network of scientists throughout the state and give communities opportunities to integrate science into policy discussions and decision-making processes.

Boykoff said that community teams will be developed to help frame strategies to more effectively fold science into local policy debates and response proposals, particularly as they relate to addressing climate impacts across the state.

Already, plans are in place to contribute to policy conversations stemming from a climate action plan Boulder adopted 3 years ago. The city plan calls for 80% reductions in greenhouse gas emissions by 2050, 80% reductions of emissions generated by city government operations, and a transformation to 100% renewable electricity by 2030. The plan has led Boulder to adopt a Climate Mobilization Action Plan that places “equity and resilience” at the center of its implementation, Boykoff noted.

“AAAS and the Local Science Engagement Network is going to catalyze all kinds of important connections that need to be made because Boulder is very different than the communities in the state’s Western Slope,” Boykoff said. “To make those links, we really want to reach beyond the leading actors and engage with folks that might otherwise not be considering too carefully the various science-related challenges that actually impact their everyday lives.” Read more …

Colorado Arts and Sciences Magazine
by Clay Evans

Max Boykoff pitches strategies for more effective climate communication

Despite its apparent provenance as a right-wing meme, when it comes to climate change, Max Boykoff rather likes the snarky expression, “OK, doomer”—a play on “OK, Boomer,” the catchphrase adopted by the young to dismiss attitudes of their Baby Boomer forebears.

“Social sciences and humanities research shows that sticking to doomsday language doesn’t help people engage with the challenges of climate change,” he says. 

“Social sciences and humanities research shows that sticking to doomsday language doesn’t help people engage with the challenges of climate change,” he says. 

Boykoff, an associate professor of environmental studies, says that numerous prominent works, such as Jonathan Franzen’s much-discussed New Yorker essay, “What If We Stopped Pretending,” which argued that it’s delusional to try to stop or mitigate climate change, do little more than cause people to “freak out, tune out, turn off, become paralyzed.” 

Boykoff’s research into how to effectively communicate the serious consequences of anthropogenic climate change—and his review of others’ research in these areas—has convinced him that such heavy-handed, apocalyptic messaging is problematic and led to his new book, Creative (Climate) Communications: Productive Pathways for Science, Policy and Society. 

“If there isn’t some semblance of hope or ways people can change the current state of affairs, people feel less motivated to try to address the problems,” says Boykoff, who is also director of the Center for Science and Technology Policy at the University of Colorado Boulder’s Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences.

Boykoff even routinely dons a T-shirt emblazoned with 10 pithy words by Edward Maibach, a widely recognized expert on climate communications at George Mason University: “It’s real; it’s us; experts agree; it’s bad; there’s hope.”

In his new book, Boykoff delves deep into social science research to devise the most effective ways to communicate about a problem so enormous that many people simply become numb when hearing about it. 

“Communicating about climate change now doesn’t have to be the equivalent of throwing spaghetti against a wall to see what sticks,” he says. “We now have a solid decade of research that can point us to what works, as well as how, when and why it works, and under what circumstances.”

Among the key messages of the book: Communicators should use a “silver buckshot” approach, rather than thinking there is a silver bullet that will convince doubters or those who have simply turned away from the problem.

“We’ve learned that we can’t rely merely on science to turn the tide, or what scientists think. We can’t merely rely on a big disaster event either like ‘Superstorm Sandy,’” he says, referring to the devastating 2012 storm system that some portrayed as evidence of extreme events in a changing climate.

“Through research and observations, we’ve found that changing people’s minds doesn’t happen like that.”

Based on extensive research, Boykoff assembled five “rules of the road” and five “guideposts” to help foster a creative and effective approach to climate-change communications. 

Rules of the road (along with brief descriptions from Boykoff):

• Be authentic—“Don’t fake it.” 
• Be aware—“Know your audience.”
• Be accurate—“Know what you’re talking about.”
• Be imaginative—“Step out of the well-worn paths of science.”
• Be bold—“Commit yourself to experimenting.”

Guideposts:

• Find common ground—“Rather than telling people how they are supposed to be thinking and acting.”
• Emphasize here and now—“We need to overcome the perception that this is a distant threat that impacts other people and animals in distant places we never visit.”
• Focus on the benefits of engagement—“Give people agency, focus on ways they can get involved and feel like, ‘OK, this is what I can do today.’”
• Creatively empower people—Rather than lecture or speak in traditional academic modes, Boykoff points to alternative avenues of communication, such as comedy, art, video and dance.
• Smarten up—“Listening, discussing and adapting, as opposed to just trying to win an argument.”

Boykoff isn’t naïve about the scale of the challenges. He understands why so many people simply can’t fathom what to do in the face of something so enormous and consequential. 

“We haven’t scaled this accordingly to the kind of responses that are needed, and it feels overwhelming,” he says. “But I would flip that on its head and say, ‘Everything counts.’ There are many opportunities to change our ways of living, working, playing and having fun.”

He argues that only framing the issue as a matter of individual responsibility and encouraging generations to snipe at one another—“OK, Boomer,” for example, or criticizing younger people for failing to live up to their proclaimed ideals—are often distractions that do little to address the problem.

“Flight-shaming is one of the more unproductive ways to have a conversation,” Boykoff says, citing as an example the recent uptick in criticism of people who travel by air. “That just leaves people feeling bad. It’s blaming other people while not actually talking about the structures that give rise to the need or desire to take those trips.”

And at a time when extreme political polarization has transformed personal positions on climate change into often intractable tribalism, Boykoff says it’s important to take a careful, nuanced approach when communicating to skeptics.

“Rather than castigating people—when does that really work?—through findings from social science and humanities research, my book calls for us to be more creative and mindful and have open conversations,” he says. “This is a collective-action problem, and we need to be thinking ahead together.”