Front Burner - Bridging the climate change divide

Episode Date: November 9, 2018

British author and carbon pricing expert, George Marshall, explains the psychology of climate change communication and describes the work he's done in Canada on this front - to bridge the political divides.

Hey there, I'm Kathleen Goltar and I have a confession to make. I am a true crime fanatic. I devour books and films and most of all true crime podcasts. But sometimes I just want to know more. I want to go deeper. And that's where my podcast Crime Story comes in. Every week I go behind the scenes with the creators of the best in true crime. I chat with the host of Scamanda, Teacher's Pet, Bone Valley, the list goes on. For the insider scoop, find Crime Story in your podcast app. This is a CBC Podcast. Hi, I'm Jamie Poisson. I'm Jamie Poisson.

The fight over climate change action, and in Canada, carbon taxes more specifically, is shaping up to be a big election issue. I know, we're still a year out and I'm already talking about election issues. Sorry. But on Thursday, the Liberals funded some climate programs in Ontario. And they're at odds with Premier Doug Ford about carbon taxes. On Wednesday, the new cover of Maclean's magazine kind of blew up online. It featured five Conservative leaders, all of whom opposed carbon taxes in one way or another.

Headline, the resistance. The Liberals are now fundraising off the back of this. And you can see why. There's a clear divide between people who support carbon taxes and those who don't. So if that's the case, how do you actually bring people together to do something about climate change? George Marshall thinks psychology is the ticket. Today, the psychology of climate communication and a conversation with Marshall. He's been advising governments around the world, including here in Canada, on how to talk about climate change. We need to have a new and constructive conversation.

So talk about this with the people around you, the people who work with your family and friends. This is FrontBurner. Hi, I'm George Marshall. I'm the founder of Climate Outreach, an organization specializing in climate change communications. And I'm the author of Don't Even Think About It, Why Our Brains Are Wired to Ignore Climate Change. George, thank you so much for coming on the show today. We've reached you in Wales because we know we want to talk to you about climate change and how psychology shapes the way we confront climate change. But before we get to that, can you give me a sense of how polarized this conversation is right now? Wow, it's polarized in Canada at the moment, isn't it?

Some people will tell you that the problem is too complex. I think that's an excuse offered by those who, for whatever reason, don't want to act. This plan is wrong for taxpayers, it's wrong for the economy, and it's wrong for the environment. It seems that some of the politicians in Canada are taking the cue from what happened in Australia as well and turning this into a big fight issue. The outstanding reservations of a number of our colleagues mean we won't be in a position to move forward with the emissions component of the National Energy Guarantee. And as we'll discuss, it's because climate change lends itself to being picked up and shaped by people in their own image

and turned into this. But, you know, what's happening in Canada isn't exceptional for you guys. Here in Britain, people's preparedness to accept or take action on climate change is twice as large amongst people on the left wing as people on the right wing. Of course, as America, as we know, is utterly divided on this. In fact, in America, climate change is the most divided issue of all. I don't think we should panic. I don't think there's an imminent catastrophe coming. We are in crisis mode and you have an administration that virtually does not even recognize the reality of climate change. It is more politically divided than abortion or gun control, if you can believe that. I'm interested in the psychology behind

this. So what is it about how our brains are hardwired or how they work that would allow people to think about climate change in one way or another. We process information in different ways in our brains. And the part which processes the data driven information side, the kind of like we'd say more rational side of our brains is one processing system. And then we have an alternative processing system which tends to dominate, which is the one which is driven by the social cues of what the people around us seem to be doing, our own experience, our own worldview. And of course, that's the one which kicks us into action when someone's coming at us with a knife, right? Something which is an immediate problem here. Now it's a threat. It's got an enemy. We respond very

well to it. But climate change is kind of tricky for us. You know, it's sort of here, but it's not. It's sort of in the future um we have to trust the people who are telling us about it so if our friends around us are saying no i don't think that's a big problem we're likely to go with them whatever the scientists say and um and it doesn't have an enemy that's very tricky for us you know we can really mobilize in times of war or when we're under threat when there is somebody who wants to cause us harm. But hey, climate change is caused by us just living our lives. You know, driving our kids to school or putting food on the table or maybe having that holiday you've worked for all year.

We respond strongly to issues that are here, that are now, that are held strong within our group of friends and peers. I mean, they're the ones who we really trust for the opinions. And ones which, if we get involved with and take action on, are things which bring us together within our group. So they make us who we are. So that's really the clue for how we can mobilize people around it. And of course, the converse is true. But if you think that this doesn't make you part of who you are, and you think it's actually belongs to someone else, when you're really unwilling to do it, or if you look around you, and the people around you really aren't doing

anything, you just go, I don't think it's a big deal. So we've got these mechanisms at play, So we've got these mechanisms at play, both in our brains and in how we behave. On the one hand, because climate change is not an immediate threat, the way a guy with a knife is, we're less inclined to view it as a threat. We've also got these individual and group dynamics at play, where how we react to that threat depends on whether we see people like us also reacting to that threat. How does that affect how we approach fighting climate change? So the way that this turns around and we try and shift it is it's really important that people see themselves both in the issue and the challenges, but also in the solutions. So that they see that this is the kind of thing that people like them, who they care about, who might share their values,

would respond to and do something. That means we've got to have different people talking about it in different ways, using different words, to speak to a very wide range of identities. And the danger we have at the moment is that a lot of the language is coming from one place in the political spectrum. And I think that progressives are very alert to issues of diversity around, say, you know, gender and race and these issues, but actually rather blind or actually deliberately not

engaging with political diversity. But I think political diversity on this issue is the key one. There's going to be differences, going to be conflict, and there's going to be tension in there, like in any good debate. But the debate needs to be in a place of saying, this is a reality, what are we going to do about it? And we all have something to contribute to the solution, rather than a debate about whether it exists. So how do you think that we could get there? So knowing that what we know about the psychology

around it, how would you advise people and politicians to start talking about this? I think one thing is making room for people who they don't normally like or agree with to also have a voice on it. And that's a hard thing to ask people to do. For individual politicians, I think it's important for them to come out and say, for individual politicians, I think it's important for them to come out and say, once in a generation, there's an issue that crosses politics that is bigger than any of us and our parties and who we are. And that's why we are open to having that discussion.

And this isn't just about us versus you. This is actually about something which is larger than us. So how can we find a way of working together on it? Now, this isn't just purely academic for you. This whole psychology of group dynamics and individual identity, you're putting it into practice here in Canada. So for the past year, I've been working with groups across Alberta, particularly of Pemmler Institute and Alberta EcoTrust and over 50 organizations across Alberta. We've been doing a huge piece of grassroots research, trying to find the ways that people think and talk about climate change and trying to find really constructive ways that we can reshape the narrative in a way that is not about polarizing people,

but is about them finding common ground, ways that they can work together, and especially ways that they can look at this issue and see themselves in it. that they can work together and especially ways that they can look at this issue and see themselves in it alberta is extremely polarized and uh it's very positive the experience that we've had of conversations across the province and uh looking through it and meeting so many different people and working with people who are uh from the all sands workers the whole way through to pipeline activists the whole way through to, you know, rural cattle farmers, indigenous First Nations people, hearing all of these different points of view, it is so clear that we have an enormous amount in common that can be worked with there. And what we've been doing is we've been trying to find ways

that people can think and talk about climate change and energy, but bring them together. So recognizing that Alberta, maybe along with Saskatchewan, are amongst the most polarized places in Canada. Is there a way that people can talk about them from the point of view of the identity and the values that they share and things that they have in common? So we can move forward, like I said, with something where people can see themselves in the issue, rather than seeing it as something that belongs to people who they don't like or trust on the other side. And the answer is yes, there's a lot of pride, you know, the starting point should be one of saying, hey,

we're really proud of who we are and how we come together and what we have in common. And in Alberta, the conversation really is less about climate change. It's more about the need to diversify the economy. Being so dependent on oil as a single source of income and employment really makes everyone vulnerable. That's the kind of message which works well across population. population. We have a debate, a climate change related debate happening in Canada right now. Prime Minister Justin Trudeau announced a carbon tax essentially charging polluters for polluting.

My friends, putting a price on pollution is the best way to tackle climate change because it works. The Conservatives are roiling about this heading into a federal election year. There are politicians across the country who are banding together on this issue. They're sort of defining themselves as the resistance. Their argument is that this tax will essentially take money out of people's pockets because the companies are going to be passing on the cost of this tax to consumers at the gas pumps, for example. Canadians have known all along that Justin Trudeau's carbon tax was just a tax plan dressed up as an emissions plan. What would you recommend or how could we talk about the carbon tax issue in a different way?

Generally speaking, whenever people advocate for it, they say climate change, it's a huge threat and it's going to impose huge costs on us. And that's why we have to increase the price of the things that are causing that. And what people are hearing from that is just cost price, cost price. So really, to move forward, carbon pricing needs to be presented

in a very different way. So really, the discussion should be about what the carbon tax or carbon pricing is doing and start with that and say, hey, here's all of the great things we're doing with this. In my view, it shouldn't even be called a carbon tax in the first place or actually even necessarily anything to do with that. It should be talking about a positive collective goal that we're working towards. So warmer, healthy warmer healthy clean modern homes um you know let's have uh let's have good public transit let's have uh let's have clean air in our cities that's the way it should be turned around but i think the problem has been what we've been

saying the messaging has been much more about saying climate change is a huge threat and you have to pay for it pay now or you're going to have to pay more later. And of course, it's not a message which people respond well to. You've also been doing work at the federal level, working with Minister of Environment and Climate Change Catherine McKenna. We know we were elected by millions of Canadians who don't expect us to stand by and watch the climate problem grow. We've been talking with the Canadian government, directly with Minister McKenna, but also at a provincial level, and we will be advising the government ways that we can talk about carbon pricing that are less divisive, where people can see the opportunities and feel positively about the way that this can move us forward, in particular the way that the

revenues can be used in a positive and constructive way, so that it doesn't just become this political football, this thing which gets knocked about from one side to the other. I should say on all of these things, we work across the political spectrum. So this is not about working with one party or another or one group or another. We want to work right across. And a lot of my work is involved with working with people who are either got conservative values or indeed are conservative parties. So trying to find a way that the science and the concerns about climate change

can be held across the spectrum is essential for this. George, on that positive note, thank you so much for taking the time to chat with me today. You're very welcome. I enjoyed it. Thank you. That's all for today. Thank you. Our music is by Joseph Chavison of Boombox Sound. And the executive producer of Frontburner is Nick McCabe-Blocos. And I'm your host, Jamie Poisson. Thanks so much for listening to our second week. We really appreciate all your feedback.

See you Monday. See you Monday. For more CBC Podcasts, go to cbc.ca slash podcasts. It's 2011 and the Arab Spring is raging. A lesbian activist in Syria starts a blog. She names it Gay Girl in Damascus. Am I crazy? Maybe. As her profile grows, so does the danger. The object of the email was please read this while sitting down. It's like a genie came out of the bottle and you can't put it back. Gay Girl Gone. Available now.