Science Friday - Degrees of Change: Changing Behavior. July 10, 2020, Part 1

Episode Date: July 10, 2020

Over the past months, our Degrees of Change series has looked at some of the many ways our actions affect the climate, and how our changing climate is affecting us—from the impact of the fashion industry on global emissions to the ways in which coastal communities are adapting to rising tides. But beyond the graphs and figures, how do you get people to actually take action? And are small changes in behavior enough—or is a reshaping of society needed to deal with the climate crisis? Climate journalist Eric Holthaus and Ayana Elizabeth Johnson, founder of the Urban Ocean Lab, talk with Ira about creating a climate revolution, the parallels between the climate crisis and other conversations about social structures like Black Lives Matter, and the challenges of working towards a better future in the midst of the chaos of 2020. Then Matthew Goldberg, a researcher at the Yale Project on Climate Communication, shares some tips for having difficult climate conversations with friends and family.  More than 200 scientists this week wrote a letter to the World Health Organization (WHO), reporting there’s a good chance that COVID-19 can be spread through the air. While the WHO has previously said most transmission happens from direct contact with droplets from an infected person’s cough or sneeze, these experts say the virus can actually stay suspended in the air. If this is true, it’s bad news for people who gather in crowded, poorly ventilated spaces. A lot of questions remain, however, about if this is accurate.  Joining Ira to talk about this story, and more is Nsikan Akpan, a science editor at National Geographic, based in Washington, D.C.  Subscribe to this podcast. Plus, to stay updated on all things science, sign up for Science Friday's newsletters.

This is Science Friday. I'm Ira Flato. Later this hour, we'll be talking about moving towards action to deal with the changing climate. First, a large group of scientists came out this week and said that COVID-19 can be transmitted through the air. So what does this mean for those of us trying to stay safe? Joining us today to talk about the story and other news of this week is Sikon Akpan, science editor at National Geographic in Washington. Welcome to Science Friday. Thank you for having me. Nice to have you. Let's start with this disturbing and sort of confusing news this week, right, that COVID-19 might be airborne.

So, yeah, it's amazing what a pandemic and a story in the New York Times can do. On Independence Day, Apurva Mandivoli broke the news that a letter had been signed by these 239 scientists, and they're making a compelling argument that airborne transmission for COVID-19 is happening. I mean, I think the thing that is really interesting about this letter is that infectious disease researchers have been arguing about airborne spread for decades, right? So when people sneeze or cough, they release a spray of respiratory droplets that come in these different sizes. We have the larger droplets that everyone's talking about. They kind of fall immediately, sort of like raindrops.

And so that's why experts were always telling us to beware surfaces whenever somebody sneezes around them. Airborne transmission refers specifically to smaller droplets or aerosols. Those are typically under, you know, five to 10 microns. What we know about aerosols is that they linger for really long periods of time and they can travel long distances. So the questions have always sort of centered around, you know, how long do infectious aerosols last in the air and for which diseases? You know, we know for measles that the spread of that disease happens via aerosols and it can

happen over long distances, which is why it's so contagious, right? A single measles case can infect 18 other people if they're unvaccinated. So why this kind of created shockwaves this week is that we haven't really thought that infectious diseases like influenza or like the coronavirus spread through these aerosols. And if they do, it's going to have some ramifications for our health guidance. And so far, we really don't know the truth, right? I mean, that's the confusing part is that we don't have enough science to know about exactly how it spreads.

That's absolutely right. And I think that's also why the World Health Organization has been a little hesitant in terms of accepting the idea that COVID-19 is spreading via aerosols. I mean, if it is, that that really changes, you know, what we say about social distancing, right? Do we need to distance more than six feet? We know that measles, right, which we're saying spreads via aerosols, we can spread outdoors. So does that mean that there's a higher risk for spread of COVID-19 outdoors? It just raises a lot of questions that will need to be addressed by scientists, you know, before we can really make huge changes to guidance.

Although the World Health Organization did say this week that, you know, it's taking this letter into consideration and that it might update its guidance. Yeah, we'll have to keep watching that as the science changes all the time on this. Let's move on to your team at National Geographic. Had a recent story about the new epicenters of COVID infections. we are seeing these hot spots popping up all over the place now. Right. I mean, as many know, and as I'm sure you know, New York City was the hardest hit epicenter in the United States.

But if you look at the data behind the more recent surges, the Big Apple now has rivals everywhere. So during New York City's worst two-week period, about 79,000 New Yorkers were diagnosed with COVID-19, which is about 107 New Yorkers. What we're seeing with the recent surges is that many areas are experiencing a greater density of cases than New York City during the city's worst stretch. So Kennedy Elliott, who is our director of interactive storytelling, came up with a map that can show where those worst of the worst hotspots are right now. So for instance, when we look at total cases since the pandemic start, 519 counties have case densities that are worse than one in 100 people, right, that are worse than what New York saw. during its peak period. That's crazy. That's unbelievable, knowing how badly New York was doing.

Yeah, it's awful. And it also helps explain why America as a whole just experienced its worst two-week stretch of coronavirus cases. You know, more than 640,000 people were diagnosed in just the last two weeks alone. And I think that the part that makes me a little sad is that it highlights that we missed an opportunity. You know, cases were plateauing nationwide from April. to May, we had about 20 to 30,000 cases every single day during that time period. So there was a window

there where we had the outbreak sort of under control, where we could have scaled up testing, where we could have scaled up contact tracing across the nation before these new surges kicked off. I mean, I think we still have time to turn the tide before the worst of the worst happens. But I think a lot more people are going to get sick before we do. Yeah, unfortunately. Let's shift gears a bit to another big story this week, and that is the Dakota Access Pipeline will be shut down. Highly unexpected, was it not? Yeah, I mean, it was a pretty tough week for oil pipelines, not just the Dakota Access Pipeline. So the Dakota Access Pipeline runs from North Dakota to Illinois, and it has been facing headaches

for the longest of times. When its construction began in early 2016, it set off these huge protests. I think people will remember seeing these protests, you know, daily on the news. You know, and the most notable protest was being led by the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe. They were really concerned that the pipeline after it was constructed might, it might spill chemicals into the Missouri River, which they use every day for water, right? So those protests led to a lot of lawsuits. And so by the end of 2016, when President Obama was about to leave the White House, he paused construction. on the Dakota access pipeline pending an environmental review. When President Trump was inaugurated, one of his first acts was an executive order that reversed

President Obama's decision. And so the pipeline ended up continuing construction and was operational by June 2017. However, that didn't stop the lawsuits. They just kept coming and coming. And this week, a judge in D.C.'s district court vacated the federal permit for the pipeline until the Army Corps of Engineers finishes its environmental review, which could take years. So is that considered a huge win for pipeline protesters? Yeah, it's huge. I mean, the chairman for the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe described the day as historic,

but he also said that, you know, the pipeline shouldn't have been built from the very beginning. Well, is it possible that this could be overturned again? Yeah, the energy transfer, the Texas company that owns the pipeline, said that they plan to file a motion to stay the judge's decision. And if that fails, they plan to appeal it to a higher court. So what about other pipelines? You mentioned this was a bad week for a pipeline business. Yeah, I was talking about this with our environmental reporter Alejandra Burunda. And she said what's going on is that environmental groups have become really crafty at filing these lawsuits that then end up blocking

pipeline permits. So earlier this week, the developers of the Atlantic Coast pipeline canceled their plans to build a pipeline across the Appalachian Trail because the cost of these lawsuits just became too high. And then also, the Supreme Court denied an emergency bid by the Trump administration to allow construction of the Keystone XL pipeline, which has faced a lot of the same controversies. Interesting. Let's move on to another climate change-related story. And this just blows my mind, and that is Siberia is experiencing a rash of forest fires following

the first 100 degree days on record in Siberia. Wow. Yeah, it's bananas. The Siberian Arctic is experiencing a rash of fires that are burning farther north than they have in years. You know, hot summer days aren't unheard of in the Arctic.

Along the coast, you know, temperatures stay pretty cool during, the summer, but inland, yeah, temperatures sometimes get really, really hot. I think the thing that stands out here is the consistency of the heat. The heat has just been so hot that it really rivals what happened last year in 2019 when we saw a lot of fires in the Arctic. And those two years far exceed anything else that the Arctic has experienced since 2003. And that was according to Maddie Stone who covered the story for us this week. And what are these high temperatures doing to the region?

I mean, isn't that a region full of permafrost? Yeah, that's why this is so dangerous. I mean, permafrost is this really thick soil, that, you know, this layer of earth that extends down, you know, several thousand feet in some places. And the thing about it is that it contains a lot of carbon. You know, there's a lot of methane in there. And the worry is that these fires, it's going to burn off this top soil and you're going to start to see some of this carbon seeping into the atmosphere, which would probably throw off a lot of our climate projections and could be potentially disastrous for generations to come that are dealing with climate change.

I imagine this would be true of the rest of Siberia and other areas where forest fires or the permafrost is melting. Exactly. I mean, this is just something that we've been seeing for the past few years is that, you know, temperatures are getting hotter. We're seeing more of these fires. And it's a trend that is predicted by climate change research that the Arctic is going to get hotter and hotter. I believe the Arctic is warming faster than any other place on the planet right now. Good place to stop because it's just going to keep getting worse. So keep in touch, S-Con. Thank you for. taking time to be with us today. Absolutely. Thanks for having me. Sikon Akpan is Science Editor at National Geographic in Washington, D.C. We're going to take a break, and when we come back, we'll open the next chapter of our series Degrees of Change on the challenges of our changing climate and our climate crisis.

We'll talk about it after the break. So stay with us. This is Science Friday. I'm Ira Plato. The climate is changing, and because we need to do. deal with it now. We open up the next chapter of our series, Degrees of Change. Over the past few months, we've talked about some of the many ways our actions affect the environment, both individually and systematically. But even with stacks of graphs and numbers on hand,

how do you get people to take action and change their behavior or to change society as a whole? Not to be forgotten is the COVID-19 pandemic and the Black Lives Matter of movements that have almost taken our climate crisis off the radar screen. But do all three issues represent both a challenge and an opportunity to work together? Let me introduce my guests. Eric Hothouse is a meteorologist and climate journalist. His book is The Future Earth, a radical vision for what's possible in the age of warming. Welcome to Science Friday. Thank you, Ira. You're welcome. And Ayanna Elizabeth Johnson, she is the the founder of the Urban Ocean Lab in New York,

co-editor of the upcoming book, All We Can Save, Truth, Courage, and Solutions of the Climate Crisis. Welcome back to Science Friday. Thanks for having me. Great to be back. Eric, let me begin with you. You write, in 2017, I started counseling for climate-related anxiety. And to this day, I struggle with how to focus my attention and energy on climate change. And Ayanna, you write in the Washington Post, quoting Tony Morrison,

the very serious function of racism is distraction. It keeps you from doing your work. It keeps you explaining over and over again your reason for being. And I see sort of a similarity between what you both are going through. Eric, tell me about yours. Oh, man. This is something that, first of all, it is a struggle. It feels like just to keep going every day these days.

These are weeks in which years and decades happen. So I think learning what you are capable of and learning that you are part of a system, you know, we are all part of a living planet. We are animals. We have needs to take care of to keep ourselves going. And I think reminding ourselves of that models the kind of society that I think has to happen for us to push through to learn what it is like to treat each other better. I think that is really the crux of this entire uprising.

What we're seeing in 2020 is the realization that we are all working for justice. And I think seeing climate as a subset of the larger struggle for justice puts it in context, puts it in a space where we can all sort of see our part much more clearly than before. And to you, Ayana? I'm just really glad that we're in a moment where people are starting to connect the dots and think more deeply about the morass that we're in. I mean, there's no avoiding that anymore, right? 2020 has laid bare so many things. The extent to which white supremacy is the framework that we live in in America, that the climate crisis is going on even when we are focused on other things. We're still seeing all these record temperatures in the Arctic,

right? And in the midst of a pandemic, when people are physically separated, it's a moment where people are thinking about what does community really mean. That's certainly where my head and heart have been over these last few months. And thinking about the ways in which our crisis of racial injustice and our climate crisis and public health crisis and economic crisis are all intertwined, I think is a really powerful way to be thinking about solutions because that's the world we live in, this complex intertwined world. And so only when we think about the challenges we face in that way, acknowledging their complexities, instead of trying to very conveniently oversimplifiable, we actually come up with solutions that have a chance of making a difference.

And you say if we want to be successful, if we want to successfully address climate change, we need people of color. Explain what you mean by that. I just don't see how we win at addressing the climate crisis without people of color, right? We need to build the biggest team possible. So why would we ignore a third of America? Especially when we know, thanks to polling by, Yale and George Mason universities that people of color actually care significantly more about climate change. They are more concerned by 10 or 20 percentage points. So if you want to build the best team with the biggest chance of success, then you should probably be focusing on the people who actually care and are aware that there is a game that's being played. So on another note,

I think it's really easy to get sucked into this trap of thinking that climate change is a technical problem, that if we just got enough engineers in a room, they could solve it. If we just had, you know, enough electric cars and enough solar panels, then that would be the solution. But really what we need is people leading their communities and governments in this transition. And those leaders are going to be people who are a part of those communities. So of course we need leaders of color to be at the forefront of this massive transformation that we're seeking. Let's talk about that transformation because it seems to be an element, the core of both of what you're writing about. You both appear to agree on the central fact that we need a revolution, which, Eric, you say, you can define however you want to. What kind of revolution, Eric, are you talking about?

Well, I think Dr. Johnson is really right here in that we need to sort of set aside how we think about climate change as a primarily a technical problem or a scientific problem. Even I know we're talking about it on a science podcast, but I think that listening to the voices of people who have been systematically excluded from the conversation this entire time, you know, the last 100 years, industrialization has spread around the world and the greenhouse gas emissions have continued to rise. People of color have been bearing the brunt of that the entire time. I think the only way through this crisis is to tell a completely different story about climate change and about the climate and emergency than what we've been led to believe is the main issue. The main issue really is is this broader search for equality and value of life in all its forms,

not just human life, but non-human species that we share the planet with. If we really valued each other and cared about each other and listened to each other, I think we would realize that that's really what it's all about is about working together to give each other as good of a life as possible on this finite planet. And that is what is out of balance right now, and that would be a revolution. The science itself is revolutionary. We don't have to sort of extrapolate too much from what it says is that we are on a path to disaster, and we have to work together to change course, and that to me is what a revolution means.

Ayana, is that what it means to you? Because it also seems like our country is so divided. politically, that something like that almost seems impossible at this point. I think the Overton window has shifted so much in the past three months that so many more things are possible than ever were. I mean, we're seeing people talk about Black Lives Matter, about the need to dismantle white supremacy, about a stimulus package that actually is a green stimulus and builds is part of accelerating the transformation that we need. We have had a presidential primary where the candidates were fighting for who had the best climate platform. And even though

there is room for improvement in Joe Biden's proposals, it's certainly the most aggressive and progressive climate plan we've ever seen from a presumptive nominee. So I don't want to be overly rosy. We have an insane amount of work to do and a really short timeline for doing it. But I think that the soil is actually right for the revolution in addressing the climate crisis. And I guess I would say to me, I mean, we're thinking about climate. We're thinking about justice. Climate justice is a term that people are now using. Racial justice, obviously. I would love to see us. not think about all these different types of justice, racial justice, climate justice, environmental justice, gender justice, and on and on. And just think about like,

what does it mean to be a good human on planet Earth and care for each other and build a future where we can all thrive? Because all of this talk about saving the planet just, you know, raises the question, who are we saving it for? And to Eric's point, like, we need to be saving it in least in significant part for the people who have been most affected by the crumbling of ecosystems and the disruption in our climate. And more specifically, when I think about the revolution we need, I think of it perhaps less as a revolution and more as a renaissance. I mean, that's what this anthology that I've co-edited is really about. It's like, what is the feminist climate renaissance? What would that look like? What would that feel like?

what kind of future would that build for us? And so I guess I think of revolutions as the violent upheaval that's needed to create a different and better world. And then at the same time, I feel like a renaissance is such a powerful term because we need to be creative and creating and involving arts. And this is a cultural shift that's needed about how we see the world and how we treat each other. So I would just add this framing of a renaissance to the conversation as well. Eric, you quote Harvard political scientist Erica Chenoworth, writing that throughout the 20th century, every single nonviolent movement to create political change that received active participation from at least three and a half percent of the population succeeded every single one.

and many succeeded with many fewer people. You go on to write that it's a clear sign that what the climate movement is doing is already working. They just need your help. What kind of help can we give them, Eric? What can people do? Yeah, and that's such a small number of people. I mean, that's a few million people around the United States, stopping what they're doing, refusing to participate in society that doesn't work for them.

We've seen that already with the Black Lives Matter movement. We've seen how quickly the conversation can change. And that was on the verge of happening in New Zealand right before the pandemic hit. They had a large climate strike that reached that threshold. Within a few weeks, the government passed a comprehensive climate legislation. And they've been right at the forefront of COVID response as well. So you can see that when that point, there's something magical about that, that number of people apparently.

But I think that what I tell people that ask what they can do is talk about it. I mean, we're having a conversation here. Anyone can do that. You can have a conversation with your friends and family. Chances are, if you're listening to this, that you are probably among your friend group, the person who's the climate person. So I would say just own it and say, you know, This is my time to do whatever I can that gets me excited to wake up in the morning.

Focus your energy on people who get it that may just need a little bit of encouragement. You know, like, as we were saying, like, it's been hard on my mental health to do this work. That's okay. You know, everyone's going through that right now. I think almost every climate person that I know is going through struggles similar to that. So just as long as you are having a conversation that means that you're building. the momentum towards that different kind of a world we've been talking about today. Just a quick note that I'm Iroflato, and this is Science Friday from WNYC Studios.

Do you think those kinds of conversations help sway public opinion enough that maybe even the Supreme Court is listening, trying to be on the right side of history? Because I'm pointing to small victories like this week, the court rejected the Trump administration's request to allow the Keystone Oil Pipeline to continue, or its ruling shutting down the Dakota Access Pipeline, a victory for Native Americans and environmental groups. Do you think that that message is getting across loud and clear now? Maybe. I mean, I would credit those victories primarily to the indigenous folks who've been on the front lines for years leading those fights, not necessarily the Supreme Court, but I think that talking, having conversations,

really feeling, noticing what your body's reaction is when you have those conversations knowing how much you care about this issue and then, you know, plugging yourself in wherever you can, it really matters a lot because, yeah, we don't have a whole lot of time to do this work. And the work is going to have to happen no matter who's in the Supreme Court. court, no matter who is the president, all of this work will still have to be done the same work. Dr. Johnson, have we passed the tipping point in terms of public opinion on climate? I hope so. I'm not sure, but I think to Eric's point of the importance of talking about it and normalizing it and just making it inescapable, this is the world we live in. Our job on earth

needs to be in significant part to make sure that this remains a habitable plan. planet. And having those conversations, there's a fascinating social science research that shows that the number one opportunity to sway middle-aged men is their adolescent daughters. These girls are the ones who can convince their dads that climate change matters. So these conversations really do shift public opinion, really do make people feel less alone. Oftentimes people, especially in more conservative parts of the country feel like no one else is concerned about climate change. And so they don't do anything. They don't act.

And knowing that you actually do have a way bigger community than you thought can be a really powerful motivator and unleash a lot of action towards implementing solutions. And to the question of, like, more broadly, what should people do? I get asked this all the time. You know, I want to help. What can I do? And I have a question back to them, which is, well, what are you good at? because that's what we should all be doing, right?

Eric is an incredible journalist and writer, so of course he should be telling the stories of the problems and the solutions that we have at our disposal. We have other people who are lawyers or artists or farmers. There is a role for everyone in this work, and so I think we're at this moment in history where we just have to figure out how the skills, resources, networks that we have map onto the solutions we need.

So yes, everyone should be, you know, donating, marching, voting, volunteering, all of these things that everyone can do. But then we also really need to figure out how to match our skills with the work that needs doing. So I'm hoping that this is a moment when more and more people are figuring out how to connect those dots for themselves personally. We have to take a short break and we will be right back with more climate conversation. so stay with us. This is Science Friday. I'm Iroflato. In case you've just joined us,

we're talking this hour about taking action during our climate crisis. My guests are Dr. Ayanna Elizabeth Johnson, founder of the Urban Ocean Lab in New York, co-editor of the upcoming book All We Can Save, Truth, Courage,

and Solutions of a Climate Crisis. Eric Halthouse, meteorologist and climate journalist, his book, The Future Earth, a radical vision for what's possible in the age of warming. One of the keys I always talk about in my own work is, I guess because I'm a child of the 60s and I covered Watergate a lot, one of my first jobs is the phrase follow the money. And I always do that when I'm looking to see which direction is going.

And so my question is, how do you convince utilities that are switching from coal to natural gas to switch to solar and wind? I was just reading about them not willing to do that so much. And how do you convince venture capital money to put their money into green energy sources? Let me ask you, Eric, and then Dr. Johnson, you can tell us what you think. Well, it's a lot of slow work to change the culture, I think. That's what I learned in writing this book. I had a conversation with Kyle White, who's an indigenous scholar on climate.

And he said that the phrasing often about the climate emergency as an emergency is sometimes not the best framing. For him and his people and his tradition, anything that has been considered an emergency or urgent has been really sort of bad in terms of the outcomes. So you have to be attentive to the long generational 100-year game here at the same time. You have to be focused on changing culture into the kind of America or the kind of country, the kind of whatever is going to happen, you know, over the next 30 to 100 years, whoever will be living here, what our beliefs will be, will be focused on and building

in a truly ecological society. That is sort of the long, slow work that has to happen. So I wouldn't necessarily focus on doing something like, This pipeline needs to be blocked. I mean, that work is important, but I think the culture shifting work is equally, if not even more important. And then the rest will kind of just take care of itself. That's my theory of change, at least. Ayana?

I think this question of following the money is really powerful because on the issue of climate change and fossil fuel corporations, there is, it's a really dirty trail when you follow it, right? We know that Exxon knew that burning fossil fuels would cause climate change in the 70s. And they have been dumping huge amounts of money into covering up that science that their own scientists did ever since then. And so if we follow the money, we can also see that those same fossil fuel corporations that have been funding climate denial for decades are now getting billions of dollars in bailouts from our government, from taxpayer money. because their businesses are no longer viable as the cost of renewables has really plummeted and is competitive with fossil fuels now. So you mentioned in particular the transition from coal plants to wind and solar. And we have an amazing success story in the U.S. actually, thanks to impart the leadership of the Sierra Club

and the Beyond Coal campaign, which has been led by Marianne Hitt in collaboration with a lot of local groups all over the country. they have shut down 312 coal plants in the last decade. There's 200 left to go. Coal will be done in the U.S. within the next 10 years, almost certainly. And that work has happened by having like awkward, hard, nerdy conversations at utility board meetings in different towns and cities across the U.S. And getting these fossil fuel companies, these power plants to open their books and show that the cost benefit isn't really there, that this dirty energy is actually not as cheap as they

want you to think it is because it's actually being subsidized. So once you really look at the economics, renewable energy makes a ton of sense. And utility boards are making that shift based purely on finances a lot of the time. And then also the fact that they owe it to their communities to ensure clean air and water and not especially be, burdening communities of color and poor communities with the pollution that's associated with fossil fuels. And on the venture capital side, we're starting to see more and more firms commit to investing in the companies that are leading this transformation away from fossil fuels. One of those is lower carbon capital, which is Chris and Crystal Saka, and they are determined to

figure out how they can prove that they can invest only in businesses that will drive. down carbon while at the same time making heaps of money so that other people will start to follow their lead. So we are starting to see the financial pieces become much more clear and fall into place, which unfortunately is the motivation that a lot of people need in order to make decisions that sustain life on the planet. Eric, you hopeful about the future? I don't think that we have a choice. I think hope is also sort of not probably the word that I would use. I think I would talk about... Me neither. I think I would talk about fire, motivation, or momentum, or those kind of words feel more powerful or more appropriate than

hope, because to me, hope is more of just like, yeah, you know, someone will do it someday. Maybe it'll be me, but maybe It's passive. Yeah, it's passive. So I think that instead, if you put yourself in the picture, this is what Dr. Kate Marvel called courage instead of hope. We really need to have climate courage instead of climate hope because that means, you know, we know that the struggle is going to be there. We know that it's going to be hard every single day.

But we do it anyway because it's the most important work anyone has ever done. It's the most pressing issue, not just of our time, but potentially of all time. You know, we are in what is now on pace to be the warmest year in recorded history. We are leaving that 10,000-year window of stable climate that gave rise to human civilization. We are doing this with all of the other challenges that we face in the year 2020. We realize that it's not going to be easy. And I think, yeah, as Dr. Johnson has said, like, this is the start. This is not the end of the climate movement. Recognizing, getting a consensus across the society that radical change has to happen is the first step. And so we're right there, right at that first step right now. And that, to me, if you want to call it hope, then that is hopeful for me. Hope is not a policy. Hope is a word that I have such a tenuous relationship with. Because,

because it seems so passive, because it's like hope that works out, you know. But I realize that a lot of people really are motivated by hope and need to know that it's possible to succeed before trying. And I often discount myself as very lucky that I am motivated by a desire to be useful. What can I contribute that might be helpful? And I think we all need to act without having any certainty of what the outcome could be. because, I mean, that's not a regret you want to have, right? Like, I was very hopeful about climate change, but I didn't really do anything about it. And, you know, here we are now living in a ball of fire.

And so I guess I would say it would be great if we could set hope aside and just get to work because there's so much, like, beautiful, exciting, transformative, important work to be done. I'd like to wrap this up by saying, I'm hopeful from listening to your conversation. So I'm very happy to hear this. I'd like to thank Eric Holt House, a meteorologist and climate journalist,

his book, The Future Earth, a radical vision for what's possible in the age of warming. And Dr. Ayanna Elizabeth Johnson, founder of the Urban Ocean Lab in New York, co-editor of the upcoming book, all we can save, truth, courage, and solutions of the climate crisis. It comes out in September. Thank you both for taking time to be with us today.

Thank you so much. Thank you. You're welcome. With COVID-19 and Black Lives Matter and the upcoming elections dominating the news, the climate crisis has taken a back seat in our conversations with friends and families, but it is still there and it is still a divisive. divisive issue. It can be a frustrating mindfield in any conversation. So what does it take to actually convince people and move them to action? Is it possible to change someone's mind?

Joining me now is Matthew Goldberg, an associate research scientist at the Yale program on climate change communication at Yale University. His research focuses on persuasion, social influence, ideology and strategic communication. Welcome to Science Friday. Thanks so much for having me. Let me ask you first, do you think we are at a turning point in the climate conversation in terms of people believing it and taking action? I'm not totally sure whether there's a discrete difference in terms of a turning point, but we're certainly making substantial progress.

And how important are social norms in driving action? If we can change the norms, we can create change. I think they're incredibly important. Most of us don't have the time or cognitive space to dedicate to being knee-deep in climate policy and to pull apart all the nuances of the issue. So we often need to rely on others for information. So social norms end up being super important because we're looking to others, both in terms of providing that information, but also the social pressure to move in line with the majority. I want to play some of the responses, our listeners sent in on our Voxpop app

talking about how they approach the topic of climate with other people. It's important to hear them out, to listen to where they're starting from, especially if your goal is to change their mind or help them reach a different conclusion. You have to know where they're starting from. Start off with talking about their opinion first. This way I can get an understanding of how they feel and then I can voice my opinion. I have one simple rule for talking to people about climate. change. Don't do it. People on the other side, regardless of which side you're on, do not want to

talk about it rationally, and you cannot change their minds. Simply won't ever happen. Matthew, what do you think of those positions? With the first position, I agree. Find something that resonates with the person you're talking to. Have an open conversation and be a good listener. One area that we've been interested in is connecting climate to people's faith or other personal values. And in doing that, people find the issue far more relatable than talking about the science of it. In regards to the second point, I strongly disagree. I've been convinced more and more over the years, as we've done more research, that people can be convinced, no matter where they are on the spectrum. There might be different levers to pull to convince different audiences, but I think all of them

are persuadable nonetheless. Who are the best persuaders? I've seen research over the years. about arguments on Facebook and changing people's minds. It seems to be that your friends seem to be your best persuaders. Maybe not your relatives, but your friends. Do you agree with that? I definitely agree. There's some ambiguity on the research as to whether we can pull apart those effects

because people are also most exposed to their friends and family. But yes, I think credible messengers that we find to be important in our lives and we have strong relationships with is definitely a strong way to go and persuading on the issue. And of course, the moral approach, you don't need to know the science. It's hard to argue with you're stealing from your grandchildren. Exactly. And it's also easier to digest and it's, it's easier to relate to. Someone can more easily connect their values to something like it's it's wrong that other people and ourselves are being harmed and we're going to, you know, ruin the earth for future generations is definitely an appealing moral approach rather than talking

about the science, which I think is also important, but I think it depends on catering that message to the relevant audience. I'm Ira Flato, and this is Science Friday from WNYC Studios. This has become such a political issue. Is that a problem in creating change? Absolutely, because as we discussed with social norms, people are looking to their in-group members to decide what to think and what to read and how to respond to these issues. So that creates a problem because it creates an in-group and out-group that doesn't necessarily need to be there. So I think it's important to amplify voices that are part of groups that ordinarily wouldn't

be seen as pro-climate. So we've been doing a lot of work in that area along the lines. of conservatives and Republicans and trying to highlight those voices and the idea that there are a lot of Republicans that are pro-climate and we should we should make sure to amplify their voices. As we go through COVID-19 and we are listening to the voices of scientists, epidemiologists, and they are getting a lot of coverage these days, is there any spillover, you think? If people are listening to those scientists, that people might listen to the environmental scientists, it more. Yeah, I think that's a, it's an ongoing open question, but the current COVID-19 pandemic has

certainly highlighted our reliance on scientists for information. It has made it extremely clear that we can make all these decisions on our own. So in some ways, it can be, we can capture that momentum to try and understand how we can best link that to climate. And we have seen success on messaging about the scientific consensus on climate change. You know, nearly every climate scientists and all of their research agrees with the idea that that climate change is happening. It's caused primarily by humans and we need to act now. So I think there's also room for sliding backwards as well, where there can be a trade-up, where people become more concerned with other issues, and then climate falls down the priority list.

Luckily, so far, our surveys have not confirmed that narrative. Thank you, Dr. Goldberg, for taking time to be with us today. Thanks so much for having me. Matthew Goldberg and Associate Research Scientist at the Yale Program on Climate Change Communication at Yale University. And that's about all the time we have for this hour. Charles Berkwurst is our director. Our producers are Alexa Lim, Christy Taylor, Katie Feather, and Kathleen Davis.

B.J. Leaderman composed our theme. And of course, if you missed any part of the program, or you'd like to hear it again or tell friends and family about it, you can subscribe to our podcasts. Or you can ask your smart speaker to play Science Friday. Also, this week, update on our Science Friday Voxpop app. This week we're asking you, have you had a baby during this pandemic? How did it go? We want to hear from parents who have to navigate pregnancy or the first few months of raising a baby during the strange, time. That's on the Science Friday Voxpop app wherever you get your apps. Have a great weekend.

We'll see you next week. I'm Ira Flato.