Home appliances, even boring ones, were a safe topic of conversation. But these days, many Republican politicians see stoves, refrigerators, dishwashers and washing machines as symbols of government interference in people’s lives. At the beginning of this year, Members of the House of Representatives passed The “Home Appliance Prohibition Act” was enacted to make it difficult for the Department of Energy to formulate new energy-saving standards, but its deliberations stalled in the Senate. other Home appliance related bills Bills proposed this year included the Refrigerator Freedom Act and the Laundry Freedom Act.
The furore over efficient home appliances is just one way that deepening polarization threatens efforts to reduce carbon emissions. President-elect Donald Trump slammed clean technology during his campaign, rehashing longstanding complaints about energy-efficient dishwashers and showerheads. false claims Wind turbines fail when exposed to salt water. Hydrogen-powered cars are prone to explosions Like a bomb.
A growing number of Americans appear to share some of Trump’s reservations. Four years ago, 84% of Republicans supported new solar farms. By this spring, that number had fallen to 64 percent, according to . Pew Research Center poll. Wind power saw a similar decline in approval ratings, with the share of Americans saying they would consider an electric vehicle for their next purchase dropping from 38% in 2023 to 29% this year.
It may seem nearly impossible to remove climate change from the culture wars. But by taking a “just the facts” approach, scientists are finding a way to talk about weather change that resonates with Fox News fans, a demographic that many climate change advocates consider a lost cause. I found it.
“If you’re just talking about pure observation, there’s nothing political about it,” says Keith Seeter, a lecturer at the College of the Holy Cross and executive director emeritus of the American Meteorological Society. For example, you can draw your own conclusions about how the world is changing by telling people that hurricanes are strengthening more rapidly because they are sitting on record-warm ocean water. You can get
Climate Central is a non-profit organization that aims toThoroughly non-advocacy and non-partisan” provides localized data and graphics that help newspapers, online news sites, meteorologists, and TV and radio programs explain the science behind increasingly extreme weather. warming winter to Allergy season gets longer. Peter Girard, Climate Central’s vice president of external communications, said the organization has had success working with right-wing media outlets such as the Fox affiliate because of its apolitical approach.
“Viewers, regardless of their political affiliation, want to know what the science can tell us about the weather and climatological experiences they’re experiencing right in their own backyard,” Girard said. .
Conservatives might be aggressive about climate change — if we were to call it something else.
But even as fires, floods, and heat waves worsen significantly, Democrats and Republicans The science of human-induced global warming is even more divergent. More than most other issues. Some observers have suggested that resistance to accepting climate science may have less to do with the science itself than with what attempts to solve the problem entail. I am doing it. Ann 2014 experiment As a result, Republicans who read a speech about the United States using green technology to boost the economy were more likely to be were found to be twice as likely as other Republicans to agree with climate science. In other words, if you don’t like the proposed solution, it may be easier to ignore the problem.
This concept of “solution aversion” may help explain how the culture war over climate change solutions began. In the early 1990s, when it had just gained public attention, Scientists warn that global warming has already begunMomentum for global action has begun to build, with countries considering essential requirements to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
Companies that were involved in continuing to burn fossil fuels, such as oil companies, utilities, automakers, railroads, and steel manufacturers, saw this as an impending disaster and organized a counterattack. Conservatives began to question climate science and argue that transitioning away from fossil fuels threatens the economy and the American way of life. Republicans and Democrats are becoming increasingly divided on topics they previously largely agreed on, and there are growing numbers of Republicans in Congress. Vote against environmental measures.
Michigan State University sociologist Aaron McCreight said climate change “has become a stand-in for all kinds of problems in government.” In an interview with CNN last year. “‘You can’t tell me what you can and can’t do on your land.’ From 1992 to 2012, there was a gap in support for environmentalism between Democrats and Republicans. Increased from 5% to 39%according to a Pew poll.
In recent years, the fault has become deeper. When progressives pushed for a Green New Deal in 2019, Republicans falsely claimed:they’re trying to take your burger away” The word has become refrained with the appropriate warning that the Democrats are coming for your car or car. your gas stove. “This is all part of a plan to control you and control your actions,” Florida Governor Ron DeSantis said in a speech outside an oil rig in West Texas last year. said. “They’re trying to limit your options as an American.”
Brandon Bell/Getty Images
Efforts have been made to position climate action in a way that appeals to conservative values, linking it to patriotism, innovation, or competition with China. But Kenneth Barish, a psychologist and author of a forthcoming book, Bridging the political gap: How liberals and conservatives can understand each other and find common groundsays that conservatives may actually reject this kind of framework altogether because they don’t feel like their voices are being heard. His formula for depolarization begins with a one-on-one conversation between two people who disagree. The goal is to learn why your discussion partner feels that way and work together to find a solution that addresses both of your concerns.
This type of dialogue creates opportunities for creative and practical workarounds. Perhaps we could reduce greenhouse gas emissions while limiting government power over household decisions. Matthew Burgess, an environmental economist at the University of Wyoming, believes that by simply making electric stoves more responsive, or making electric cars cheaper and charging stations more readily available, He said there is a possibility that some of the resistance to the technology will be resolved.
“When you move from having an opinion to understanding the concerns underlying that opinion, it’s a completely different kind of conversation,” Barish says.
It’s an approach reminiscent of.deep invitation” is an outreach method developed by LGBTQ+ advocates that non-judgmentally listens to people’s concerns and helps them work through their conflicted emotions. These personal conversations have been shown to change people’s minds and have lasting effects.
In one experiment in British Columbia, volunteers trying to convince local governments to move to 100 percent renewable energy hit an obstacle The rural town of Trail is home to one of the world’s largest lead and zinc smelting plants. They spoke with hundreds of residents, listened to their concerns about lost jobs, and worked to find common ground. lastly, 40 percent residents changed their beliefs and the Trail City Council resolved in 2022 to transition to 100 percent renewable energy by 2050.
While this is evidence that breakthroughs can occur, it also suggests that there is much work ahead for climate change advocates. The knee jerk reaction is quick and easy. Engaging in meaningful dialogue is time-consuming and difficult. Barish said that in order to have better conversations, we need to recognize that complex issues like climate change need to be viewed from different perspectives. “If you go to someone who is against a particular intervention and try to convince them why we’re right and she’s wrong, you’re probably not going to get anywhere.”
