7 Ways to Effectively Communicate about Climate Change

Today, we not only have a growing climate crisis but a communications one too. Quite simply, we have not figured out how to communicate about climate change in a way that builds support for meaningful and sustained actions to address it. There are many reasons for this, of course. Some believe that climate change isn’t possible because God would not permit it. Others deny science – or believe disinformation intended to sow doubt. Many become overwhelmed by the magnitude of this challenge and simply shut the message out. Often though, we are simply too busy with everyday tasks to focus on something that can be pushed off until tomorrow.

One could argue that communicators are making some progress as, according to a recent Yale study, 73% of Americans believe “global warming is happening”, up 10 percentage points from 2015. Despite this increase, there are few signs that Americans are motivated to take action to solve this crisis. One such indication of this is that social norms around climate change lag personal beliefs, and this can be a powerful deterrent to collective action. For example, according to the same study, less than half of Americans perceive that others “want or expect [them] to take action to reduce global warming”. Similarly, less than half of Americans believe that those “close to them are taking action themselves to reduce global warming.”

Effective climate change communication is needed to shift attitudes, evolve social norms and expand support for action. Many expect the government and non-profit organizations to take the lead. But, businesses and individuals both have an important role to play too. Here are a few suggestions on how to overcome this communication challenge:

Reach beyond the converted. Today, a communications gap exists regarding climate change messaging: most efforts are focused on activating those already converted, rather than try to sway those that are not. For example, social action groups focus on mobilizing their own base in support of social change. Sustainable brands are no different, focusing media spend on those most likely to make a purchase. Few dollars are spent on outreach to those that might be receptive to the message, let alone those that are less so. To grow support for climate change action, individuals, non-profits, governments, and businesses must work together to engage the fence sitters and the skeptics, not just the converted.

Focus on personal impact. Studies suggest that people are more apt to believe in climate change when they experience its effects first hand. Recent hurricanes and wildfires made climate change more real for some. Others, however, remain unconvinced: Because they have experienced such events before, they argue, it is not obvious that climate change is now making them more severe. Yet, there are signs that opinions are changing as a recent poll indicates that 46% of Americans say they have “personally experiences the effects of global warming”, up 15 percentage points from 2015.

Communicators should take advantage of this by highlighting ways in which climate change impacts people personally, especially when the impact is unexpected or goes against someone’s own personal experience. For anglers, for example, it is that the trout are no longer found at the expected bend along the river but at higher elevations as they migrate to cooler waters. For commercial fishermen, it is that the local fish they have permits to catch are moving north – or farther out to sea. For coastal homeowners, it is that home prices are not appreciating as rapidly as homes located on higher ground. In all of these examples, people already sense that something has changed, even if they do not yet connect it to climate change. This can make a climate message all the more impactful when they make the connection.

Make it local. Metrics like a 2°C increase in global temperature are hard for many to relate to because such a change is seemingly not that significant on a human scale, despite its destructive impact on a planetary one. Moreover, the average increase in global temperature does not necessarily provide the best indicator of climate impact in local areas. Instead, complement global metrics with local ones. This includes reporting on how temperatures in such places as Alaska are rising faster than global averages. It also means focusing on local temperature extremes that do the most damage including new highs in summer and in winter. Hotter summer temperatures exacerbate drought and forest fires and accelerate the melting of polar ice and permafrost; fewer frost days in winter allow more insects to survive, spreading more disease and leading to the killing of billions of trees.

Motivate sharing. In this politicized environment, people have hardened beliefs about climate change, making people less receptive to ideas that challenge them. Personal relationships often, however, transcend politics, disarming people and making them more receptive to differing thoughts. Stories about local places or local impact – whether economic, social, or physical – can be especially powerful because others within their social spheres can relate to them. Not only can such stories hit close to home, but they can spark conversations about how different events are today from a commonly-held historical norm. Communicators should facilitate such storytelling and promote social sharing to amplify it.

Communicate through trusted messengers. Today, Americans trust few sources for information about climate change. Instead of trying to overcome this gap, communicators should turn to trusted messengers to relay climate messages. According to a Yale study, one trusted source is physicians. Doctors have an opportunity to communicate about climate change, and in particular, the health risks associated with it. This may include messaging about a prolonged allergy season or greater risk of Lyme’s disease. Other trusted sources include those economically impacted by climate change such as farmers, hunters or commercial fishermen, as well as those entrusted to protect the public from harm such as the military.

Frame the message. Communicators should frame a message in a way that people will be most receptive to it. For example, conservatives respond better to messaging that is rooted in nostalgia (e.g., ‘restore the earth’) while liberals respond better to messaging about “preventing future environmental degradation”.  Likewise, for the devout, “ the idea that humans should not befoul God’s creation can be a powerful argument.”

Allow people to evolve their views. It is really hard to get people to change their mind. Beliefs are often based on what people hear from others around them and social norms regarding behavior. Once people hold a specific belief, they tend to look for confirming evidence to justify it. For many, changing their mind is tantamount to admitting that they were wrong before, something that runs counter to most of us. As such, communicators should give people room to evolve their views without losing face. This means allowing them to evolve their views based on new evidence – without negating their past beliefs. “I now see evidence of climate change whereas I did not see it before”.  What is most important is what people believe today – and going forward – rather than dwelling on the past.

I know there are a lot of other great ideas out there for communicating about climate change. Tweet your ideas to @dwigder.  I would love to hear.

Why public opinion on climate change matters to business

Today, the business community is sharply divided about whether to take action on climate change.

There are those for which taking steps to prevent climate change is beneficial. Industries such as renewable energy and battery storage stand to profit from a shift to a low-carbon economy, whereas others such as travel, real estate and agriculture are threatened if climate change continues unabated. Other companies have taken steps to green their operations based on economic or ethical considerations, while others have done so in response to consumer pressure.

At the same time, many businesses actively oppose taking action. Many of these companies have a strong interest in maintaining the status quo because their profits are tied to fossil fuels. Even the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, a lobbying group that claims to represent all businesses, largely supports the status quo.

Not surprisingly, a similar debate is raging in Washington over the best public policy to deal with climate change. Given the complex and multi-generational challenge that climate change poses, the right public policy is essential for businesses to be part of the solution. At minimum, policy can create a stable environment for business investment, essential for incubating nascent technologies. At best, it can promote an orderly transition to a post-carbon economy.

A powerful force

This jockeying is not limited to lobbyists trying to influence politicians over martini dinners; instead, much of this effort is focused on swaying public opinion. Indeed, studies (PDF) suggest that public opinion is a powerful force that helps shape public policy. Moreover, the influence of public opinion is amplified when people consider the issue important — or when it can provide politicians with political coverage to take a stand that goes against the fold.

Today, many businesses — or wealthy individuals with vested interests in these businesses — have aligned to defend the status quo, often by influencing public opinion. For years, ExxonMobil and other oil companies overtly sought to sway the public’s view of climate change. Over the last 10 years, foundations and wealthy donors — many with strong ties to the fossil fuel industry — have stepped in to fund a climate change counter-movement (CCCM) to the tune of $900 million a year.

A recent Yale/George Mason University study indicates that a mere 13 percent of Americans believe that there is overwhelming scientific consensus that climate change is real.

Arguably, the CCCM has influenced public opinion, including the belief as to whether climate change even exists. A recent Yale/George Mason University study indicates that a mere 13 percent of Americans believe that there is overwhelming scientific consensus that climate change is real, a very small percentage given that 97 percent of peer-reviewed scientific papers since 1990 align with this consensus view.

CCCM communications tactics have been surprisingly simple: sow seeds of doubt with the public about whether climate change is real. The CCCM has been able to do this with ease by distributing fringe research that challenges the validity of climate change or by pointing out weather events such as an unexpected cold snap that seemingly conflicts with a warming climate.

Climate skeptics enhance the credibility of their position by publishing opinions or sponsored articles in mainstream publications such as Forbes or Wall Street Journal. Headlines such as “The Sea Is Rising, but Not Because of Climate Change” sow doubt with users even if they browse only the headlines, and despite that scientists deemed the article’s credibility to be “very low.” Other articles, such as “Climate Forecast: Failed Prognostication,” move from fringe to more mainstream publications as they are redistributed on message boards, social media, search engines or news aggregators. This specific article, originally published by the Institute for Energy Research, a non-profit organization that seems to count ExxonMobil and Koch Industries among its major donors, was redistributed in Yahoo’s news feed.

Such articles try to obfuscate global scientific consensus on climate change by claiming that there are so many competing theories that no one really knows what is happening. Worse, they argue against taking action because the cost to do so would be too high. The author of one article titled “Is the IPCC Wrong about Sea Level Rise?” and published by Forbes claims that any “continued rise [in sea level this century is already] locked in due to temperature changes that have already occurred. No reductions in greenhouse gas emissions will prevent sea level rise in the near term.”

The problem: The author is a former oil executive with little discernible background in climate science.

By prolonging the debate, the CCCM has achieved a primary goal: deferring meaningful action on climate change to the future. But delaying action is not without cost: It reduces the incentive for business to invest in next-generation technologies and industries, hurting the long-term competitiveness of the U.S. economy, especially as other nations, notably China, leap ahead.

Major advertising companies teamed up to motivate Gen Z to take 2 billion acts of good by 2030 in support of the U.N.’s Sustainable Development Goals.

This is not to say that pro-climate action business groups have been silent. But, in many ways, their efforts have been disconnected, short-term focused and lacking a single-minded objective. Hedge fund billionaire Tom Steyer, for example, financed a get-out-the-vote campaign in 2014 focused on electing officials who were climate-friendly. Elon Musk turns to social media to draw attention to his businesses, most recently by launching a Tesla electric car into space. Recently, the major advertising holding companies teamed up with the United Nations to launch the Little x Little campaign with the goal of motivating Gen Z to take 2 billion acts of good by 2030 in support of the U.N.’s Sustainable Development Goals.

Other campaigns have been more enduring. 350.org’s divestment campaign is one such example. This organization pressures individual investors, pension funds and endowments to divest from fossil fuel investments. But this effort has not been without its critics who question whether the end game should be divestment, versus public policy that more directly addresses climate change.

There is little doubt that many businesses will be adversely affected by climate change, whether it be their supply chain, operations, products or brand. This impact will differ by industry and by geography. Public policy that begins to addresses climate change can mitigate its impact. It also can help businesses better adapt to the change — or even thrive in spite of it.

Providing a counterweight

Arguably, to lay the groundwork for policy change, businesses need to devote resources to building support with the public for climate action. At the very least, pro-climate-action businesses need to provide a counterweight to the continuous barrage of messages from the CCCM. There are several ways to do so:

Accountability: Publishers should be held responsible for the truthfulness of articles — including opinions and sponsored articles — that they publish under their names. This is especially important for articles that challenge scientific consensus because authors are clearly using association with the publisher to garner credibility for the story.

The rules can be simple: Fact-check content that challenges fact-based scientific consensus and decline to publish — or at least clearly label — articles if they fall outside the consensus view. For good measure, publishers could even provide the percentage of scientific studies that support or contradict claims made in articles they publish.

This type of system leaves room to challenge accepted scientific facts while providing proper attribution for unsuspecting readers when an author’s opinions do not align with scientific consensus. Such labels also should extend beyond a publisher’s site to wherever headlines are distributed. Without such a system, publishers risk distributing misleading — if not blatantly fake —news, something that should run counter to any reputable publisher.

Advocacy: Businesses should advocate for public policy that would help them manage the complexities of climate change. To lay the groundwork for policy change, they first need to build support for action through sustained and coordinated outreach to the public. This would involve creating new advocacy groups — or expanding the role of existing ones — to raise funds and coordinate campaign development.

Funding might pose a challenge initially: While many companies openly support climate action, others might not yet fully appreciate the threat that climate change has on their operations. They also may fear alienating certain consumers by appearing to take a political stance. But increasingly, companies are making public their support for climate action, such as those who voiced support for the United States to stay in the Paris Agreement. Moreover, wealthy individuals likely also will step up to support such a campaign, similar to how others support the CCCM today.

Relatability: To influence public opinion, communicators should work to engage the “Concerned” and the “Cautious,” two audiences (PDF) identified by the Yale Program for Climate Change Communications as perhaps the most movable on this issue. Growing support among these groups would go a long way in influencing public opinion, as combined they make up just over half of the American population.

While the Concerned already feel threatened, they do not believe that actions being taken today effectively will deal with this threat.

Research (PDF) indicates each audience requires different communications strategies. The Concerned, for example, are more likely to take action if they feel threatened by climate change and have a clear understanding of how to mitigate this threat. While the Concerned already feel threatened, they do not believe that actions being taken today effectively will deal with this threat. As such, communications should focus on convincing them of “the ability of individuals or groups to effectively mitigate climate change.”

From a business perspective, this may mean highlighting significant investments such as the $1 billion from chocolate manufacturer Mars to mitigate climate change or the recent success of Net Power in testing a commercial-scale pilot for generating zero emissions energy.

Research also suggests the Concerned are swayed by opinion leaders. This is consistent with the findings of other studies (PDF) that say that activating political and economic elites can help sway public opinion. As such, businesses should activate opinion leaders as part of their campaigns.

Communicators should also engage the Cautious. While the Cautious tend to believe in climate change, they have a high gap between their belief that climate change is happening now (26 percent) versus sometime in the future (81 percent). To engage these people, it is key for communications to close this gap.

This means demonstrating that climate change is really happening — not by overwhelming people with facts, but by demonstrating how it is already affecting local businesses, jobs and a way of life. Outdoor recreation is a great example of this as climate change is already affecting where people fish and hunt, something that affects local guides and outfitters. Commercial fishing is another example as warming coastal waters force boats to travel farther north and out to sea to catch fish that once thrived right offshore.

To make things more challenging, the Cautious spurn traditional media channels and pay less attention to news — especially environmental news — than most Americans. As such, businesses should communicate with the Cautious through more personal channels such as social media, word of mouth or local newspapers.

And because the Cautious trust few sources for information on climate change, businesses should communicate through trusted messengers to relay climate messages. These messengers could be local business owners affected by climate change or local physicians (PDF) who witness prolonged allergy season, greater spread of Lyme’s disease or higher instances of asthma.

This article was originally published on Greenbiz.

Buyer Beware: 5 Ways Climate Change Is Already Transforming Home Buying Decisions

The value of global real estate is enormous, topping $217 trillion–of which 75% is residential homes and property. Given this scale, it is hard to overstate the importance of real estate to people’s personal fortunes. For many, it is their largest single investment.

Climate change is increasingly having an impact on residential homes in vulnerable areas where people like to live: along seacoasts, next to ski slopes or in the arid foothills of mountain ranges. Homebuyers are beginning to recognize this new climate change reality – and real estate markets are starting to reflect these shifts.

Among homeowners, there is a growing awareness of the true impact that climate change is having – or will have – on their property. Some are already taking action – or are being forced to act. Others are staying put, hoping for the best or simply ignoring the risk. Unfortunately, many of these owners are unwittingly playing a prolonged game of hot potato, which may leave some with diminished value when markets bake in the costs.

Understanding how climate change is transforming home buying behavior and preferences will help people make more informed investment decisions.  Here are five ways how:

1. Climate shocks transform buyer preferences overnight

Climate shocks – sudden, extreme events like hurricanes Katrina and Harvey – can rapidly upend local real estate markets. Sadly, New Orleans provides a case study as to how this can happen: In the aftermath of Katrina, real estate prices shot up almost overnight in higher and drier areas of the city as thousands of people scrambled to find new places to live – and outsiders poured in to rebuild the city. Demand for these more protected properties remains high, with prices now nearly 50% over what they were before Katrina.

Meanwhile, people in flooded areas were left with homes that dropped in value. Compounding this problem, many homeowners did not have flood insurance, leading many to default on mortgages or even go into bankruptcy.

2. Threat of personal harm overrides other buying considerations

Climate change does not just threaten to damage property, but cause personal harm too. Many people who live by the sea, for example, view this threat as manageable because there is typically ample time to evacuate before a hurricane hits.

But, climate change also threatens personal harm in more immediate and less controllable ways. People are responding to these risks by shifting their home buying preferences. Take Lyme disease as an example. In recent years, Lyme disease has spread widely across the Northeast and Midwest, greatly increasing the number of people afflicted. This spread has been fueled, in large part, by warmer winters that have allowed the ticks that carry the disease to flourish.

Evidence suggests that people are reconsidering whether to live in rural areas in response to the growing prevalence of the disease. In fact, a recent study measured that for every 10% increase in Lyme disease incident rate, there is a slight, but significant, decline (0.1%) in the local population. Greater health threats are apparently giving prospective homeowners pause – or motivating existing residents to leave – overriding other considerations when making home buying decisions.

Another example is wildfires in California this year that were likely fueled by climate change. A study of the aftermath of a similar fire in Southern California suggests that wildfires precipitate price declines for surviving homes within the vicinity of the fires as people feel less safe living there. After the first fire, prices of surviving homes dropped an average of 10%; after a second fire, home prices dropped 23%.

Prices can recover if risks are mitigated. Learnings from another devastating fire in the hills above Oakland, CA, suggest property values recovered years later, as the neighborhood was rebuilt with more safety in mind: homes rebuilt using fire retardant designs, materials and landscaping, streets widened to prevent fires from spreading and facilitate egress during emergencies, and a fire station was built nearby.

3. Buying decisions are still made based on recent experience

People love to live near mountains or in proximity to a ski slope. Decisions to buy in these areas are most often based on our own personal experiences, rather than empirical evidence of what might happen to these areas in the future. As a new normal with climate change becomes apparent, being behaviors are likely to change.

Buying property near a ski resort is a great example. Changing weather patterns in winters are reducing ‘ski reliability’, especially at resorts located at lower elevations. A study of Western ski resorts concludes that potential homebuyers make their decisions by looking backward at snow conditions over the medium term (3-10 years) rather than by looking at future predictions. This suggests that people will be more apt to buy homes if they had a positive experience skiing in the recent past or if previous years’ conditions were good, even if long-term ski conditions are predicted to deteriorate. This also means that buyer enthusiasm for ski properties may wane as conditions deteriorate.

Today, Zillow estimates that 1.9 million homes are in coastal areas vulnerable to rising seas. These properties are concentrated in states such as Florida (934,000 homes), New Jersey (190,000) and New York (96,000), and in cities such as Boston (17 percent of homes), Honolulu (24 percent) and Miami (30 percent). Most of these buyers likely purchased these properties based on how conditions are today – rather than how they will be in the future. Unfortunately, such properties will be increasingly vulnerable to rising seas without massive infrastructure investments to protect them.

4. Home values are eroding

Historically, people have bought real estate because of the location or view. What buyers value in a home is starting to shift, however, as climate change impact becomes more real. Today, some homebuyers are losing their enthusiasm for coastal properties. According to Attom Data Solutions, the parent company of RealtyTrac, “over the past five years, home sales in flood-prone coastal areas grew about 25 percent less quickly than counties that do not typically flood”.  Another study found that “homes exposed to sea-level rise sell at a 7 percent discount compared with equivalent but unexposed properties”.

Rising costs may be driving this shift. Flood insurance premiums are increasing to reflect actual risk, depressing home values. As Waye Pathman, Chairman of Miami’s Sea Level Rise Committee, noted, “For every $500 worth of increase in flood insurance, you lose $10,000 of property value.” Moreover, property taxes are increasing as communities spend tax dollars to raise roads and enhance drainage to stave off rising seas.

Another reason is that residents are simply growing tired of the daily inconveniences caused by king tides that leave flooded streets on clear days and make car insurance more expensive and harder to obtain. Others are weary of dealing with construction crews on or near their properties that are reinforcing shorelines against rising seas.

Jesse Keenan, a lecturer of climate change adaptation at Harvard University’s Graduate School of Design, suggests that coastal residents are starting to trade homes in low-lying areas for ones on higher ground. Some even speculate that less affluent Miami neighborhoods that are located on a coastal ridge (15 feet above sea level) are gentrifying because of this migration.

Miami isn’t the only city where people are moving to higher ground. Hollywood celebrities on the West Coast are moving to the hills above Malibu Beach. In the process, they are upending a longstanding notion of what makes a desirable place to live: “The whole ‘being on the beach’ thing has started to fade away,” Anthony Paradise, a real estate agent at Sotheby’s, told the Hollywood Reporter.

5. Sometimes, the only thing left to do is to walk away

In some places, future prospects are so bleak that the only thing left for homeowners to do is walk away. Louisiana, for example, is preparing a plan to relocate thousands of people living in low-lying coastal areas, “effectively declaring uninhabitable a coastal area larger than Delaware”. In Alaska the story is similar: villages seek to relocate because the permafrost beneath them is melting, accelerating erosion and exposure to the sea.

3 ways real estate developers can stay ahead of climate change

The value of global real estate is enormous, topping $217 trillion, of which 75 percent is residential homes and property. Given this scale, it is hard to overstate the importance of real estate to people’s personal fortunes. For many, it is their largest single investment.

Residential real estate markets are increasingly vulnerable to climate change. People are beginning to recognize this new reality — and markets are starting to reflect the change.

This shift present opportunities and risks for developers, lenders and investors that do business in this market. Understanding these dynamics will help them better navigate the challenges and capitalize on the opportunities. Here are three ways they can do so:

1.  Help municipalities adapt

Climate change leaves municipalities increasingly vulnerable to climate shocks — sudden, extreme events such as hurricanes and severe wildfires — that can upend a local real estate market, infrastructure and economy seemingly overnight.

It also leaves coastal areas vulnerable to more gradual changes, too, such as rising sea levels that Zillow estimates threatens 1.9 million homes. These properties are concentrated in states such as Florida (934,000 homes), New Jersey (190,000) and New York (96,000), and in cities such as Boston (17 percent of homes), Honolulu (24 percent) and Miami (30 percent).  Despite the growing risk, municipalities have been slow to adapt. That may be about to change.

At-risk homes in Boston. Source: Zillow.com

 

Recently, Moody’s announced a change in how it calculates credit scores for U.S. cities and states by including the potential for climate shocks in determining credit ratings. This will create new opportunities for business by forcing local and state governments to accelerate investments in projects to adapt to climate change in order to stave off a downgrade of their credit rating. Businesses should look to take advantage of this opportunity and help cities adapt.

2. Build to be resilient

Homebuyers are highly sensitive to sudden threats of personal harm and will change their buying behavior in order to avoid them. Extreme wildfires such as the ones in California last year are an example of this.

Not surprisingly, wildfires can upend local real estate markets. Not only are whole neighborhoods lost, but studies suggest that demand for surviving homes within the vicinity of the fires drop precipitously as people feel less safe living there. Most homeowners who lose their homes move away rather that rebuild. The lack of services, infrastructure and community discourages many would-be newcomers from buying even at a discount.

Despite the growing risk, municipalities have been slow to adapt. That may be about to change.

Rebuilding using resilient design can help accelerate recovery, however. A deadly 1991 wildfire in the hills above Oakland, California, one of the most destructive in the state’s history, provides clues as to how it can happen. In the aftermath of this fire, homes were rebuilt based on updated safety codes that required fire-retardant designs, materials and landscaping. Streets were widened to slow the spread of future fires (and facilitate egress during emergencies) and a new fire station was built nearby.

Arguably, these changes accelerated redevelopment by making homeowners feel more secure in buying or rebuilding homes, and created new opportunities for businesses to design and build them. Today, “it’s a highly sought-after neighborhood” with homes selling for a premium in the $1 million to $3 million range, said Daniel Stea of Stea Realty Group in nearby Berkeley.

3. Shift to higher ground

Homebuyers always have had a love affair with coastal properties along the sea. Today, however, that is beginning to change. According to Attom Data Solutions, over the last five years, “home sales in flood-prone coastal areas grew about 25 percent less quickly than counties that do not typically flood.”

A major reason for this shift is that it is becoming more costly to live there. Flood insurance premiums are increasing to reflect actual risk, depressing home values by $10,000 for every $500 increase in insurance, according to Wayne Pathman, chairman of Miami’s sea-level rise committee. Property taxes are increasing as communities spend tax dollars to raise roads and enhance drainage. Today, homes exposed to sea level rise sell at a 7 percent discount to equivalent homes that are not exposed.

Residents are also growing tired of the daily inconveniences caused by king tides that leave flooded streets on clear days and make car insurance more expensive and harder to obtain. Others are weary of dealing with construction crews near their properties that are reinforcing shorelines against rising seas.

In response, some coastal residents are starting to trade in their homes for ones on higher ground. Some even speculate that less-affluent Miami neighborhoods on a coastal ridge (15 feet above sea level) are gentrifying because of this migration.

High ground along Miami’s coastal ridge is gentrifying.  Source: thenewtropic.com

Miami isn’t the only city where people are moving to higher ground. Hollywood celebrities on the West Coast are moving to the hills above Malibu Beach. In the process, they are upending a longstanding notion of what makes a desirable place to live: “The whole ‘being on the beach’ thing has started to fade away,” Anthony Paradise, a real estate agent at Sotheby’s, told the Hollywood Reporter.

Developers should stay ahead of this migration by developing properties in surrounding areas that are more protected from rising seas. Such developments will be more resilient to the impact of climate change, and are likely to appreciate in value as demand grows for accommodations on higher ground.

— Originally published on Greenbiz

Why Even the God-Fearing Should Believe It’s Up to Us to Halt Climate Change

God’s creation is on the brink of destruction, potentially at biblical proportions. Scientists say we have as little as three years to stabilize the climate or risk environmental catastrophe. Others say that climate change is already upon us, contributing to flooding that reached ‘unprecedented’ levels in Bangladesh, Nepal, India and now Texas this year.

Some people believe that it’s beyond our power to harm the climate, and even if we could, God would intervene before climate change destroys our world.

There is scant hard evidence though that a divine being participates so directly in human affairs, at least in modern times. Human misery caused by natural disasters, civil wars and genocide seem to go unchecked by Providence. 1.4 billion people are expected to lose their homes by 2060, largely due to rising seas. Most of these people will feel as if their world has been destroyed. If God did not stop these previous tragedies, why do we expect Him to intervene now?

I believe in an inspirational God, rather than an interventionist one. This means turning to God for guidance on how to live life with a higher purpose. This also means taking action to fulfill this calling with the tools at our disposal. As the parable goes, when God sends a canoe, a motorboat and a helicopter to pull us from the flood, He is not ignoring our calls for help, but rather answering our prayers — by providing us with the means to help ourselves.

Like with other natural disasters, God is not going to swoop down and halt climate change. Instead, we must be inspired by a higher purpose — saving the planet for future generations — to do so ourselves. This means eliminating our carbon footprint, and convincing others to do the same. We already have the tools and technologies to do this. Instead of canoes, motorboats and helicopters, we have renewable energy, electric cars and building insulation. It’s time for all of us to act.

–Originally published on Medium, 2017

How to be a trusted messenger on climate change

A recent study indicates that only 40 percent of Americans believe that they will be harmed personally by climate change. Instead, most of us view climate change as a phenomenon that will affect people in another region or a future generation.

Such detachment makes it challenging to motivate meaningful action to reduce climate change. Generally speaking, we are more inclined to act if we believed our personal well-being is threatened.

Such beliefs are not all that surprising, though, as most of us go about our daily lives insulated from changes that are happening in the natural world.

And, when we do experience Mother Nature’s wrath, we have a hard time telling whether human beings bear some of the blame. This is especially true when effects are transient. On one day, temperatures may set a record. On the next day, they swing back to within seasonal norms.

When we do experience Mother Nature’s wrath, we have a hard time telling whether human beings bear some of the blame.

Even extreme weather isn’t persuasive. Because storms are so familiar to us, we tend to discount evidence that climate change is increasing their intensity and frequency. Moreover, the passage of time makes it all but impossible for us to objectively compare any two events. And when we try, our memories easily can fool us, as it’s easy to exaggerate past events in our minds — extreme weather included. Remember, the fish grows bigger every time a fish story is told.

The local angle

Unbeknownst to most of us, however, climate change is already affecting our lives and our local communities. This impact tends to vary greatly by person and by region. Some of us have experienced only minor inconveniences, while others have seen our income, health or way of life compromised.

Here are a few examples:

• In Florida and along the Gulf Coast and Atlantic seaboard, drivers often find coastal roads not passable because king tides flood them even on sunny days.
• From Minnesota to Maine, moose hunters find the number of permits halved as populations decline. Warmer winters compromise moose survival by allowing ticks to gorge unchecked on their blood.
• In the Upper Midwest, allergies sufferers contend with allergy seasons that are lasting a month longer than before.
• In the Carolinas, commercial fishermen must steam hundreds of miles farther to catch local fish that have migrated north seeking cooler waters.
• In Alaska, homeowners find their foundations are no longer stable but tilting and collapsing as the underlying permafrost melts.
• In Louisiana, coastal property owners find their land no longer livable, but instead continuously flooded as sea levels rise. Now, residents are relocating to higher ground.
• In Montana, anglers no longer find trout at familiar places along the river, but upstream in cooler headwaters. Local guides lose money when streams are closed because warmer water temperatures put too much stress on the fish that remain.
• From New Jersey to Florida, home prices in flood-prone areas have fallen as flood insurance premiums rise. Investors across the country buy mortgage-backed securities that do not price in the risk that rising seas pose to coastal property values.

Despite these impact, many of us are not aware of their connection to climate change. Communicators have an opportunity to make that connection, and by doing so, motivate action to reduce climate change’s impact. Here are three ways how:

Local impact. Climate change already has caused harm to people in many local communities. Some recognize the impact, while others only sense that something has changed. Most do not yet attribute what is happening to a changing climate. Communicators have the opportunity to engage people about climate impact, particularly those living in affected areas. One way to do so is to contrast how things were before with how they are now, and explain the role that the climate has had in making this change happen.

Climate change already has caused harm to people in many communities. Communicators have the opportunity to engage people about climate change impact in local areas.

Trusted messengers. Climate change clearly has become a politicized issue. One way to overcome this is to tap messengers that are trusted across the political divide. For example, when it comes to the impact of climate change on human health, primary care physicians (PDF) enjoy significant public trust regardless of someone’s personal beliefs on the issue. Arguably, local guides, fishermen and others in the community whose livelihoods have been affected by climate change would make compelling messengers, too.

Broad storytelling. People who have been personally affected by climate change have a story to tell. Communicators should encourage everyone to share their stories on social media (tweet every time you witness climate change impact) or with neighbors. The more that we document the harm that climate change is having in our communities, the more compelling the message will be to those still on the fence.

Today, many of us have been personally harmed by climate change, although we might not recognize the cause. Communicators can best engage people if they focus on the impact that it has had in our local communities, and do so through a trusted messenger that transcends the political divide.

–Originally published on Greenbiz, 2017

Outdoor recreation can’t beat the heat of climate change

In Montana and similar big-sky places across the U.S., outdoor recreation is core both to the local economy and a way of life. Climate change is beginning to undermine this as it alters the natural systems and habitats that outdoor recreation depends upon. 

Many product companies and resort destinations are positioned to adapt to this change. Others businesses, including local outfitters and guides, may not be as fortunate. Regardless, all companies have the opportunity to take a leadership role in responding to climate change, and in the process, to help preserve a way of life that dates back generations.

Outdoor recreation economy

Outdoor recreation represents a significant share of the U.S. economy: $646 billion in annual spending that supports more than 6.1 million direct — and countless more indirect — jobs. Spending includes $120 billion on outdoor recreation products and $543 billion for trips and travel-related spending.

Climate change is expected to affect this. While comprehensive national studies are hard to come by, state-level impact has been documented. Take Montana. Today, the economic contribution (PDF) of outdoor recreation in that state is significant: $5.8 billion in consumer spending and 64,000 jobs — or more than 12 percent of total employment across the state. According to a recent report (PDF) prepared for the Montana Wildlife Federation, climate change is expected to eliminate 11,000 jobs related to outdoor recreation, or one in six in the state.  

Ski resorts are making investments to attract visitors year round.

Jobs are only part of what is at risk. Nearly three-quarters of all Montana residents (PDF) participate in outdoor activities each year, one of the highest participation rates of any state. Climate change is forecasted (PDF) to have a dramatic impact on this and expected to cause a 33 percent decline in snow sports, a 15 percent decline in big game hunting and a 33 percent drop in angler days.

Adapting to climate change

Certain outdoor recreation companies are better positioned than others to adapt to climate change. For example, product companies can diversify their product lines, such as reducing their dependence on cold-weather products. Columbia Sportswear, a leading outdoor apparel company, recently acquired PrAna, a yoga and climbing apparel company. Newell Rubbermaid recently floated the idea of selling off winter sports brands that it acquired with Jarden this year.

Similarly, ski resorts are making investments to attract visitors year round. For example, Big Sky Resorts in Montana made investments in warm weather activities such as bike trails and zip lines. Last year, summer revenue was up 10 percent.

Mitigating impact

When it comes to climate change, adaption is not the only thing product companies and resorts can do; they also can take a leadership role to help mitigate it. This means reducing impact across their supply chains — from the sourcing of materials to selling products at retail.

One way to do so is by having more companies adopt the Higgs Indexto guide internal decision-making and vendor selection. Another way is by encouraging more companies to switch to renewable energy to power their facilities.

Climate action should not just be limited to operational decisions. Climate leadership also means being more transparent with consumers. One way to do so is by transforming the Higgs Index into a consumer-facing label in order to allow consumers to make their preferences known with their wallets.

While product manufacturers and resorts are positioned to take action, other types of businesses such as fishing outfitters and guides are in more precarious positions, as their prosperity is highly dependent on the health of local rivers.

While product manufacturers and resorts are positioned to take action, other types of businesses such as fishing outfitters and guides are in more precarious positions.

Last summer, for example, many of Montana’s rivers were subject to “hoot-owl” fishing restrictions from afternoon until midnight when higher-than-normal heat put excessive stress on cold water fish. Those that remained open ended up overcrowded with anglers.  

Worse, climate change is impacting the aquatic habitats where Montana’s prized trout live. As temperatures rise, warm water fish such as the smallmouth bass are moving upstream into higher elevations, encroaching upon trout that thrive in colder headwaters.

Dan Vermillion, chairman of the Montana Fish, Wildlife & Parks Commission and owner of a local fly fishing guide company, reported that smallmouth were being caught along stretches of the Yellowstone River which were 1,000 feet higher in elevation than previously recorded. Last summer, a parasite caused a massive fish kill in the Yellowstone. The primary reasons for the outbreak: “near-record low [water] flows and warm water temperatures.”

Today, many anglers still attribute poor river conditions to bad luck, rather than a changing environment. Climate change awareness is growing, however, as occurrences happen more frequently. As it does, outdoor destinations will end up with fewer customers as visitors shift their travel plans elsewhere.

Certainly, local actions can mitigate some impacts from climate change. In fact, the Northern Adaptation Partnership, a collaborative effort that includes 16 National Forests and three National Parks across Montana, Idaho and Wyoming, has created a comprehensive plan (PDF) to do just that. Mitigation efforts along local streams include restoring floodplains, reducing habitat fragmentation and increasing tree shade adjacent to streams. 

Educating consumers

Despite these efforts, most fishing outfitters and guides will remain largely dependent on local conditions for their livelihood, and have limited ways to mitigate the impact. One thing that outfitters can do is to educate their customers as to how climate change is affecting local ecosystems. In fact, such efforts could be quite effective, as studies suggest that “perceived personal experiences” with climate change have a greater influence on consumer attitudes than even previously held beliefs.  

Of course, some may see such a move as risky as it might discourage some visitors from returning. But, it is equally probable that it will prompt more people to visit places such as Montana before outdoor conditions get decidedly worse.

–Originally published on Greenbiz, 2016

For the tourism industry, there’s no vacation from climate change

Vacations are supposed to be spent in paradise — on sun-kissed beaches with palm trees gently swaying overhead and clear blue waters that extend to the horizon. This is a narrative (PDF) that many tourists have come to believe — and that industry marketers have nurtured in their advertising.

But climate change is making it harder for resort owners and tour operators to make good on this promise. Climate change is having more of an impact on tourist destinations by eroding beaches and bleaching coral reefs. Mountain destinations are not immune either, as a warming climate melts glaciers and snow pack.

The latest bleaching of the Great Barrier Reef has again brought to the forefront the growing impact of climate change on tourist destinations. According to the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority, warmer than usual waters have caused bleaching (PDF) along much of the reef, and have killed nearly a quarter of its coral.

Such an extreme event not only degrades the reef, but can lead to the collapse of the ecosystem as fish and other aquatic life forms move on to find other sources of food and shelter. Making matters worse, these events are expected to occur more frequently going forward, which will leave less time for the reef to recover between events.

This type of climate impact can be devastating for the local economy, too. The Great Barrier Reef directly supports69,000 jobs in reef tourism and fishing, and contributes more than AUS $6 billion to the Australian economy each year. The reef is also a national treasure of Australia and the reason that many tourists travel to this far-off continent in the first place.

Over the last 40 years there have been eight significant coral bleaching events on the Great Barrier Reef caused by higher than normal water temperatures. Historically, the Australian tourism industry has tiptoed lightly around the issue of climate change. While many tour operators have borne witness to past bleaching events, they have hesitated to raise their concerns with sympathetic politicians or the press, fearing that any negative publicity would scare away tourists — and profits — in the near term.

It is not surprising then that with the latest bleaching event, the local tourism industry association in Queensland immediately sought to downplay the impact. The Australian government went one step further and had the United Nations actually remove a chapter from the U.N.’s latest climate change report that discussed impact to the reef.

Faced with the worst bleaching on record, tour operators found themselves with few viable options. They could simply ignore it and continue to market to tourists as if nothing had happened. In fact, studies suggest that some tourists would not even notice that conditions materially had changed because they do not have the context to know otherwise. For them, diving on a less-than-pristine reef would be fine as long as conditions exceeded a minimum threshold for seeing fish and other aquatic life.

Alternatively, tour operators could try to adapt to their new reality. For example, they could shift dives to deeper waters that tend to remain cooler and less susceptible to bleaching. But, adaption may be only a temporary solution at best, as bleaching is expected to become an annual occurrence by 2030 without a significant global reduction in carbon emissions.

Organize to fight an existential threat

This time, with the bleaching too devastating and the industry outlook too grim, tour operators were compelled to take a stand. Climate change had become an “existential threat” to the reef and to their livelihood. Instead of remaining silent as they had done in the past, 175 tour operators banded together to urge governmental action to address the underlying cause of the bleaching: greenhouse gases emissions warming the planet.

Coral bleaching and mortality is expected to be widespread across the globe this year, leaving fewer pristine reefs to choose from.

Tour operators did not just go public with their concerns; they took an aggressive stance against one of Australia’s other leading industries, big coal. They demanded that the government withhold financing and investment support for the proposed Carmichael coal mine, which, if opened, would be the largest coal mine in Australia. They also demanded that new coal mines be disallowed. As Australia is the third largest coal producing country in the world, these demands provide a direct challenge to the status quo and a competing vision for the future.

While it is too early to know how successful these tour operators will be in halting new coal mines from opening, such collective action marks an important step forward in the fight for the long-term survival of the reef.

Reframe the prevailing narrative

While tour operators feel embolden to take on big coal, there is little to suggest that they are ready to challenge the status quo with tourists. Today, many tourists favor vacation destinations that are picture perfect (PDF). Climate change, however, makes it increasingly difficult for tour operators to meet such lofty expectations.

The recent bleaching is a great example. In response, local tourism officials have sought to downplay negative news about the reef. But press coverage already has been so widespread that this would be nearly impossible to do.

Moreover, returning travelers are sharing stories with prospective travelers on social media and travel sites such as Trip Advisor. The upcoming premiere of Disney’s “Finding Dory,” the long-awaited sequel to “Finding Nemo,” inevitably will invite the press to draw comparison between the vibrant Great Barrier Reef portrayed in these movies and the existing state of the reef today.

Potential bleaching and mortality across global oceans in 2016.

Alert Level 1 means bleaching is likely; Alert level 2 means mortality likely; NOAA Coral Reef Watch, February-May 2016.

 

Given all of this, the best response by the tourist industry may be to have a direct and open conversation with prospective tourists about the conditions on the reef, while stressing the importance and excitement of seeing it even if it is still recovering from the bleaching. As part of this exchange, the industry also can start to change the prevailing narrative about what makes a perfect vacation. Conditions may not be pristine on the reef, but seeing an adaptive environment — recovering from the effects of a climate change event — is still worth the experience.

Tour operators may be concerned that such an honest conversation simply will motivate tourists to book a dive vacation elsewhere. Sadly, the bleaching of this reef is not an isolated phenomenon. Coral bleaching and mortality is expected to be widespread across the globe this year, leaving fewer pristine reefs to choose from.

An honest dialogue may be the best way to attract tourists to the reef, while at the same time start to unwind the prevailing narrative that the best vacation destinations have to be picture perfect.

–Originally published on Greenbiz, 2016

Why physicians are on the front lines of climate change care

In today’s polarized society, Americans trust few sources for information on climate change. One trusted source is physicians.

In fact, according to a joint study (PDF) conducted by the Yale Project on Climate Change Communication and the George Mason University Center for Climate Change Communication, primary care physicians are the most trusted source for information on climate change issues related to health.

Moreover, this trust is largely consistent across all consumer segments regardless of current beliefs and attitudes toward climate change. This puts physicians in a unique position in society today to influence such sentiments.

Climate change is already having an impact on human health through extreme heat and weather events. It is also exacerbating pre-existing conditions such as asthma and allergies. This is especially true on days when conditions such as high ozone levels or pollen counts make symptoms worse.

Ozone pollution worsens as daily temperatures increase

This impact on human health differs by region based on local climate conditions. For example, the ragweed pollen season has lengthened by nearly three weeks in the Upper Midwest, no doubt exacerbating symptoms for allergy sufferers there.

Such impact on human health also has a cost: A recent study (PDF) estimates that health-related costs associated with climate change were $14 billion between 2002 and 2009. Without aggressive mitigation efforts, costs are expected to climb further and could reach $14 billion per year by 2020.

As this public health risk increases from climate change, physicians will find themselves on the front lines of patient care for those that are affected by it. As such, there is a growing role for physicians to play in and out of the exam room.

Two good first steps

Political advocacy

Certainly, physicians can advocate for policy change — as individual practitioners or collectively through professional associations such as the American Medical Association and the Global Climate Health Alliance.

While climate change is a politicized issue, it is “easier for a policy maker to pay attention to climate change when it is positioned as a health issue,” said Cindy Parker, assistant professor of environmental health sciences at the Bloomberg School of Public Health at Johns Hopkins University.

Indeed, physician advocacy is having an impact on policy makers, as evidenced by the first Summit on Public Health and Climate Change at the White House last year.

Leading by example

Some suggest that physicians lead by example: by greening their office; switching to renewables, or promoting recycling. This enables physicians to communicate a “lifestyle message” to their patients, according to Parker. This includes posting signs or distributing reading materials and pamphlets in the waiting room about how climate change could affect their health and what they can do about it.

Physician-patient dialogue could improve patient outcomes

Patient care

While some physicians might be reluctant to take a public stance on climate change, most physicians will have to consider its implications when it comes to patient care. Already a growing chorus of physicians is calling for more direct dialogue with patients about the health risks associated with climate change. By doing so, physicians hope to promote better disease management and prevention.

Emerging model for physician-patient dialogue promote patient care

Emerging human behavioral models focused on adaptation to climate change suggest that physician-patient dialogue could have a discernable impact on patient outcomes.

Change in ragweed pollen season, 1995-2013

An essential first step is that patients need to be aware that climate change impacts human health. As a recent study points out that while many Americans have “a general sense that global warming can be harmful to health, relatively few understand the types of harm it causes or who is most likely to be affected.”

As such, physicians can play an essential role in ensuring that patients — especially those most at risk — have a cognitive understanding of this connection.

Yet, awareness in of itself is likely not enough for people to take action to minimize personal health risks. In a study (PDF) about human behavior in response to extreme weather, Sander van der Linden, director of the social and environmental decision-making lab at Princeton University, demonstrates that personal experiences can motivate adaptive behavior change.

But to do so, personal experiences not only must be associated with a perception of risk but also negative feelings toward that risk.

“Personal concern can be harnessed into a vehicle for positive change,” said van der Linden, when combined with “adaptive knowledge” regarding what to do about it.

This study has applicability to physicians when communicating with patients about climate change-related health risks. As trusted authority figures, physicians can validate what their patients are already experiencing (allergy seasons are growing longer; summer heat waves are becoming more severe).

By doing so, physicians can help patients connect personal experiences with greater health risks. When coupled with suggested ways to reduce these risks, patients may feel more empowered to take action.

Climate change is already having an adverse effect on human health. There is a growing role for physicians to engage with policy makers and patients to promote better patient outcomes. With the allergy season fast approaching, there is no better time for action.

— Originally published on Greenbiz, 2016

Can Hollywood save us from climate catastrophe?

By taking on the link between football and brain injuries, the recently released movie “Concussion” reminds us of the potential for Hollywood to shape attitudes and beliefs about controversial topics through entertainment.

The film has put America’s most popular sport under a microscope and sparked a dialogue about children participating in contact sports and the role of the National Football League in preventing injuries to its players.

Certainly, there is the potential for a similar movie to be made about climate change — one that builds on “An Inconvenient Truth” and speaks to a new generation.

Perhaps it’s a film about a whistleblower who stands up to oil company executives, who have known since the 1970s that burning fossil fuels contributes to global warming. Such a movie would confront head-on the impact that our car culture is having on global warming.

But movie dramas that directly tackle a controversial topic might not actually be the best way to appeal to a broader audience. While lackluster box office receipts for “Concussion” simply might reflect a crowded field, it also may reflect a public reticent to confront a controversy that taints a beloved sport, especially one so core to our identity as Americans.

Apocalypse now

While a similar claim could be made about “An Inconvenient Truth,” this may not be a universal truth about climate change movies in general.  In fact, one could argue that Hollywood has had more success in tackling climate change as an apocalyptic or post-apocalyptic story.

“The Day After Tomorrow,” a movie where ice sheet melting shuts down thermohaline circulation in the oceans, resulting in the rapid onset of a new ice age, was the No. 9 highest-grossing disaster movie of all time. “Waterworld,” where humanity is forced to live on water when melting ice caps raise sea levels high enough to flood all land, was the 11th highest grossing “post-apocalypse” movie (adjusted for 2015 dollars).

Such movies are not made without criticism, given the artistic license taken to tell such doomsday stories.

With a public that holds views on climate change that largely align with political affiliation, Hollywood might offer a rare opportunity to cut across these lines with a message that is both entertaining and eye-opening.

Some from the scientific community argue that interjecting Hollywood into the climate debate may be a bad thing, as it could further blur the lines between fact and fiction, especially with a public that remains skeptical of science.

But, with a public that holds views on climate change that largely align with political affiliation, Hollywood might offer a rare opportunity to cut across these lines with a message that is both entertaining and eye-opening. Indeed, there is already evidence that movies such as “The Day After Tomorrow” can change consumer attitudes and beliefs about climate change.

According to a study (PDF) conducted by Anthony Leiserowitz at the Yale Program on Climate Change Communications, viewing “The Day After Tomorrow” increased movie watcher “concern” and “worry” over climate change. Not only did movie watchers say they were more likely to purchase a fuel efficient car and share their concerns with politicians, but they were also more willing to talk about global warming with their friends and family, reflecting the increased importance that movie watchers placed on this issue.

Flipping the script

Given the past financial success of such doomsday stories, one might think that moviemakers would be clamoring for new scripts. Today, there is increasing awareness of climate change impact among Americans, especially given the extreme weather events occurring across the U.S. as a result of a usually strong El Niño this year.

This type of script would be especially appealing to Millennials, who are especially passionate about this issue and remain a coveted target audience for studios.

As scientists learn more about the potential impacts of climate change, more stories are emerging that easily could be spun to read like nightmarish sci-fi movies. Here are a few examples:

• Ancient bacteria brought back to life as glacier ice melts cause pandemic
• Global food stocks collapse from widespread drought, ocean acidification that dissolves shellfish and the spread of neurotoxins in fish, unraveling social order and leading to war, or worse, nuclear confrontation
• Rising temperatures shut down photosynthesis by phytoplankton, the source of most breathable oxygen on earth, suffocating all life

In the “Terminator” movies, Arnold Schwarzenegger saved humankind from apocalypse by traveling back in time to change the course of human history before it was too late.

Perhaps when it comes to climate change, Hollywood can inspire humanity to save itself the first time around so it doesn’t have to rely on time travel as a last-ditch effort.

— Originally published on Greenbiz, 2016