Understanding public complacency about climate change: adults’ mental models of climate change violate conservation of matter

• Published in: Climatic change Vol. 80; no. 3-4; pp. 213 - 238
• Main Authors: Sterman, John D., Sweeney, Linda Booth
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Dordrecht Springer 01.02.2007; Springer Nature B.V
• Subjects: Anthropogenic factors; Applied sciences; Atmosphere; Atmospheric pollution; Attitudes; Climate change; Climate change models; Climatology. Bioclimatology. Climate change; Earth, ocean, space; Emission standards; Emissions; Emissions control; Environmental impact; Environmental protection; Exact sciences and technology; External geophysics; Greenhouse effect; Greenhouse gases; International agreements; Meteorology; Overflow; Pollution; Prevention and purification methods; Public opinion; Public policy; Sea level; United States > US; Attitude; Pollution control; Risk perception; Comprehension; troposphere; Information dissemination; Overflow; greenhouse gas; Dynamical climatology; human ecology; climate modification; global change; warming; Air pollution; Pollution abatement; Public opinion; Anthropogenic factor
• DOI: 10.1007/s10584-006-9107-5
• ISSN: 0165-0009

Public attitudes about climate change reveal a contradiction. Surveys show most Americans believe climate change poses serious risks but also that reductions in greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions sufficient to stabilize atmospheric GHG concentrations can be deferred until there is greater evidence that climate change is harmful. US policymakers likewise argue it is prudent to wait and see whether climate change will cause substantial economic harm before undertaking policies to reduce emissions. Such wait-and-see policies erroneously presume climate change can be reversed quickly should harm become evident, underestimating substantial delays in the climate's response to anthropogenic forcing. We report experiments with highly educated adults - graduate students at MIT - showing widespread misunderstanding of the fundamental stock and flow relationships, including mass balance principles, that lead to long response delays. GHG emissions are now about twice the rate of GHG removal from the atmosphere. GHG concentrations will therefore continue to rise even if emissions fall, stabilizing only when emissions equal removal. In contrast, most subjects believe atmospheric GHG concentrations can be stabilized while emissions into the atmosphere continuously exceed the removal of GHGs from it. These beliefs - analogous to arguing a bathtub filled faster than it drains will never overflow - support wait-and-see policies but violate conservation of matter. Low public support for mitigation policies may arise from misconceptions of climate dynamics rather than high discount rates or uncertainty about the impact of climate change. Implications for education and communication between scientists and nonscientists (the public and policymakers) are discussed. [PUBLICATION ABSTRACT]