We can write as much as we want about climate change. But people are not convinced, and policy does not follow. Here is why.

1. Public opinion influences public policy

It is intuitive – public opinion does influence public policy. Changes in public preferences and attitudes lead to changes in policies, especially on salient issues. Climate change is, obviously, a salient issue.

2. Public opinion is divided on climate change

But where is the public opinion on climate change? The inconclusive results from World Public Opinion show a wide gap in public perception of the priority of climate change in public policy. More granular data for the European Union also shows substantial disparities in public attitudes towards climate change. This is especially detrimental to climate policy, given the need for global policy output.

3. The obstacles to a meaningful and useful debate

There are many obstacles that impede a single-handed approach to debating climate change:

3.1. Some limitations of human psychology

We are not abstract phenomena, but rather representatives of a biological species. As such, our decision-making abilities are bounded. Tversky and Kahneman have shown that the framing of questions in decision-making can significantly alter the outcome. There are also other features of the human cognition that may lead to errors of intuitive judgment and affective evaluation.

3.2. What climate risk?

Apart from the intrinsic psychological difficulties of assessing climate change, the characteristics of the climate risk itself make it really difficult for an assessment. Climate risk is a multilayered risk, which poses tiered policy choices, for which the question is not just whether to regulate, but how to respond to derivative risks arising from the first set of regulatory changes. This makes it extremely difficult for the public and policymakers to design a way forward.

3.3. The media (unintentionally) misleads

One of the important issues in the (lack of) public debate on climate change is the multitude of distortions of relevant information by the media. Indeed, climate change reporting can contribute to a progressive loosening of the stark division between nature and society that has dominated contemporary representations.

3.4. Educating the public alone will not do it

Contrary to some widespread beliefs, it is not enough to educate the public in order to shift attitudes on climate change. Some research in the US shows that being more informed about climate change or having more confidence in science in general actually leads to less concern for the risks of global warming. In opposite direction, data from the EU shows that increased public awareness does correlate positively with attitude and taking personal action.

4. A framework for enhanced debate

Any debate on climate change must be both honest and open to begin with. Some of the essential elements of such a debate can be the following:

a. A framework of local civil society forums can provide alternative linkages created in civil society and address limitations of trans-governmental institutions;

b. Niche media can be used/created to inform various societal strata and networks;

c. Multidisciplinary task forces can be created in local communities to assess both aspects of mitigation and adaptation to climate change on a local level, communicating the results in an open forum;

d. An underlying objective for a comprehensive debate centered on the environment, and considering systemic linkages, should be pursued;

e. Ethical issues should also be integrated in the debate.

5. It’s the environment, stupid!

There is conclusive research that attitude towards climate change is dependent on more general beliefs and world views. That is why a values reframing process is instrumental to public support for climate policy. A reframing of values suggests that we need to help generate politics sensitive to ecological values and a communal life more in tune with a biocentric consciousness.