A Rally to Stand Up For Science

The X-Factor in Climate Solutions

As a kid growing up on Long Island in the 50’s and 60’s, my hero was the star of the New York Yankee, Mickey Mantle. He was well-known as a batter who would, “swing for the fences,” which means that he tried to hit it out-of-the-park, a home run, with nearly every at bat. He had a powerful and impressive swing that too often missed making contact with the ball and, as a result, he struck out more than most. This is colloquially known as whiffing.

This piece describes a way to alter the awful trajectory of global warming. A climate home run that could easily end as a big whiff. But first, some context for this mighty swing.

In mathematics, x is the universal symbol for a variable, or unknown quantity, in an equation. I have been to conferences on climate change where a range of solutions are described and their impacts assessed while personal behaviors are presented with a question mark, as the effect of individual actions cannot easily be factored into the models — they are an x-factor. There is no question that systemic changes from governments and industries are needed to reverse global warming but I believe that the engagement and activism of individuals are the catalyst — the x-factor — needed to generate and accelerate those changes.

The importance of individual actions has generally been overlooked or minimized. At some point, environmentally-minded folks realized that no matter how many incandescent lightbulbs they replaced or how diligently they recycled their trash, the heating of the planet would continue unabated. When faced with an large problem about which the individual has little control, it’s human nature to put the problem on a mental back-burner. What’s to be gained from stressing about an overwhelming problem that you can’t do anything to fix? Better just to move onto something else.

However, people are more likely to engage with a problem when their actions are seen as meaningful — which I believe they are. Psychologists refer to this as self-efficacy. When people believe that they have some measure of control over the events in their lives, their level of stress decreases and effective behaviors increase.

In addition to changing the supplies of energy from fossil fuels to renewables, behavioral changes are needed to reduce the demand — and that’s where the actions of individuals and communities make a difference. The focus of most climate activism has been on the industries that generate the carbon pollution and the governmental policies that regulate those industries; however, a reduction of emissions can also be achieved by consumers making different choices. A recent report of the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP, Emissions Gap Report 2020) cited two studies estimating that household consumption accounts for more than two-thirds of greenhouse gas emissions.

One small example: every year, millions of acres of irreplaceable virgin forest are clear cut to make toilet paper for Americans, while only 2% of the toilet paper flushed down toilets are made from recycled paper or fast-growing bamboo. In addition, the production of toilet paper from recycled paper uses much less energy than manufacturing from trees. If most consumers bought only recycled toilet paper it would change the practices of the logging industry and spare forests that sequester carbon.

Until politicians find that their jobs are at stake from a constituency alarmed about climate change, most will bow to the interests of those financing their campaigns. And, similarly, many of the industries and corporations responsible for greenhouse gas emissions will favor the interests of shareholders and the bottom lines of their executives unless the purchasing decisions of consumers force them to change their practices.

Given the current trajectory of global warming, drastic and immediate reductions in emissions are needed from all quarters — polluters and regulators, but also consumers and community leaders. It’s not helpful to debate which is more important; it’s not either/or but both/and. All-hands-on-deck are needed to put out the raging fires.

The Partisan Divide

Sadly; we can’t rally public support for this transition when roughly half the population just doesn’t get it. Climate change is among the most politically divisive issues in America, as there’s a strong correlation between one’s identity as a conservative Republican and skepticism about the causes of extreme weather events.

This is glaringly apparent during election cycles. Despite Trump’s staggering ignorance about the causes of climate change, which exceeds that of a typical middle-schooler, he got over 74 million votes in 2020 and is currently the frontrunner for the Republican nomination. In addition, Members of Congress (mostly, but not exclusively Republican) have ignored or denied the problem for decades without electoral consequences when running for re-election. Clearly, large segments of the American electorate do not grasp the urgency, and action on climate change is a low priority for many when voting.

There has been a measure of hope with the passage of the Inflation Reduction Act and the Bipartisan Infrastructure Bill but we are also seeing a serious backlash. A recent report from the Sabin Center for Climate Change Law found that, in nearly every state, local governments have enacted laws to block renewable energy projects causing delays or cancellations. In total, they found that 293 renewable energy projects have encountered significant opposition in 45 states — a significant increase as compared with the previous year. There has also been significant pushback against Wall Street firms and pension funds that take climate impacts into account (ESG investing) and dozens of bills have been filed in Republican-controlled state legislatures aiming to free fossil fuel industries from climate constraints. The MAGA-wing in the House of Representatives has tried to roll back climate elements of the Inflation Reduction Act while insuring that the fossil fuel industry continues to benefit from federal subsidies and legislative support.

There has even been an increasingly angry response to climate messengers. A well-respected TV weatherman in the Midwest recently quit his job because of the harassment and threats that followed his linking of climate change to extreme weather.

The upshot is that progress in reversing climate change will not happen at the scale and speed necessary until we convince all (or nearly all) of the American public that the problem is real, an immediate threat to them and their families, and necessary for the future well-being of our nation and the planet. Furthermore, all citizens should assume some responsibility for, and a role in, solutions.

“Public sentiment is everything. With it, nothing can fail; against it, nothing can succeed.” — Abraham Lincoln

What would it take for climate change to become the highest priority for a much larger percentage of the American population?

Obviously there have been numerous efforts to do just that, including a plethora of excellent documentaries, TV programs and articles; however, many won’t pay to see a documentary, watch a TV program, or read an article on the topic. In addition, social media has fostered the creation of information echo chambers wherein people are exposed exclusively to messages that conform to their currently held views. As a result, efforts to communicate the inconvenient truth of global warming have largely been preaching to the choir. The challenge, as I see it, is to burst the bubbles of complacency and denial and get beyond the choir.

How do we change the hearts and minds of those who are disinclined to care or even consider climate change? How do we engage those who are concerned but passive and persuade them to become more active in advocating for political action and incorporating climate solutions in their daily lives?

The phrase “hearts and minds” was used in regards to American efforts to convince the Vietnamese that American democracy was preferable to the communism of Ho Chi Min — and we know how well that worked out.

I am not underestimating the challenge.

A Path Forward: Messaging That Works

The Yale Program on Climate Change Communication found that scientific consensus about human-caused climate change can act as a “gateway belief” that changes opinions among the skeptical. An article in the peer-reviewed journal, Environment and Behavior (October 2022), described a study where Americans, with a range of prior beliefs about climate change, were delivered the message that 97% of scientists agree that global warming is happening. After exposure to that message, many of the participants in the study updated their beliefs and showed a greater level of concern. The largest percentage of change was in those who were previously doubtful or dismissive. The study also looked at whether those changes in attitude persisted over time and, again, found that the changes were most long-lasting in the previously skeptical subjects.

More clues about effective climate messaging has come from the Potential Energy Coalition (PEC). The goals of that organization, founded by Dartmouth professor and marketing professional John Marshall, are to change the narrative on climate change and use the creative talents and sophisticated analytical tools of marketing professionals to dramatically expand the number of citizens demanding action. One of their projects, Science Moms, targets a key demographic of suburban mothers with videos featuring women climate scientists. This campaign was successful in shifting attitudes among women in the states where it was tested.

The studies performed by PEC have also found that: 1) More people are noticing the increasing frequency and intensity of extreme weather events, especially when it affects them personally, but many do not attribute those events to climate change. They need help in “connecting the dots.” 2) The public responds better when the person giving the message is someone “like them,” a person with a story they can relate to. 3) A focus on present threats and conditions is more effective as compared with describing what could happen in the future. 4) The best way to “sell” renewable energy is not that it’s cheap (even though it is) but that it is abundant and limitless and will provide independence and resilience, and 5) Consistent with the study from the Yale Program, science and scientists are still held in high regard.

The psychology of climate change communication is clear on one other factor: the first and critical step in climate communications is to find values and interests that are shared. It strikes me that there are two interests held by nearly everyone, no matter their political preferences: videos (i.e., movies and, increasingly, short-form videos on social media) and music.

A Rally to Stand Up for Science

The scope and ramifications of the climate crisis are numerous, complex and huge in scope but nearly matched by the challenges inherent in the task of decarbonization and the obstacles generated by vested interests. This will require something really big — and that’s what I’m proposing here.

All the elements that of this proposal are feasible and many already exist — they just need some modification and to be supersized. We don’t have time to waste and need to “just do it.” So here goes……

Scientists are telling us that we need to move faster to transition away from fossil fuels, and others such as newscasters and politicians often make reference to what, “scientists are telling us,” but the public rarely sees or hears from scientists themselves. Trust comes through personal connections and, I think it is safe to say, very few Americans have met a climate scientist. But there are other ways to develop a sense of connection with others — the creative arts do this all the time in movies and books. Scientists have already appeared on TV or other places but it’s too easy to dismiss the voice of a single individual but, as the expression goes, there’s strength in numbers.While articles in print and newscasters on TV have reported for years that there is scientific consensus about climate change, it’s now apparent that we need to show that consensus.

I’m picturing this: A call goes out to every reputable scientific organization and academic institution for a rally on the steps of the Capitol of scientists whose area of expertise is impacted by climate change. Tens (maybe hundreds?) of thousands of scientists respond and attend. While those numbers might seem excessive, consider this: the annual convention of the American Geophysical Union has attracted over 25,000 scientists and the American Association for the Advancement of Science has over 120,000 members. The thousands of scientists who work for NASA, NOAA, DOE and the EPA could attend, as well as science educators in academic institutions and secondary schools.

We can anticipate efforts by right-wing voices to dismiss the credibility of the participants, so precautions should be taken to assure that attendees are scientists with a graduate degree in a field of study that is impacted by climate change or, alternatively, teachers, also with graduate degrees, of environmental science.

I’ve been to large rallies but what I’m imagining here is different. The size of the crowd will be similarly large but the presentations at the rally should be less like a protest march and more of an event, a production, like the Oscars — but without the boring acceptance speeches. The content of the presentations will mostly be geared to the politicians working in the Capital and the public watching at home (or later on recordings).

Large screens should be set up — as they are at arena concerts — for broadcasting the speeches and videos. The speakers should be selected, not for their status and reputation within the scientific community but for their skills as public speakers and with an appearance and personal manner that the public can identify with. The speeches should be personal stories rather than explanations of the science. What were their feelings when they realized the real-world ramifications of the data they were collecting? How confidant are they that severe weather events are due to human actions? What are their reactions when an extreme weather event causes loss of lives and destruction to homes and communities? What are their worst fears? What are they hoping to see from Congress? How do they respond when their scientific findings are doubted by nonscientists? How they respond to the accusation that they are biased by politics or only in it for the money? What are their conversations with their peers like?

The experts in climate communication should have a hand in directing the scientists’ speeches for maximum effectiveness. The thousands of other scientists at the rally, and those who couldn’t attend, could be encouraged to tell their own stories — which is easy to do with any smart phone — and these can be uploaded to a dedicated website and made available to the public as an element of an ongoing public education campaign.

The statements by scientists should be interspersed with short, professionally created videos that highlight key issues, such as: the basic science of the greenhouse effect, the ways in which global warming is impacting other parts of the the world, promising solutions, and examples of Americans communities successfully transitioning away from fossil fuels. Much of this content already exists in documentaries and TV programs but might need to be edited to fit the rally’s purposes. The videos should also tell stories of Americans from various locations and circumstances around the country whose lives are being impacted by climate change. The rally will, hopefully, be broadcast on channels, both streaming and cable.

Studies on the psychology of climate change communications have found that messages about the catastrophic consequences of global warming are not effective in generating changes in attitude. These are often dismissed as overly alarmist. However, when presented in isolation, these warnings are akin to setting off a fire alarm in a building where the occupants don’t know how to exit and aren’t even certain that leaving the building is possible. In my opinion, the dark reality of a future with unchecked global warming needs to be starkly presented but without heightened emotion and paired with messages of hope and concrete suggestions for realistic actions that can be taken in response.

But that’s not all…

A Live Aid for Climate

In conjunction with the rally of scientists at the Capitol, there will be a Stand Up For Science rally of citizen supporters at the other end of the mall.

We need to create an event that will attract the attention of broad swaths of the public; those who are disengaged or doubtful, as well as those who are concerned but don’t know what to do with those feelings. I can think of only one way to gather a massive audience for this purpose — live music. The primary goal of this rally will be to engage the public, all of the “Six Americas,” as active participants in climate solutions and the most effective means for engaging masses of people is live music.

Many of our target audience will not tune into a broadcast with a climate theme but likely will if their favorite bands are performing. This would also ensure that the event gets the appropriate level of TV coverage. The musical performances would be interspersed with the climate-themed videos.

There is track record of musical performers using their platforms for worthy causes. The first might have been George Harrison’s Concert for Bangladesh in 1971 and the largest, the multi-venue Live Aid concerts in 1985. The Live Aid concerts in London and Philadelphia were live-streamed and nearly 40 percent of the world’s population watched. These performances was for the benefit of children starving in Ethiopia, a worthy cause, but one that pales in comparison with the climate emergency. Live Aid was started by Bob Geldorf, the leader of a relatively unknown band who evidently had enough connections and persuasiveness to enlist the top music performers of that era.

Those concerts were organized to raise money for worthy causes but other concerts, such No Nukes, was more focused on raising awareness. Farm Aid concerts, which still happen annually, do both. The selection of musical acts for this climate rally should, in part, reflect the musical tastes of those hard-to-reach segments of the population.

There are many popular and talented musicians who understand the dangers posed by climate change and would like to do something about it. This would be their chance. This is already being done by some terrific bands through the Music Climate Revolution, a project of the nonprofit organization Reverb.org started by a member of Guster, Adam Gardner, and his environmental activist wife, Lauren Sullivan. Reverb helps bands organize concerts that are environmentally sustainable and carbon-neutral while outside the concert stage, an Eco-Village encourages attendees to take climate actions, donate to environmental organizations, and register to vote.

We need a set of performers that appeal to the widest possible audience and someone, or group of someones, would need to step up and do what Bob Geldorf did.

The Climate Message

The focus of the rally needs to be on climate solutions, such as those identified by Project Drawdown. For many in our target audience, climate change has already been negatively branded as only a concern to those on the left, an extension of an environmental movement that favors preserving obscure animals over people, a hoax created for the purpose of increasing governmental regulations and expanding the federal bureaucracy, and leading to higher taxes and loss of jobs.

The campaign could re-brand this issue with themes that cut across the partisan divide and promotes values that are shared by most Americans. The solutions to the climate crisis will, at the same time, help Americans to: slow down the pace of daily life; preserve forests, waters and wildlife; increase health and prevent the spread of diseases; make us energy independent while providing insurance against future risks; enhance the vitality of local communities and farmers; and keep children safe while preserving the Earth as God intended.

Attention also needs to be paid to nature-based solutions and the importance of, what’s termed these days, re-wilding. This is another issue about which individuals have little control, except to advocate for governmental policies and support charitable organizations that protect forests, oceans and coastal areas, peatlands, healthy use of farms lands, and greening of urban areas. This is a topic about which much can be learned from indigenous populations.

The single most important action would be to remove from office every politician, at all levels of government, with a record of denying or ignoring the problem. The scorecard published by the League of Conservation Voters is very helpful in this regard.

In addition to political action, the rally could suggest actions that individuals might take to reduce their household’s carbon footprint. This would be a good opportunity to describe the incentives provided in the Inflation Reduction Act and the benefits of electrification of households.

Many of the actions needed to address climate change are not political or individual, but local and community. Republicans have branded climate solutions as a political excuse for expanding the power of federal bureaucracy but many climate solutions are best managed at a local level, as the differences among communities, even within the same states, make it difficult for governments to dictate a one-size-fits-all approach to reducing carbon. This applies to actions such as meeting local transportation needs, car-pooling and ride-sharing, community gardens, recycling and composting, solar panels on public buildings, micro-grids for neighborhoods, eliminating disposable plastics, reducing food waste, planting of trees, farmer’s markets and support for area farmers, co-housing, and more. Community organizations could coordinate conversations, as good things happen when groups of like-minded people start talking and thinking about a problem. The rally could try to facilitate connections with participants from the same region of the country and provide suggestions for projects.

I believe the time is ripe for a change of heart in many who have been doubtful or disengaged. The fires and droughts in the west. The intense hurricanes, tornadoes and floods throughout the southeast and midwest. The smoke from fires in Canada, California and the Northwest. The intense heat waves. These have surely caused many to reconsider their previously cautious or skeptical attitudes on climate change.

Is This Possible?

Of course it is! I think the question is not whether or not this is possible but would it have the desired impact? Many of the smartest, skilled, creative, and wealthiest people in the country share my feelings of anxiety, despair, and anger about a future of unchecked global warming.

I believe that if it’s done well, if it’s really big, if it attracts a massive audience, if the most popular bands in a range of musical genres agree to perform; if talented movie directors, editors and videographers create short but powerful movies — — it can make a difference.

Currently, the energy and resources of the environmental community are fragmented among hundreds of dedicated organizations. What’s needed is for them to pool their energies for a common goal. This could be that goal.

And, of course, we would need those with the financial resources to fund the event, whether that be individuals (Gates, Bloomberg, Musk) or corporations (Apple, Google, Microsoft, Meta). Given the negative findings (much of it deserved) about the negative impacts that technology has had on our society, I believe that the tech billionaires and incredibly wealthy corporations owe it to the world to generously fund this event. The offsets should include the purchase of verifiable offsets for the carbon footprint of the rally itself and the attendees getting to it.

Jump-Starting a Campaign

Rallies tend to be a flash-in-the-pan. I’ve been to some very large marches, such as the DC rally against the Iraq War and the NYC Climate March, and felt energized by the spirit of the experience but disappointed afterwards by the lack of subsequent attention in the media and long-lasting impact.

This needs to be different, and it can be. Teams of videographers would be employed to film the proceedings and the voices of those attending. These, combined with the videos uploaded by scientists around the country, could be edited and placed as ads on TV and social media as part of a public-education campaign that would extend the message of the rally well beyond the day of the event.

There are a number of causes that progressives care deeply about; abortion rights, social justice, campaign finance, wealth inequality, voting rights, gun control, and more. I believe that climate change needs to take precedence because, as has been said, “if we don’t fix this nothing else will matter.” The literal rising tide of global warming will not only lift all boats but drown coastal homes along with it. But if we can change the hearts and minds of voters on climate change, the rising tide of climate activism will lead to the election of politicians who will make positive changes on those other progressive issues as well.

This is only a broad-stroke sketch of a proposal. There are innumerable details that would need to be worked through and decisions made, but I’ll leave that to those better equipped to do so. Hopefully, I’ve provided enough to give a picture of what could be and hand it off to others to fill in the gaps.

To continue the sports metaphor that started this piece: we are in the bottom of the ninth, down by 3 runs and with two outs. We need not just a home run but a grand slam. Is this it? Or just a big whiff?