How to overcome polarization in climate action

ILiberals and conservatives do not agree on many things, including when it comes to combating climate change. But there is one surprising behavior in which partisans on both ends of the spectrum appear to have more in common than previously thought: planting trees. Our new research suggests that it is now possible to find climate action with bipartisan support – even in a country as politically polarized as the United States.

Planting trees is important; That’s why we measure. As trees grow, they slow climate change by removing carbon dioxide from the air, storing it and releasing oxygen into the atmosphere. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has suggested that 950 million hectares of new forests could help limit the rise in global average temperatures to 1.5 degrees Celsius.

In a new world to studywhich will be published in the next edition of Nature Communications, we analyzed support for various climate change measures in 60 countries, with a sample of more than 51,000 people. Although we found clear evidence of polarization in climate change beliefs and political support, conservatives and liberals were equally willing to make a real effort at a tree-planting task.

In fact, their efforts led us to plant 333,000 trees.

Of course, it’s not enough to plant trees. Scientists concluded that policies aimed at discontinuation Fossil fuels are also critical to the climate solutions scenario. And critics have speculated that tree planting could reduce support for such climate mitigation tactics. They assume that engaging in one climate action automatically reduces effort toward another, due to limitations in attention, bandwidth, or resources. In our research, however, we found no evidence for this assumption. In fact, we found the exact opposite pattern of results. The people who planted the most trees were, on average, also the majority will likely support sustainable climate policy.

In fact, behaviors like planting trees can even help people identify with the cause and become an environmental defender. This highlights the need to act in areas where there is already broad political support for climate action and then build on that momentum.

Despite these reasons for optimism, there is still a long way to go. We found a persistent partisan gap in climate policy in many countries around the world – and especially in the US. To see if we could find a way to bridge this gap, we tested the effects of 11 main psychological interventions (as determined by experts) designed to increase support for climate policy across the political spectrum.

In the US, the best climate policy intervention was to write a letter to a member of the future generation, explaining current actions to ensure a habitable planet for that future adult. This intervention increased support for climate change mitigation policy by 10% among all American participants. This was also the Conservatives’ main intervention, increasing their support for climate policy by 13%!

However, different messages about climate change resonate with different political audiences. For liberals, the main intervention was to reduce the psychological distance from climate change by presenting the climate consequences in their region (for example, increased frequency and severity of forest fires and floods). This increased support for the Liberals’ climate policy by 9%. One size does not fit all.

For staunch supporters on both sides of the aisle, the best intervention centered on highlighting the value of environmental purity and compliance with authority figures, such as scientists or political and military leaders, as reasons to take climate action. This intervention increased support for climate policy from strongly self-identified liberals by 8% and from strongly self-identified conservatives by 21%. So, with the right message, people across the political spectrum can be mobilized to support climate policy.

These results are unique to the US, but our research suggests that different interventions may be more successful in bridging these divides in other countries. nations. To explore the effects of our interventions in any of the countries where we conducted this experiment, we created an easy-to-use, open-access web application that can be accessed here.

The US is deeply polarized along partisan lines when it comes to beliefs about climate change and mitigation policies; However, our research suggests that not only do there exist climate solutions with broad consensus, but also effective strategies for increasing support for conservatives’ climate policy. Climate change advocates can bridge the partisan divide and encourage the behaviors and policies needed to reduce the risks posed by climate change.

In fact, both sides of the political divide have increasingly discussed and even proposed solutions to this existential threat, albeit from alternative angles. For example, Republican lawmakers have suggested tackling the climate crisis by planting a trillion trees. On the other hand, Democratic lawmakers are proposing solutions that support the development of clean energy, for example through Inflation Reduction Acta landmark policy in transition to renewable energies.

By developing some of these initial policies – like tree planting – and at the same time framing other policies in more resonant ways, we may be able to create the momentum needed to tackle climate change.