How Culture Shapes the Climate Change Debate | Andrew Hoffman

Though the scientific community largely agrees that climate change is underway, debates about this issue remain fiercely polarized. These conversations have become a rhetorical contest, one where opposing sides try to achieve victory through playing on fear, distrust, and intolerance. At its heart, this split no longer concerns carbon dioxide, greenhouse gases, or climate modeling; rather, it is the product of contrasting, deeply entrenched worldviews. This presentation examines what causes people to reject or accept the scientific consensus on climate change. Synthesizing evidence from sociology, psychology, and political science, Andrew J. Hoffman lays bare the opposing cultural lenses through which science is interpreted. He then extracts lessons from major cultural shifts in the past to engender a better understanding of the problem and motivate the public to take action. How Culture Shapes the Climate Change Debate makes a powerful case for a more scientifically literate public, a more socially engaged scientific community, and a more thoughtful mode of public discourse.
About the Speaker:
Andrew (Andy) Hoffman is the Holcim (US) Professor of Sustainable Enterprise at the University of Michigan; a position that holds joint appointments at the Stephen M. Ross School of Business and the School of Natural Resources & Environment. Andy also serves as Education Director of the Graham Sustainability Institute. Professor Hoffman's research uses a sociological perspective to understand the cultural and institutional aspects of environmental issues for organizations. In particular, he focuses on the processes by which environmental issues both emerge and evolve as social, political and managerial issues. He has written extensively about: the evolving nature of field level pressures related to environmental issues; the corporate responses that have emerged as a result of those pressures, particularly around the issue of climate change; the interconnected networks among non-governmental organizations and corporations and how those networks influence change processes within cultural and institutional systems; the social and psychological barriers to these change processes; and the underlying cultural values that are engaged when these barriers are overcome. He has published over a dozen books, which have been translated into five languages. Among his list of honors, he has been awarded the Connecticut Book Award (2011), the Aldo Leopold Fellowship (2011), the Aspen Environmental Fellowship (2011 and 2009), the Manos Page Prize (2009), the Faculty Pioneer Award (2003), the Rachel Carson Book Prize (2001) and the Klegerman Award (1995). His work has been covered in numerous media outlets, including the New York Times, Scientific American, Time, the Wall Street Journal and National Public Radio. He has served on research committees for the National Academies of Science, the Johnson Foundation, the Climate Group, the China Council for International Cooperation on Environment and Development and the Environmental Defense Fund. Prior to academics, Andy worked for the US Environmental Protection Agency (Region 1), Metcalf & Eddy Environmental Consultants, T&T Construction & Design and the Amoco Corporation. Andy serves on advisory boards for ecoAmerica, Next Era Renewable Energy Trust, SustainAbility, the Michigan League of Conservation Voters, the Center for Environmental Innovation and the Stanford Social Innovation Review.
For more lectures on demand, visit the Alumni Engagement website:
www.engin.umich...

[@Clem3ntin3]

I'm glad my professor showed our class this. This is a very fascinating and insightful talk!

[@aliceking3457]

What an amazing lecture

[@polymorphing9195]

Asi es, muy interesante analisis para problematizar la relacion entre ciencia y cultura, asi como para profundizar en los diferentes sesgos cognitivos que pueden ocurrir entre el choque de estas.

[@Whostanvir]

Anybody know how to download the pdf of his book online?? Would love to learn more

[@alcom4112]

Fascinating stuff! I wonder the same thing about why the opinion on AGW (as well as Vaccines and gun control) is split not on evidence but along cultural and political lines. Great talk!

[@MichiganEngineering]

Thanks for the comment alcom.

[@johnnyjones5385]

Discovered this talk by accident. It started off very good about the meeting of the potential donor. And went quickly downhill from there. Trying to understanding where 2 different opinions lie are very important. Which you admitted from the very start was unwilling to do. As did the potential donor. You then said you where angry at yourself for digging your heels in. ( I applaud you for that bit of honesty) And from then on it went downhill. Survey either for climate change or against. What happened to the third option. That human are contributing to climate change but is overstated. Why do you overlook the 3rd option. Is it because it's the most likely!!!!!! Let me give you my personal experiance regarding climate change. I'm sure everyone has a similar story. In Sydney Australia about 10yrs ago our dams was virtually empty. We went thru hush water restrictions. Governments, scientists and media claimed it was climate changed and drastic action was required. It was claimed it was the new normal. We spent billions on a desalination plant all on the claim we needed water security. (the skeptics called it bottled electricity) Our water rates went up to cover the cost. Once it was completed the rain came down (mind you it did rain in Sydney before hand just not where the dams where located) and our dams have been so full ever since still to this day. And so much rain that we have to release water so it doesn't overflow. Is been this way for years now. The desalination plant was decommissioned. We had to pay penalties to the French provider for not using it more than 10yrs. The parts were sold to the Russians for a fraction of the price it was built for. And our water rates never went down. Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. Or the boy scientist that cried wolf. The main problem is there is no transperancy or accountability. As per the clasic climategate scandal revealed. The media was focused on the fake news. I.E. what snipped of emails taken out of contexts revealed. Not the real actual crime. Encouraging people to either hide, not release or delete data. The fish rots from the head. This real crime was completely overlooked. And yes offcourse the media is to blame as well. Hence why people a sceptical about everything. It's gotten to the point that people actually think the world is flat. Now that really says something.

[@GaryBeilby]

Wow, a lot to unpack there Johnny. Your last comment interests me - cause the media really do put some very dishonest spins on thing like you say. But you are talking about the rise of the flat-earthers, which, I agree, is just gobsmacking. But where have the media been active on this? I haven't seen any media suggesting the Earth is either round or flat. Have I missed stuff? To me the rise of the flat-earth nutters plays right into what the prof is saying - There are many people who distrust science so much - in face of clear and massive evidence - that they truly believe entire scientific and Govt organisations are lying to them in saying the Earth is round. Just like so many people who believe climate science is a lie. On the Sydney desal plant - It hasn't been decommissioned, but is considered to be surplus to immediate needs. I live in Perth - they said the same thing here - we are running out of water! Rationing, rationing! Then they built 1 desal plant. Then they built another. Both are cranking hard and supply vastly more water than our dams - which simply don't get much rain any more. Guess why?

[@johnnyjones5385]

Just finnished watching the ending. Conclusion is rubbish. Trying to use the slavery example for climate change. I heard a vegan using that very same example. I'll try to summerise why that is totally incorrect. Slavery does not exist anywhere any nature. It's a man made invention. However animals eat other animals, that is nature. Vegan is a man made construct. One could use that to the enviroment as well. Climate has always changed. You might argue the rate has increased in the last 200yrs. And I might agree. But that wasn't the arguement.

[@peterangelo2011]

Essentially, he takes 50 minute to tell you not to talk about climate change if someone disagrees or does not want to. Sorry not good eneough. Moral imperative and honesty requires us to talk about it whenever possible. I doubt Prof Hoffman has experienced culture on this issue the way I have at the short end of the stick by extremisists who wish you dead for simply mentioning Theo words. "Climate change". Prof Michael Mann is a better source if you really want to know how some in our culture respond to climate change being mentioned.

[@MichiganEngineering]

Not sure that exactly summarizes Professor Hoffman's lecture but thank you for your comments Peter.