What kind of climate change thinker are you?

July 2, 2009 by
Filed under: Public policy 

OK folks, I need your help. For some time I have wanted to develop a speech applying cultural theory to policy dilemmas and organisational change. To help make the speech engaging, I want to start with an audience experiment, but I need to test it out before taking it on the road. This is where you, my clever, generous, loyal blog readers, come in.

The experiment is to describe, in the simplest of terms, the four cultural theory perspectives on an issue (to start off I have chosen climate change) and then to ask the audience to pick the one to which they are most attracted. Second, I want each of the four self selecting groups to choose which of the three remaining positions they favour least.

To work well, I need two things to happen. First, the audience has to be willing to choose. This may be hard because they are bound to think there is some truth in more than one of the propositions. Second, I need to get a reasonably even spread between the options; otherwise the whole idea of the four perspectives is undermined. A bonus would be if some kind of pattern emerges between people’s likes and dislikes.

Here’s what I am asking you to do. Pick which one the following four statements about climate change most attracts you. Don’t think about it too much; go with your initial instinct. Then identify which of the remaining three you least favour. Finally, tell me – briefly please – if you think the whole exercise is interesting or silly.

1. We will only tackle the threat of climate change if we fundamentally change the way we think about our relationship to the environment. Lifestyles in the developed world are unsustainable. We have to learn to live differently, taking responsibility for our duty to the world we inhabit and to future generations.

2. The climate change challenge will only be solved by decisive global leadership. A powerful new Copenhagen Treaty is vital. We need an enforceable framework of rules so that Governments of every nation in the world deliver their contribution to addressing this threat.       

3. Climate change is a huge challenge but human beings can rise to that challenge, as we have done to challenges past. With the right framework of incentives, markets and technological innovation will generate solutions allowing us to be prosperous and green.

4. For all we know climate change – if it is real – may already be unstoppable. Despite all the rhetoric and people jumping on the bandwagon, we won’t do anything serious about it until we really have to, and by then it may be too late.

So, please, choose one of these, then, choose the one you find least convincing, then – if you want to – tell me if you think I could pose the question better.

I am looking for a sample of about 100, so do please pass it on.

Thanks

Share

No related posts.

Tags: ,

Comments

29 Comments on What kind of climate change thinker are you?

  1. Pete B on Thu, 2nd Jul 2009 11:41 am

    2. 1 is my favourite and 4 is my least favourite.

    I would caution you though that you risk biasing the results by telling us what the experiment is – you might find that in front of an audience you will get wildly different results. People tend to be astonishingly willing to conform to expectations.

  2. joe on Thu, 2nd Jul 2009 11:42 am

    3. Most attracted by 4 (ie the one which best reflects my opinion). Least by 2.

  3. Tim Davies on Thu, 2nd Jul 2009 11:44 am

    4. Attracts me most (1)

    I least favour (4)

    However, you need to take care in asking the second question. Which attracts you least? Which I least favour? And which is least convincing? are all different questions – and I would answer differently to each of these.

  4. Jonathan on Thu, 2nd Jul 2009 11:45 am

    5. Favourite 3, least favourite 4

    Interesting idea. Don’t think you should try and design in the need for an even spread though isn’t it part of what you want to learn?

  5. Beth on Thu, 2nd Jul 2009 11:52 am

    6. 1 attracts me the most and 3 the least. Question made sense to me and i think is interesting. Look forward to reading the article.

  6. Matthew Cain on Thu, 2nd Jul 2009 11:59 am

    7. I prefer 3 and detest 4.

    Think climate change is really helpful example for your test but not convinced of the supremacy of cultural theory.

  7. Dan J on Thu, 2nd Jul 2009 12:18 pm

    8. I’d go with the optimistic 3 (but possibly 4 as well)

  8. joe on Thu, 2nd Jul 2009 12:19 pm

    9. Interesting point by Matthew Cain. I also detest 4, but just think the evidence suggests it is true – ie nothing serious will be done before it is too late.

    Do I need to change my vote?

  9. jordan on Thu, 2nd Jul 2009 12:21 pm

    10. 1 is my favourite and 4 is my least.

  10. Michael on Thu, 2nd Jul 2009 12:42 pm

    11. I prefer: 3
    (I think it is the best hope for progress on climate change, in the world as it is is, not as we would like it to be)

    Like least: 2

    Very interesting exercise. But I think you will need to explain it carefully and emphasise the gut instinct bit , to avoid over-analysis and people thinking “but can we achieve x without already having y?”.

  11. matthew taylor on Thu, 2nd Jul 2009 12:53 pm

    12. Thanks folks. This is a great start. I take Tim’s point about clarity. But also I can already see that I should have made the choice just between 1, 2 and 3. The thing about fatalism is that – at least in our culture – we are all more likely to practice it than admit it. So I’m going to do a new post changing the rules

  12. James Horn on Thu, 2nd Jul 2009 12:54 pm

    13. Prefer 3, dislike 4.

    4 is too pessimistic.

  13. AnneBailey on Thu, 2nd Jul 2009 1:16 pm

    14. Favour 3, dislike 4. There’s a lot about 1 that I like but I don’t think people consider they even have a relationship to the environment let alone be ready to consider a new one. I think that’s a level of abstract thinking that a lot of people find difficult. Regarding 2, while clearly leadership is important, isn’t it time we moved away from doing things just because someone told us to? 4 is a defeatist and unhelpful attitude.

    Not sure how this works as a process but I like the way you try to capture a sense of public opinion.

  14. Julian Dobson on Thu, 2nd Jul 2009 1:24 pm

    15. Prefer 1, really dislike 4.

    I note you don’t include an option that an out and out climate change sceptic could sign up to – does that skew the exercise?

    On 3, Professor Erik Bichard at Salford University has done some interesting work that you might want to draw on.

  15. Rob Wherrett on Thu, 2nd Jul 2009 1:54 pm

    16. I prefer 4 and really dislike 2. Think that Man tends to wait and see (human response) but this time round we probably collectively screwed ourselves/the planet. Put aside false optimism about humankind and think about the practicalities – it is going to take a massive effort that is not even close to beginning, while the clock ticks down.

    Don’t like 2 because I think global leadership in this context is impossible and probably meaningless. It takes action(s) away from the individual actor and appears to let everyone off the hook…

    As for 1 – well that presupposes that people on the whole actually engage and think about their impacts yet experience says that it gets lip service. And No.3 requires somebody to take charge and pay for the technology – which right now doesn’t look a runner.

  16. Becca Pyne on Thu, 2nd Jul 2009 2:03 pm

    17. Number 1 instantly appealed.
    I was surprised at my response to number 3 where there was a huge surge of anger as I read it.

    I thought 4 would appeal the least as it was pessimistic but 3 did because it seemed to me that it was people talking shop and getting the way of actually doing something. Analagy – ‘lets have a meeting about how we should hold our meeting’.

    This is actually quite a good exercise – WHY – because it gets you to genuinely think about what you think the obstacles to change are.

  17. Hadleigh Roberts on Thu, 2nd Jul 2009 3:57 pm

    18. My favourite is number 2, and my least number 4.

    This is probably because i’m in favour of a proactive government, and also attended a conference with the chair of the EU committee developing the Cophenhagen Agreement.

    I disliked 4, as, like most others have probably said, that seemed to be the “oh what’s the point option.”

    As for the excercise, always glad to help!

  18. Noel on Thu, 2nd Jul 2009 4:44 pm

    19. Most prefer 1 and least prefer 3.

    People talk about our attitudes to climate change being like the equivalent of keeping the family warm while the house is burning down. So in that sense, option 1 is about taking away all those flammable items that we really like that but we know are dangerous. Option 2 is not doing anything because you know the fire service will stop the fire, option 3 is like hiding flammable items inside boxes – it might take longer for the fire to come out of the box, but once it does it will spread throughout the house. Option 4 is waiting to see what will happen and then jumping from the roof ;)

  19. Sam Taylor on Thu, 2nd Jul 2009 11:45 pm

    20. Most favoured: (1)

    Least favoured: (4)!

  20. dk.au on Fri, 3rd Jul 2009 1:13 am

    21. Pretty silly exercise testing it empirically, I reckon.

    Straight up cultural theory isn’t very conducive to that kind of treatment unless it’s longitudinal and tied in to monitor the impact of specific events on a public ie. should be followed up with questions about whether they’ve seen [film], read [report] etc. etc.

  21. Vibeka on Fri, 3rd Jul 2009 9:38 am

    22. I’m drawn to number 1

  22. Eleanor Stringer on Fri, 3rd Jul 2009 10:35 am

    23. Controversially, I most like 2. Least like 3. I don’t trust individuals to sort stuff out.

    Interesting exercise. Most campaigning in this area mixes up all the first three approaches (‘It’s up to you to turn off your lights! But also, write to your MP’) which makes it incoherent.

    Eleanor

  23. Will Hardman on Fri, 3rd Jul 2009 12:38 pm

    24. (2) is the most realistic hope that we have and the one I am fighting for.

    I suppose I most disagree with (3), emergent solutions are very hard to engineer.

    However, as Matthew predicted, all of them have some sway. I am trying to move my own life towards (1), and my head tells me that that (4) is the most likely.

  24. Olga Batishcheva, John Smith Fellow 2009 on Fri, 3rd Jul 2009 8:20 pm

    25. I personally like the 1st option because it is the 1st which can be the most effective one.

    Unfortunately, to think realistically, the 4th is more likely to happen.

    The least effective, to me, is the 2 one.

  25. dave gorman on Mon, 6th Jul 2009 10:04 pm

    26. Sorry bit late to the party…

    Favourite- 3

    Least favourite -4

    Am climate specialist and found it interesting!

  26. James Hetherington on Sat, 18th Jul 2009 10:12 am

    27. Most favourite: 3
    Least favourite: 4

    However, success with (3) will require lots of (2) and will incentivise lots of (1). And I would extend (3) to include all the manifold workings of a pluralist society, as well as markets.

  27. Erik Bichard on Fri, 14th Aug 2009 1:14 pm

    28. 3 is the best. 1 sounds fine but is actually slowing us down. The exercise is THE debate as technology, leadership and economic may deliver the answer, but why gamble on this when an understanding of the human condition can do the job in the time frame required. I see Julian (contribution 14) kindly cites my work with the Environment Agency. We showed that people will accept fruit and vegetables in return for investing to protect their homes against dangerous climate change.

  28. matthewtaylor on Mon, 17th Aug 2009 2:54 pm

    29. Thanks Erik. Can you provide a link to your work?

  29. Mort on Sat, 26th Jun 2010 6:41 pm

    30. 1. draws me most with it’s relational introduction. I’m developing a preference for collaboratively correcting efforts rather than heroic, solo flights.

    2. arouses my skepticism of great leadership (individual leader??), even though it’s in the hierarchical camp. The individualist’s gullibility in market solutions is equally incredible given recent, salient events, but somehow less agravating coming from its usual corner.

    I guess I’ve been reading too much sociology and culture theory. Each one cries out for clumsy bridges to be built toward other quadrants in order to better balance their biases and blind spots.

    Thanks for the persistent good work. Your posts are a resource for my sometimes flagging humility, empathy and hope.

Tell me what you're thinking...
and oh, if you want a pic to show with your comment, go get a gravatar!