Climate Shift – Nisbet’s Report

Certainly public land managers need to be climate aware; and that also means being climate-debate aware. Here is a recent report- “Climate Shift A Clear Vision for the Next Decade of Public Debate.” Many of the findings may be of interest to NCFP readers.

This is from the summary..

Just as public opinion needs to be considered in the context of the economy and the message strategy of prominent political figures, belief in the reality and risks of climate change are also linked to the proposed policy solutions. Polling experts assert it is wrong to assume that questions asking about the causes and impacts of climate change are in fact measuring knowledge. Instead, answers to these questions are much more likely to be indirect opinions about cap and trade policy and an international agreement, explaining why even highly educated Republicans appear in polling to doubt human caused climate change. Academic studies reach a similar conclusion. In these studies, perceptions of scientific consensus vary by an individual’s underlying ideological values and in relation to the inferred course of policy action.

Research is less clear about the wider impact on public opinion of conservative outlets such as Fox News or for Climategate. These studies show that conservative-leaning individuals who already hold stronger doubts about climate change are more likely to view Fox News, and this viewing reinforces these doubts. Research shows that the same factors related to selective attention and interpretation apply to understanding the impact of Climategate on public opinion.

Just as ideology shapes the public’s judgments about climate change, ideology also guides the political interpretations of scientists and environmentalists. To understand this process, I analyzed a recent survey of members of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS). To be clear, the survey of AAAS members is by no means representative of scientists who are actively engaged in climate change research. On the reality and causes of climate change, there is no debate among specialists. Respondents to the AAAS survey are instead representative of the organization’s interdisciplinary and professional composition, with 44 percent of members working in the biological, medical or agricultural sciences

As the data show, AAAS members are strongly ideological, partisan and like-minded in outlook. With “moderate” and “independent” the mid-points in a continuum of political identity, more than a majority of AAAS members declare themselves to the left of these outlooks. To add context to this finding, I compared the political composition of AAAS members with 10 other politically-active groups and commonly-referenced media audiences. AAAS members are as ideologically like-minded as evangelical church members and substantially more partisan. Only black church members exhibit a stronger partisan lean than AAAS members and only Fox News viewers, Mormon Church members and Tea Party members exhibit a stronger ideological lean.

Among AAAS members, given that very few specialize in earth science, perceptions of climate change also vary considerably by ideology, just as they do among the public. Less than a majority of conservative AAAS members think the Earth is warming and that humans are a cause, compared with more than 80 percent of moderates and more than 95 percent of liberals. There are even stronger differences in the perceived seriousness of the issue.

Ideology also strongly influences the political events that AAAS members follow and their interpretation. Among strong liberals, 74 percent reported hearing a lot about claims the Bush administration had interfered with the work of government scientists, compared with 27 percent of conservative AAAS members. In comparison, just 10 percent of the public had heard a lot about the debate. Ideology additionally shaped how the claims were interpreted. On this matter, of those hearing about the debate, 57 percent of conservative AAAS members said the claims were true, compared with 87 percent of moderates and 97 percent of liberals.

To the extent that AAAS membership is consistent with the political identity of the environmental movement and scientific community at large, the findings suggest several important themes to consider. First, given their political identity and outlook, it is likely very difficult for many scientists and environmentalists to understand why so many Americans have reservations about complex policies such as cap and trade that impose costs on consumers without offering clearly defined benefits.

Second, as a natural human tendency, the political preferences of scientists and environmentalists likely lead them to seek out congenial sources in the media and to overlook the polarizing qualities of admired leaders such as Gore. These same factors also likely shape a view of the world that is inherently hostile even when objective indicators of financial resources, media coverage and public opinion suggest otherwise.

As a result, in discussion of communication initiatives and political strategy, scientists and environmentalists tend to overlook how economic trends and their own actions might diminish public concern, and instead focus on presumed flaws in media coverage or the activities of conservatives. Moreover, as organizations such as the AAAS train and encourage their members to engage in public outreach, most participants are likely to view politics very differently from the audiences with which they are trying to engage, a challenge that merits greater focus as part of these trainings.

These observations will probably raise most heat..

Designs to Win: Engineering Social Change
In Chapter 2, I examine the conventional belief that conservative philanthropists like the Koch brothers are more effective than their centrist counterparts because they funnel their funding into a coordinated set of causes, think tanks and groups aimed at achieving specific policy ends. Yet as I review, far from being passive supporters, over the past decade, foundations supporting action on climate change have strongly shaped—if not defined—the environmental movement’s agenda, engaging in many of the same policy-focused strategies as conservatives.

In 2006, several of the country’s wealthiest foundations hired a consulting firm to comprehensively survey the available scientific literature and to consult more than 150 leading climate change and energy experts. The result of this intensive undertaking was the 2007 report Design to Win: Philanthropy’s Role in the Fight Against Global Warming.

Leading the report was the recommendation that “tempering climate change” required a strong cap and trade policy in the United States and the European Union, and a binding international agreement on greenhouse gas emissions. The report predicted that passage of cap and trade legislation would “prompt a sea change that washes over the entire global economy.” The report included little to no discussion of the role of government in directly sponsoring the creation of new energy technologies. The report is additionally notable for the absence of any meaningful discussion of social, political or cultural dimensions of the challenge.

To understand how this planning document shaped the investment strategies of major foundations, I analyzed available records as of January 2011 for 1,246 climate change and energy-related grants distributed by nine aligned foundations between 2008 and 2010. These aligned foundations are among the wealthiest in the country, include several of the top funders of environment-related programs, and were either sponsors of the Design to Win report or describe themselves as following its recommendations. The foundations analyzed were the David and Lucile Packard Foundation (#1 in environmental funding for 2009), the Sea Change Foundation (#4), the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation (#5), the Kresge Foundation (#13), the Doris Duke Charitable Foundation (#24), the McKnight Foundation (#39), the Oak Foundation (#41), the Energy Foundation and ClimateWorks.

Approximately $368 million was distributed across the 1,246 individual grants. However, given that not all foundation records are publicly available for this period, the total of $368 million likely underestimates the actual amount distributed between 2008 and 2010. If an average based on a foundation’s previous year giving is used as a stand-in for missing years, these nine foundations would have distributed more than $560 million between 2008 and 2010.

Much like their conservative counterparts, the funding provided by these nine foundations reflects a pattern of support focused on achieving a clear set of policy objectives. Funding included $39 million associated with activities in support of cap and trade policies; $32 million associated with efforts at reaching an international agreement or influencing the policies of a specific country; and $18.7 million associated with efforts at limiting or opposing coal-fired power plants.

Funding patterns also reflect the Design to Win report’s framing of climate change as a physical threat that requires primarily scientific and economic expertise to solve. More than $48 million in grants were associated with policy analysis or economic impact analysis; $17 million with environmental impact analysis; and $13 million given directly to support university-based programs.

In addition, funding was concentrated on just a few national organizations. Though 1,246 grants were allocated, 25 organizations combined to receive $182 million, nearly half the $368 million total distributed. Of the 25 organizations, 14 were leaders in the push for cap and trade legislation. Recipients included the Environmental Defense Fund, the Natural Resources Defense Council, the Union of Concerned Scientists, the Sierra Club, the League of Conservation Voters and the Alliance for Climate Protection.

As the top recipient of funding, nearly one out of every 10 dollars ($34.6 million) went to the Bipartisan Policy Center, exceeding the $31.3 million distributed by Koch-affiliated foundations to all conservative organizations between 2005 and 2009.

The analysis of the Design to Win alliance shows that contrary to conventional wisdom, these nine foundations have been as strategic in targeting specific policy outcomes as even the Koch brothers, applying more than 10 times the amount of money in pursuit of their goals. Yet focus and strategy are only as effective as the premises upon which they are based. As described in the chapter, the Design to Win report appeared to define climate change in conventional terms, as an environmental problem that required only the mobilization of market incentives and public will. With this definition, comparatively limited funding focused on the role of government in promoting new technology and innovation. Nor was there equivalent investment in important human dimensions of the issue, such as adaptation, health, equity, justice or economic development.

I italicized the last sentence because within our own world of climate and public lands we are certainly free to, and I believe, should frame climate change from a more holistic perspective.

9 thoughts on “Climate Shift – Nisbet’s Report”

  1. I’ll have to study the report in depth, but I find it intriguing that, once again, a finger of ideological blame is pointed at “environmentalists” and scientists with an environmental leaning. We need to point fingers of blame at both sides, and to find means to get beyond the blame game. Consider these passages from the summary:

    To the extent that AAAS membership is consistent with the political identity of the environmental movement and scientific community at large, the findings suggest several important themes to consider. First, given their political identity and outlook, it is likely very difficult for many scientists and environmentalists to understand why so many Americans have reservations about complex policies such as cap and trade that impose costs on consumers without offering clearly defined benefits.

    Second, as a natural human tendency, the political preferences of scientists and environmentalists likely lead them to seek out congenial sources in the media and to overlook the polarizing qualities of admired leaders such as Gore. These same factors also likely shape a view of the world that is inherently hostile even when objective indicators of financial resources, media coverage and public opinion suggest otherwise.

    As a result, in discussion of communication initiatives and political strategy, scientists and environmentalists tend to overlook how economic trends and their own actions might diminish public concern, and instead focus on presumed flaws in media coverage or the activities of conservatives.

    My question, as aired many times on this blog,is: What about the ideological biases of other-than-environmentalists?, e.g. administrative agency practitioners (including, especially that US Forest Service) who side with Industrial interests, similarly Congressional delegates, Industry reps. and lobbyists, Academics who side with Industrialists, Presidents, and so on. The “holy wars,” as I’ve called them are ideology-based and run the gamut of ideological persuasions. I suppose environmentalists are just the latest “whipping boy” [gender-bias noted]. How are we ever to get beyond “intransigence,” other than by talking about it. Yet nobody shows up to talk.

    To add yet one more related “required reading,” try this: The Rhetoric of Reaction: Perversity, Futility, Jeopardy. Albert O. Hirschman, 1991. Here’s a snip from the concluding chapter, that rather well sums up my intent in highlighting what I did:

    [M]y purpose is not to cast “a plague on both of your houses.” Rather, it is to move public discourse beyond extreme, intransigent postures of either kind, with the hope that in the process our debates will become more “democratically friendly.”

    Reply
  2. A proper analysis of Nesbet’s data completely discredits his calculations regarding spending by enviromentalists.

    From Grist

    The data suggest opponents of the bill far outspent environmentalists during the climate bill debate of 2009 and 2010:

    8-to-1 on lobbying in 2009
    4-to 1 (or more) on advertising in 2009
    8-to-1 in donations to candidates and Congress members in 2010 cycle
    10-to-1 on independent election expenditures in 2010

    I am basing those numbers on a reanalysis of data in Matthew Nisbet’s discredited “Climate Shift” report [big PDF here].

    This reanalysis, which I’ll present below, was done with the help of Dr. Robert Brulle. Brulle is a leading social scientist whom Nisbet had specifically asked to review his financial analysis — and who ultimately withdrew his name from the study in large part because Nisbet’s claims that enviros held the spending edge were “contradicted by Nisbet’s own data.

    Also of interest from the Carbon Brief

    a preliminary data analysis by the Carbon Brief has revealed that nine of the ten most prolific authors cited have links to organisations funded by ExxonMobil, and the tenth has co-authored several papers with Exxon-funded contributors.

    So much for “impartial science.”

    Reply
    • More from Grist:

      The report makes these untenable claims in order to shift the blame for the bill’s failure to climate scientists, environmentalists, foundations, and most especially Al Gore.

      This supports my supposition in comment #1 that there was a bias at work in the report, at least according to Jim’s and my cited Grist articles. When I looked at the study earlier this morning, I began to wonder just who funded the study. But I haven’t yet looked, and probably won’t. Still, it always is a good idea to “follow the money,” as long as you are careful not to deceive yourself or others in that investigation.

      Reply
      • And, Grist makes untenable claims, as well. They don’t like talking about forests, over there, and cater to the fair weather climate fretters. They are so easily fooled that one of their folks was concerned about the issues presented here—> http://www.dogcondoms.com

        Grist is an unreliable source of information, slanted towards blaming all “bad weather” upon “climate change”. That being said, I still believe that the “deniers” have just a little bit more money to spend than the eco-groups, despite what is documented, one way or the other. If the monies spent by BOTH sides was spent on mitigations, we’d all be better off.

        Reply
  3. The Nathan Cummings Foundation underwrote ($100k) the Climate Shift report. NCF is a leading environmental grantmaker. Here’s its take on the climate crisis:

    “The idea is to replace the old paradigm – making dirty energy expensive – with a new one – making clean energy cheap, in order to engage many more people.”

    http://www.nathancummings.org/annual/AR09.pdf (2009 Annual Report)

    NCF was among the first foundations to support the Breakthrough Institute, founded by those heretic authors of “The End of Environmentalism.”

    Setting aside whether the ClimateShift report is biased or whether its author has bad motives, some of the underlying data in the report are fascinating. Who knew that in a 4-year period, almost $500 million was given by green foundations to a handful of organizations to solve the climate crisis? Who knew that the green activists leading that effort were pulling down almost $500,000 in salaries and benefits? By most measures, that’s the most green activist money ever spent to promote any policy — and certainly among the highest compensation. And with what results?

    Carbon emissions went down during that period (fractionally), but only because the economy tanked, not as a result of any policy reforms. There was no cap-and-trade legislation. No treaty. A public less, not more, convinced that “something needs to be done.” And a President who has all but abandoned his climate campaign promises because he sees no chance of success in the policies environmentalists have put forward.

    Although ClimateShift only hints at it (the author has tried to studiously avoid taking any policy positions himself in the report), it doesn’t take much reading-between-the-lines to see that the report endorses the “government investment in research and development to make clean energy cheaper” approach. Not the “tax dirty energy to make it more expensive,” or the “redesign American cities and lifestyles by government fiat,” or the “stick our heads in the sand and pretend there’s no problem.”

    The report is well worth reading, if only to understand why the pigs it sticks are squealing so loudly.

    Reply
  4. I’ve followed the controversy on the web, following the Nisbet’s paper. The catastrophic global warming believers don’t like it and are attacking it since it doesn’t follow their beliefs of big corporate interests funding being the main reason for skeptic views. Nisbet is likely right that the environmentalist side has spent more than the skeptical side of this political debate. I would hesitate to but a lot of stock in Joe Romm’s review in GRIST. Romm has a reputation of being an extremist in the climate debate. One blogger stated the following which I think is hits the spot, “Unfortunately, Romm has drug the discussion down to a focus on simplistic and, if not irrelevant at least secondary, concerns. If the climate change advocacy community dwells exclusively on these matters and fails to address the need for serious attention to the content of their message and the way it is framed, Romm will have won the battle while helping lose the war.” Nisbet’s response to Joe Romm can be found at http://climateshiftproject.org/2011/04/18/response-to-statements-by-joe-romm-and-media-matters-for-america/. Worth reading, unless you’ve already made up your mind.
    I believe that the climate skepticism has risen from grass roots and individuals. Big corporate coal and oil have likely spurred them on, but their (oil & coal) funding is more on the political side. There are a lot of questions about the consensus science raised by informed and intelligent people. I would also say that the skeptic side doesn’t care for a lot of Nisbet’s paper either, as he comes across as a firm believer in Global warming. It’s like the two opposing sides have draw lines and won’t tolerate any moderate views. It always seems to be louder on the fringe.

    Reply
    • The Nisbet report has quite fundamental data flaws — whether you wish to read Romm’s material or otherwise. They are rather easy to see if you read with an open mind.

      The entire funding for Nature Conservancy, for example, is counted into climate advocacy when climate change science represents only a trickling of funding into this arena. Exxon Mobil has provided funding for a range of anti-climate science work (such as at AEI, Heritage, Heartland, and etc) — following Nisbet’s standards, he should have counted the nearly $300 billion / year of revenue into that side of the equation.

      And, he excluded television from his analysis of media even as that is where the majority of people get their news.

      And, …

      Nisbet’s response to Romm doesn’t address the specifics of Romm’s criticisms re, for example, the financials.

      Sadly, Nisbet’s shoddy analytical work has made it difficult to focus on the reasonable parts of the discussion. There is interesting material within the report. There is stuff worth talking about. The very evident errors, however, make it difficult to read — because I wonder what errors are less evident and influential in supporting conclusions. (Note: I had read about 70% of the report before reading Romm or anyone else on this.)

      NOTE: As to your claims of where “climate skepticism” emerges from, are you open enough to consider that this might not be accurate. Would you read Naomi Oreskes’ Merchants of Doubt?

      Reply
  5. Fotoware notes that Grist is not an unbiased source. Ok, I get that. Still, like other media outlets (all biased) they get things right sometimes. In this case I believe they pretty much got it right. See, e.g. http://climateprogress.org/2011/04/18/climate-shift-matthew-nisbet/

    Michael D. I wonder why you draw this conclusion: “Nisbet is likely right that the environmentalist side has spent more than the skeptical side of this political debate.” And thanks for the link to Nisbet’s “counter.” And, of course, I disagree with you on most of this issue since I too am a believer in human-induced global warming. But we don’t need to continue to wage war — Tweedledee, Tweedledum style — here on that issue.

    That said, I believe that Nisbet did himself harm by not presenting a better-balanced report, that would have showed how both sides play “star-power” cards, e.g. Al Gore, and that both sides work “money trails.” [Aside: As a blogger who has in the past talked about cap and trade, alongside a “carbon tax, I wonder why the report focused narrowly on the cap and trade issue. My own opinion is that cap and trade done right is similar to a carbon tax. Problems arise on the “trade” side, since all schemes recently on the table favor the “Goldman Sachs and friends” crowd who leave me (and many others) saying “Watch your wallets!” see, e.g Is Cap and Trade Dead?, Jan,2010]

    I suspect that the cap and trade issue gave Nisbet a platform to raise issues about being careful how you frame issues and play political games. Too bad he botched the report (in my opinion).

    Reply
  6. Whatever you think about Greenpeace, it might be worth taking a look at their shot at “following the money“:

    Koch Industries: Secretly Funding the Climate Denial Machine

    Billionaire oilman David Koch used to joke that Koch Industries was “the biggest company you’ve never heard of.” Now the shroud of secrecy has thankfully been lifted, revealing the $55 million that he and his brother Charles have quietly funneled to climate-denial front groups that are working to delay policies and regulations aimed at stopping global warming.

    A lot can happen in a year. Today, the Kochs are being watched as a prime example of the corporate takeover of government. Their funding and co-opting of the Tea Party movement is now well documented.

    Charles G. Koch and David H. Koch have a vested interest in delaying climate action: they’ve made billions from their ownership and control of Koch Industries, an oil corporation that is the second largest privately-held company in America (which also happens to have an especially poor environmental record). It’s timely that more people are now aware of Charles and David Koch and just what they’re up to. A growing awareness of these oil billionaires’ destructive agenda has led to increased scrutiny and resistance from people and organizations all over the United States.

    Reply

Leave a Reply to Michael D Cancel reply