It’s strange: one would think that Warmists would voluntarily change their behavior, not have Certain People within the Cult of Climsastrology find ways to force that change. If they really believe
Addressing climate change with behavioral science: A global intervention tournament in 63 countries
Abstract
Effectively reducing climate change requires marked, global behavior change. However, it is unclear which strategies are most likely to motivate people to change their climate beliefs and behaviors. Here, we tested 11 expert-crowdsourced interventions on four climate mitigation outcomes: beliefs, policy support, information sharing intention, and an effortful tree-planting behavioral task. Across 59,440 participants from 63 countries, the interventions’ effectiveness was small, largely limited to nonclimate skeptics, and differed across outcomes: Beliefs were strengthened mostly by decreasing psychological distance (by 2.3%), policy support by writing a letter to a future-generation member (2.6%), information sharing by negative emotion induction (12.1%), and no intervention increased the more effortful behavior—several interventions even reduced tree planting. Last, the effects of each intervention differed depending on people’s initial climate beliefs. These findings suggest that the impact of behavioral climate interventions varies across audiences and target behaviors.
Unsurprisingly, government force is required
The second outcome was support for climate change mitigation policy (nine items; e.g., “I support raising carbon taxes on gas/fossil fuels/coal”). Given that successful climate mitigation requires large-scale policy reform (1) and the public’s support for climate policies is the top predictor of policy adoption (27), this outcome variable reflects the importance of impactful systemic change, rather than private mitigation efforts based on individual decision-making (28–30). Recent work argues that individual-level behaviors should be targeted alongside structural changes (31), especially since framing climate change as an individual level problem can backfire, leading to feelings of helplessness and concerns about free riding (32, 33).
This is a long, long, long paper, which, much like the new Roadhouse movie, did anyone ask for it? Or, is it just a matter of government gave them lots of money or they wanted to find a way to get lots of money from government, which is happy to piss taxpayer money away on cult science?
Here, climate change beliefs were strengthened most by decreasing the psychological distance of climate change. Support for climate change mitigation policy was increased mostly by writing a letter to be read in the future by a socially close child, describing one’s current climate change mitigation actions. Willingness to share climate change information on social media was increased most by inducing negative emotions through “doom and gloom”–styled messaging about the consequences of climate change. Last, while half of the tested interventions had no effect on the effortful tree-planting behavior, the other half of the interventions reduced the number of trees participants planted. Beyond revealing the utility of harnessing a multioutcome approach, these results also highlight the need for tailoring interventions to target outcomes.
I’d love to see what they wrote. “Hey, I changed a few lightbulbs.” “Hey, I drove a fossil fueled vehicle to a protest.” “Hey, I threw soup on artwork and glued myself to something.” “But, the hell if I’m going to give up my own massive 1st World carbon footprint.” Seriously, why should anyone make any changes when the Elites don’t, and the biggest climate cultists do not?