1.4 Climate Change

Like war, trade, and immigration, climate change is a pressing global issue. Some scientists, and even economists, argue that climate change is the most significant problem politicians must address to prevent humanity’s demise. “Simply put, climate is the biggest risk the world faces,” claims the International Monetary Fund.1 It is not within the purview of this course to argue where climate change rates among global threats. However, in order to address how intercultural communication steers negotiations and public discourse, it is useful to look at the global scientific consensus on climate change.

Consider these six suppositions reported by NASA and other nonpartisan climate-study organizations:

1. NASA estimates that it is 95 percent likely that global warming is due to human activity dating from the mid-20th century. “The planet’s average surface temperature has risen about 2.05 degrees Fahrenheit (1.14 degrees Celsius) since the late 19th century, a change driven largely by increased carbon dioxide and other human-made emissions into the atmosphere. Most of the warming occurred in the past 40 years, with the six warmest years on record taking place since 2014,” NASA reports.2

2. As a result of global warming, hurricanes will likely become more powerful and thus more destructive.3

3. Unprecedented storms, high tides, and a sea level rise4—all caused by global warming—could result in increased flooding—with consequent human displacement and economic hardship in coastal regions.

4. Increased heat waves are already causing droughts, insect invasions, and wildfires on an unprecedented scale.5 The rising temperatures, which most scientists attribute to human-made greenhouse gasses, are also predicted to have a negative impact on agriculture.

5. The Fourth National Climate Assessment (2018) warns that a lack of serious action on climate change would result in costly damage to infrastructure, health, and productivity, and to industries such as agriculture, forestry, fisheries, and tourism. Similarly, if foreign governments do not take action to reduce global warming, the assessment stipulates, their economic disruption would affect the US in both supply and demand for goods.6

6. The difference in actions that highly populated countries take to stem climate change—reducing greenhouse gases—will have a dramatic impact. A 2019 report in the academic journal Nature examined how climate change could affect 22 different economic sectors if global temperatures rose 2.8 ˚C from preindustrial levels by the year 2100, versus an increase of 4.5 ˚C. The study estimated a $520 billion cost to the US under the second scenario. But with measures to keep the rise to 2.8 ˚C, the cost would be reduced by $224 billion.7

So what does this crisis have to do with intercultural communication? Different countries, and different groups within those countries, often have conflicting attitudes toward the reduction of greenhouse gasses that scientists say cause global warming. Without a unified approach, respect for other perspectives, and persuasive communication, it is entirely possible that we could live to see the worst and most costly global warming scenario play out in our lifetimes.

Let’s consider some examples of climate change discourse from an intercultural perspective.

The Impact of Climate-Change Communication across Cultures

There have been avenues for international communications to politically address the climate change crisis since the 1970s. Several intergovernmental bodies, such as the United Nations, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), and the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD) put climate change at the top of their agenda.8 And the 2016 Paris Agreement obliges 196 state actors to take specific measures to keep the increase in global average temperature to below 2 °C (3.6 °F).9

Sounds like everyone has the same agenda, right? Not exactly.

Firstly, countries’ politicians are bound to communicate needs based on national interests. Those interests will be reflected in the messages received by the public and given by the public to their leaders. One way to look at how such messages might differ is by looking at communication through mass media.

A 2013 study of top-tier newspapers in Scandinavia, the United States, and the Middle East found that while the New York Times articles focused on technological solutions to global warming, the Danish newspaper Politiken concentrated on applying political pressure on leaders to take mitigating action.10 There was an emphasis on the moral responsibility for fixing a human-made problem. As the US culture tends towards entrepreneurial, market-based solutions to public crises, communications with US parties must have that in mind. Among US political representatives to treaty discussions, there might be less emphasis on do-the-right-thing-for-the-planet, and more discussion of immediate economic costs and benefits. The Arab media, meanwhile, relied almost exclusively on international reports for its coverage of climate change. The study looked at newspaper coverage during or right after key global climate-change summits.

Arab media relied on international reports and syndicated opinions from global names because (1) the media did not have the financial resources to focus on climate change investigations, and (2) journalists in authoritarian and semi-authoritarian Arab countries would take a huge personal safety and security risk by challenging official actions or problems in the local arena.11 This may be one reason behind a 2019 YouGov survey that revealed fewer than half of the respondents in the Middle East thought they or their governments should be doing more to prevent global warming.12 “Unfortunately, this may reflect an attitude in the region that while climate change is a problem, it’s not ‘our’ problem. The likely impact, and thereby the onus for action, has been placed elsewhere,” Scott Booth, head of data products and services at YouGov MENA, told Arab News.13

If you are sitting at an intergovernmental meeting or a business conference where these three different cultural priorities mingle, there is definitely going to be a need to adapt your message to the audience.

Let’s look at another way that culture defines communication in the discussion of climate change: The renowned Dutch social psychologist, anthropologist, and former IBM employee Geert Hofstede characterized the difference in national cultures according to six different dimensions: Uncertainty Avoidance, Power Distance (strength of social hierarchy), Individualism/Collectivism, Masculinity/Femininity (task-orientation versus person-orientation) Short-Term/Long-Term Orientation, and Indulgence versus Restraint.14 Hofstede’s cultural dimensions theory, long-used in international business, has been criticized by some scholars for its reliance on so-called national traits without recognizing cultural variations within countries. Nonetheless, it is still one useful lens through which to view intercultural communication.15 The following graph shows the scores on the six cultural dimensions of four countries. What stands out to you?

The United States scores highest in individualism and lowest in long-term orientation. How might that correlate with the US political and public resistance to the short-term, collective sacrifices such as higher taxes or less use of fossil fuels that experts say the fight against global warming requires? If the Chinese culture is oriented toward long-term goals, then how will that play out when it comes to greenhouse gas cuts that might impact long-term national productivity plans? Hofstede’s theory, initially applied to 76 countries, reveals the need for shaping the message about climate change behavior in keeping with national culture.

And for some, those messages might not be welcome.

A report from the US National Academy of Sciences report explains: “Meeting internationally discussed targets for limiting atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations and associated increases in global average temperatures will require a major departure from business as usual in how the world uses and produces energy.”16

In order to limit global warming, experts have called for the transitioning to a renewable-energy economy, eating less meat, expanded public transportation, reducing dependence on cars, and increasing gas taxes/prices. But depending on cultural attitudes, the willingness of different populations to make sacrifices might vary greatly.

Hofstede’s dimension theory illustrates these differences. As an example, when the global COVID-19 pandemic struck, Americans proved much less willing than Asians to comply with mask rules that experts said saved lives. Some commentators attributed this attitude to American individualism (prioritizing personal freedom) versus the more collective and hierarchical nature of Asian cultures.17 Therefore, it is not surprising that mandatory mask-wearing laws generated protests in the states where they were enacted, but not at all in Asia. International organizations’ calls for Americans to unanimously wear masks became divisive, and it’s possible that millions of lives could have been saved had communication over masks and social distancing been fine-tuned with intercultural communication in mind.

The lesson is that one message for all cultures during a crisis typically does not work.

Looking at the range of public attitudes toward climate change as an emergency, it’s important for environmentalists and policy makers, as well as businesses, to understand the cultural roots of the differences in order to tailor their communication.

Are the differences based on concrete information on threats, or lack of threats, to their country? Where do most people in those countries get their information on climate change? According to a Reuters study, most people get their climate news from television, but only 47 percent of those surveyed in 40 countries around the world said they felt media coverage was good or fairly good.18 How does education influence their opinions on climate change? (In a 2019 Pew survey, Brazil had the highest differential based on level education, with 22 percent “more educated” respondents viewing climate change as a serious threat than “less educated” respondents).19 In which countries is climate change highly politicized? (Hint: The United States pulled out of the Paris Accord under the Trump administration, which felt the treaty was economically disadvantageous). These differences require a different starting point when discussing successful approaches to reducing greenhouse gases.

As discussed previously, intercultural communication includes messages conveyed not only between national groups but also between groups within a nationality. So what happens when these differences are not addressed and recognized vis-à-vis climate change? The New Republic reported the consequences in 2018: “In France, left-wing protesters rioted in the streets after the government tried to implement a gas tax to reduce the country’s reliance on fossil fuels. But that protest was not because they didn’t want to solve climate change, or because they didn’t understand the need to sacrifice. It was because the French government demanded only sacrifice from the poor and middle class, not the rich.”20 And indeed, the 2019 gas tax to fight climate change, after days of rioting, was eliminated by an embattled President Emmanuel Macron.