The Framing of Kyoto vs. Mandatory Caps on Emissions
Matthew C. Nisbet, Ph.D. is Associate Professor of Communication Studies, Public Policy, and Urban Affairs at Northeastern University. Nisbet studies the role of communication and advocacy in policymaking and public affairs, focusing on debates over over climate change, energy, and sustainability. Among awards and recognition, Nisbet has been a Visiting Shorenstein Fellow on Press, Politics, and Public Policy at Harvard University's Kennedy School of Government, a Health Policy Investigator at the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, and a Google Science Communication Fellow. In 2011, the editors at the journal Nature recommended Nisbet's research as “essential reading for anyone with a passing interest in the climate change debate,” and the New Republic highlighted his work as a “fascinating dissection of the shortcomings of climate activism."
Something to think about...Kyoto was strategically framed by conservatives as an unfair economic burden on the U.S. , deflating public support across polls. Yet according to Gallup trends and other poll indicators, Americans have always supported international agreements on climate in general and mandatory caps on CO2 emissions specifically. It's a classic example of how framing can alter public preferences on a particular agreement or legislative bill that turns on a principle that the public would otherwise support.
Below the fold I detail what the available poll data suggests about how framing shaped public preferences on Kyoto. The passage is taken from a journal article I have forthcoming (e-mail me for a copy).
Besides domestic policy measures to counter global warming, the public has been asked across surveys their views on the longstanding efforts to negotiate international agreements on greenhouse gas emissions. As early as 1990, eight out of ten Americans believed that the U.S. should take the lead internationally in preventing the greenhouse effect. However, more than ten years later, when asked specifically to evaluate George W. Bush's decision to forego participation in the Kyoto climate treaty, given earlier findings relative to low levels of attention and knowledge about the agreement, it is not surprising that several surveys show that many citizens did not hold an opinion on the matter. Other surveys provide evidence that the strategic framing of the Kyoto treaty and its possible impacts can shape public preferences.
For example, in surveys conducted by the Chicago Council on Foreign Relations (CCFR), PIPA, and Gallup between 2002 and 2005, the tentative nature of public opinion on Kyoto is revealed when considering response category effects. In each of the surveys, respondents were asked if they believed the U.S. should participate in the Kyoto agreement on global warming. In the CCFR survey from 2002, and the PIPA surveys from 2004 and 2005, 64%, 65%, and 73% support participation (Table 28). Yet consider two Gallup surveys that differ slightly in question wording, in both polls only 42% of Americans answer that the US should abide by the treaty, while 36% and 35% in the two surveys volunteered that they were "unsure" or had "no opinion" (Table 29).
Question wording effects are apparent across other surveys. In two Gallup questions from April and June 2001, Bush's interpretation that the Kyoto treaty would hurt the economy while demanding too little of developing countries was presented with no counter argument. In these polls, 41% and 40% said they approved of Bush's decision to withdraw, while 48% disapproved. In contrast, when Pew asked about the decision in April and August 2001; and when Gallup queried respondents in a separate survey conducted in July 2001, no reason for the decision to withdraw from Kyoto was given. In these cases, absent a specified justification, approval of Bush's decision rested at only 25%, 29%, and 32% respectively, with disapproval at 47%, 44%, and 51%. Gallup asked about the decision to withdraw from Kyoto again in 2005, yet this time they labeled the event a "United States' decision" rather than a Bush decision, and offered "unsure" as a response category. In reply to this alternative question wording, 59% answered "unsure" with only 20% approval and 21% disapproval (Table 30).
Scientists have developed new ways of understanding how the biological forces of death drive important life processes.
- Researchers have found new ways on how decomposing plants and animals contribute to the life cycle.
- After a freak mass herd death of 300 reindeer, scientists were able to study a wide range of the decomposition processes.
- Promoting the necrobiome research will open up new areas of inquiry and even commerce.
What do we see from watching birds move across the country?
- A total of eight billion birds migrate across the U.S. in the fall.
- The birds who migrate to the tropics fair better than the birds who winter in the U.S.
- Conservationists can arguably use these numbers to encourage the development of better habitats in the U.S., especially if temperatures begin to vary in the south.
Explore how alcohol affects your brain, from the first sip at the bar to life-long drinking habits.
- Alcohol is the world's most popular drug and has been a part of human culture for at least 9,000 years.
- Alcohol's effects on the brain range from temporarily limiting mental activity to sustained brain damage, depending on levels consumed and frequency of use.
- Understanding how alcohol affects your brain can help you determine what drinking habits are best for you.
SMARTER FASTER trademarks owned by The Big Think, Inc. All rights reserved.