CLEAR VISION FOR THE NEXT DECADE OF PUBLIC DEBATE ClimateShiftProject.org UPDATED SUMMER 2011 ABOUT THE AUTHOR Matthew C. Nisbet, Ph.D., is Associate Professor named a Google Science Communication Fellow in of Communication and Affiliate Associate Professor recognition of his work on climate change. of Environmental Science at American University Nisbet’s research has appeared at high- in Washington, D.C. As a social scientist, he studies impact disciplinary journals such as Public Opinion strategic communication in policymaking and Quarterly, Public Understanding of Science, and public affairs, focusing on debates over science, the Communication Research as well as interdisciplinary environment and public health. Nisbet is the author outlets such as Science, Environment, Nature of more than 35 peer-reviewed journal articles and Biotechnology and BMC Public Health. This book chapters and he serves on the editorial boards scholarship has been cited more than 500 times in of Science Communication and the International the peer-reviewed literature and in more than 150 Journal of Press/Politics. He holds a Ph.D. and M.S. in books. Nisbet has also contributed articles to a range Communication from Cornell University and an A.B. of popular outlets including The Washington Post, in Government from Dartmouth College. Columbia Journalism Review and Slate. He has given His current research examining the debates invited lectures on more than 30 college campuses over climate change and energy policy is funded and he has served as a consultant to a number by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation and the of leading organizations including the National Nathan Cummings Foundation. In 2011, Nisbet was Academies of Science. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS his project was funded by a $100,000 grant Trina Stout, a graduate student in Public from the Ecological Innovation program at Communication at American, provided advanced T the Nathan Cummings Foundation led by research assistance and insight across all stages Peter Teague. I express my sincere gratitude to the of the project. Kelly Hicks, Anna Krebs, Matthew foundation for their support without which this Lemanski and Mary Robbins also served as graduate project would not have been possible. Additional assistants, applying professional focus and skill to assistance was provided by American University various dimensions of data collection. Students from and the School of Communication with special my course on “Science, the Environment and Media” thanks to Larry Kirkman, Leonard Steinhorn, Kathryn at American inspired my work on the project. Montgomery, Teresa Flannery, Rosemary Wander and I owe my greatest thanks to my wife Caeli, who Scott Bass. patiently supported me during the many long days I Caty Borum Chattoo, my colleague at American, devoted to the project over the course of five months. served as the project’s communication director, expertly coordinating the project branding, design of the report, related website and dissemination strategy. The talented team at Words Pictures Ideas designed the report and website. CLEAR VISION FOR THE NEXT DECADE OF PUBLIC DEBATE TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW ..............................................................................................................................................PG.i CHAPTER 1. CLIMATE CHANGE ADVOCACY: REVENUES, SPENDING AND ACTIVITIES .......................................................................................... PG.1 CHAPTER 2. DESIGNS TO WIN: ENGINEERING SOCIAL CHANGE ....................................................................................................... PG.30 CHAPTER 3. DEATH OF A NORM: EVALUATING FALSE BALANCE IN NEWS COVERAGE ............................................................. PG.48 CHAPTER 4. PROJECTIONS OF INFLUENCE: HOW IDEOLOGY SHAPES PERCEPTIONS ...................................................................................... PG.61 CONCLUSION MOVEMENTS, NETWORKS AND PROGRESS ................................................................................ PG.82 CLEAR VISION FOR THE NEXT DECADE OF PUBLIC DEBATE LIST OF FIGURES AND TABLES FIGURES Table 1.6 Revenue and Spending by Conservation Organizations, 2009 Figure 1.1 Spending by Climate Action Advocates and Opponents, 2009 Table 1.7 Revenue and Spending by Climate Change Specific Organizations, 2009 Figure 3.1 Combined News Attention to Climate Change, 2009 to 2010 Table 1.8 Totals Spent Lobbying on All Issues by Major Environmental Organizations, 2009 Figure 3.2 News Attention to Climategate at The Wall Street Journal vs. Four Other Outlets Table 1.9 Totals Spent Lobbying on All Issues by Members of USCAP, 2009 Figure 3.3 Portrayal of Reality and Causes of Climate Change By Three Month Period, 2009 to Tables 1.10 Totals Spent Lobbying on All Issues by 2010 Other Organizations Supporting Cap and Trade, 2009 Figure 4.1 The Relationship Between the Economy and the Perceived Priority of the Table 1.11 Totals Spent Lobbying on All Issues by Environment/Global Warming Prominent Opponents of Cap and Trade, 2009 Figure 4.3 Ideological and Partisan Differences Between AAAS Members and the Public Table 2.1 Sources and Availability of Grant Information by Foundation, 2008 to 2010 Figure 4.4 Ideological and Partisan Distance Between AAAS Members and Other Social Groups Table 2.2 Amount from Aligned Foundations to ClimateWorks and Energy Foundation, Figure 4.5 Ideological and Partisan Like-Mindedness 2008 to 2010 Across Social Groups Table 2.3 Amount and Number of Grants Distributed Figure 4.6 Percentage of AAAS Members Saying by Foundation, 2008 to 2010 Earth is Getting Warmer Due to Human Activities Table 2.4 Funding Associated with Specific Policy Focus, 2008 to 2010 Figure 4.7 Percentage of AAAS Members Saying that Global Warming is a “Very Serious” Table 2.5 Funding Associated with Research and Problem Analysis, 2008 to 2010 Figure 4.8 Percentage of AAAS Members Hearing Table 2.6 Funding Associated with Communication “A Lot” About Bush Administration Focus or Activity, 2008 to 2010 Interference Table 2.7 Organizations Receiving the Most Funding, 2008 to 2010 TABLES Table 3.1 Portrayal of Climate Science by The New Table 1.1 Revenue and Spending by Conservative York Times, The Washington Post and CNN. Think Tanks, 2009 com Before and After Copenhagen Table 1.2 Revenue and Spending by Conservative Table 3.2 Portrayal of Climate Science by Politico Advocacy Organizations, 2009 and The Wall Street Journal, Before and After Copenhagen Table 1.3 Revenue and Spending by Industry Associations, 2009 Table 4.1 Ideology By Educational Background of AAAS Members Table 1.4 Revenue and Spending by U.S. Climate Action Partnership Members, 2009 Table 4.2 Ideology by Employment Sector of AAAS Members Table 1.5 Revenue and Spending By Green Group/ Partnership Project Members and Others, Table 4.3 Ideology by Disciplinary Affiliation of 2009 AAAS Members CLEAR VISION FOR THE NEXT DECADE OF PUBLIC DEBATE INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW or more than 20 years, environmentalists, to what’s clearly the most dangerous issue the earth scientists and philanthropists have worked faces,” argues Bill McKibben of 350.org. “Hidden in F together to mobilize action in the United the shadows are the guys with money who pull the States on climate change and to implement policies strings. We need to illuminate those shadows, with that address the undeniable, human causes of the the Kochs and even more with the U.S. Chamber.”3 problem. The many successes of this coalition, Acting on this premise, McKibben’s group has however, have been obscured over the past year launched a campaign against the U.S. Chamber4 and by the failure of cap and trade legislation and the Greenpeace has intensified its campaign against inability to achieve a binding international agreement Koch Industries.5 on emissions. Many scientists similarly view themselves in With Republicans controlling the U.S. House of a battle with conservatives and their industry Representatives, environmental groups have given patrons. Groups of climate scientists have formed up hope for comprehensive climate legislation until “rapid response” teams to confront false informa- at least 2013. Instead, more modest ambitions focus tion and provide a question-answering service for on passing a federal clean energy standard, increas- journalists.6 Dozens of others have volunteered for ing fuel efficiency for cars, and defending the abil- blog and media training,7 while some climate sci- ity of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) entists prepare for subpoenas and investigations to regulate greenhouse emissions. At the state and by Republicans in Congress. In an op-ed published local level, national groups are taking legal action before the 2010 midterm elections, climate scientist against coal-fired power plants and promoting state Michael Mann asserted that all scientists had a stake regulation of greenhouse gas emissions.1 in the outcome of the election: “My fellow scientists Environmental leaders have also called for new and I must be ready to stand up to blatant abuse approaches to communication, asserting that with from politicians who seek to mislead and distract the 8 national policy stalled, now is the time to invest in public.” building networks and partnerships in the Midwest and other regions. “We will have to reach out to new ARGUMENTS FOR partners, make new allies and engage new constitu- A DEEPER RECONSIDERATION encies,” wrote Fred Krupp at The Huffington Post. “We have done so with a