Greetings all! I decided to take a break from my primary research sharing, as I found a pretty interesting paper (Video by the lead author below) that discusses how literacy in the sciences actually serves to entrench and divide views regarding the threat of climate change. Due to its close relation to environmental apathy, I wanted to share what I learnt and my views after reading it. Next week we will go back to our regular programming. 😊
The paper mentioned how the public generally blame environmental apathy, especially climate deniers, on their lack of scientific knowledge and literacy. Personally, I think that there are several factors leading to apathy. First would be as I shared in my second blog post due to political leanings and misinformation, while the other would be their seeming lack of climate literacy/education. I think this mindset is reflected in my survey, when I asked which factors contributes most to climate change.
The researchers found that as literacy in the sciences increased concern for climate change decreased. They suggested perceptions were based off their community around them. They also think that as individuals they have limited impact on the climate, thus they are better of fitting in with their community. This led me to think how this could relate to climate awareness in Singapore, is it not due to higher scientific literacy (from years spent in the education system)? I personally disagree as a community of climate change believers would have to be the norm before anyone could be swayed to conform to the “majority”. I still believe that education is a large part of combating denialism at least in our local context.
It stood out to me how they asked their participants to rate the significance of the threat climate change. It reminded me of how I asked my own respondents to how significant a threat climate change was similarly for CO2’s increase. I decided to use my data and perhaps glean some similar information. I grouped subjects from BES and split the rest of the respondents into groups based on how “scientific” their major is, do excuse my generalisation and stereotyping.
Overall, BES students had the highest perception of climate risk followed by Arts students then the Sciences. So, does scientific literacy affect views of climate risk? Excluding BES students, which I assume would have a greater perception of climate risk, else they wouldn’t be studying environmental studies. I posit the presence of a slight relationship much like those they found in the paper, yet my analysis has numerous flaws and I have taken great liberties with assumptions and fitting to come to this conclusion.
Again hope to see you next week. Thank you! 🙂
· Permalink
Hey Li Zhe!
Wow it is really surprising to me that those who are more science literate are less concerned about climate change. It is interesting to see that those who are more science literate are more inclined to find evidence that support the views that they themselves and their immediate communities have. Perhaps education will only make people more aware of climate change, but what they do with the information afterwards will be shaped by their own perceptions (as you’ve shared before, people may have their own agendas). Regardless, I share the same view as you, that education remains imperative in combating climate denialism, for being aware and more informed about climate change is the first step towards influencing perceptions. Looking forward to reading the upcoming posts!
Cheers!
Jeng Wei
· Permalink
Thanks, Jeng Wei. I would not say less concerned per se but polarising. Yet perhaps as Kelly has mentioned in her comments in my blog previously (https://blog.nus.edu.sg/envempathy/2020/09/18/crafting-my-survey/) with greater scientific literacy one may become a climate doomer as the magnitude of the issue is revealed. Thus far the ENV1101 module has certainly broaden and deepen my view of the climate crisis and I think for most of us in class the problem is worse than we expected.
· Permalink
Hi Li Zhe,
This is a very interesting study. Having just watched the video, I can’t say I fully understand the implications of the results as yet. At first, I was quite suprised by the results. From what I understand, scientific literacy is a tool which can work either way. I guess this makes sense, as science is almost never 100% conclusive (as we’ve learnt in ENV1202 and the Precuationary Principle). The way it works is by constinuous questioning, and the slight difference in viewpoints will present an opportunity for people to select arguments that reinforce their current understanding.
In the context of your study, I don’t agree that years spent in the education system necessarily equates to scientific literacy. We do learn about the scientific method in primary school and secondary school, but for the bulk of the syllabus it seems the various science subjects potray aspects of the syllabus as facts. Sometimes the teacher may say like “back in my day,we had a different understanding and the science has changed and may change”, but that is really dependant on each teacher. I’ve only gained a deeper appreciation of considering the various viewpoints in uni, and it’s still a work in progress.
Bearing all that in mind, I assume (totally unfounded) that arts students may have the impression that science is conclusive, and their impression of issues like climate change likely comes from the media, which usually pushes a more singular narrative (again I don’t have the stats to back this up). Hence, as a whole they may take a stronger stance towards this issue in particular?
The author’s comments about gearing the message towards the audience is really important in communication. In more polarised countries, it is interesting to see which “non-issues” receive bipartisan support and how that may be applied to “issues” we care about like climate change. In the short run, it may be beneficial to phrase it in a way that benefits their world view, but I guess it may be good if it becomes a “non-issue” that everyone agrees on in the long run.
Too often, we like to think of things in an “us vs them” way – I guess this is also reflected in Anglosphere countries where politics is often split between two main parties. I wonder if this is any different in European countries where coalitions and big tent politics is the norm. But then there’s Greta Thurnberg and the Scandinavian countries are into the whole coaltion thing so…
At this stage I’m still processing the implications of the study you cited and my thoughts are no longer coherent so I’ve lost track of what I’m asking you.
Cheers,
Ee Kin
· Permalink
Hi Ee Kin, selective intake of information which acts to reinforce one’s worldview is certainly present in how many people respond to new information. I would argue that even for us budding environmentalists that we are inclined to share or belief in news that supports our stance.
Regarding what you said, “years spent in the education system necessarily equates to scientific literacy”, I think perhaps you misunderstood my point. I am referring to scientific literacy in terms of understanding scientific principles, for example when something is heated it expands. This knowledge may then lead to one be better able to link rising average global temperatures to rising sea levels. Rather than in terms of understanding scientific paper which I think you are referring to (correct me if I’m wrong) which I think would be of lesser concern for even other tertiary students that are studying non scientific majors. In regard to how I split the scientific majors to have greater “scientific literacy”, I was only trying to make the best of the data and information that I had.
Many issues that impact the environment and environmental policy inadvertently impact many partisan issues and I think that being able to alter that relationship is highly improbable. Example being coal or mining jobs, the coal industry is indisputably a source of jobs. I think what we can offer to steer them away from hedging everything on a single industry and thus “hindering” environmental efforts would be reskilling. Giving them job opportunities in other industries that are growing.
Thank you for visiting Ee Kin!
· Permalink
Hi Li Zhe,
Oh, I see, I misunderstood the meaning of scientfic literacy at the start and thought it meant being able to understand new information based on what we already know. In that case, would it also have been good if you had collected information on the subject combination of your survey respondents (such as what science subjects they took for their N/O/A levels or diploma too).
Also I’m not sure if this is a personal failing or that of our education system, but I just (during the relevent ENV1101 lecture) associated the whole “hot object expands” idea to to rising sea levels woops. I nevered considered it before because the oceans are so huge and it totally slipped my mind that they can be affected too.
Yeap, I agree that reskilling (and incentivising mid career switches) can be useful in encouraging environmentally damaging sunset industries to meet their natural end.