Search

Background:. Climate change is already harming human health, both directly and indirectly. Physical and rehabilitation medicine professionals are at the frontlines of addressing climate change and health, as their patients are particularly vulnerable to these health harms. It is, therefore, important to understand how these health professionals understand the connection between climate and health and what resources they need to engage with the issue. Methods:. We surveyed the members of 2 medical societies—the Association of Academic Physiatrists and the International Society of Physical and Rehabilitation Medicine—to assess their climate beliefs and attitudes, understanding of climate change’s present and future health harms, the barriers they perceive to engagement with the issue, and the types of resources they would find helpful. Results:. We found that health professionals in the field of rehabilitation medicine understand that climate change impacts human health and think actions should be taken; however, they also perceive barriers to their own involvement in educating the public and policymakers about climate and health and believe there are more urgent health issues in the region where they practice. Conclusion:. Our findings suggest that health professionals in the field of rehabilitation medicine are convinced of the realities of climate change and its relationship to their profession. Further, although many in this field do perceive other health issues to be more urgent in their regions of practice, there are opportunities to provide resources and support to those who are ready to engage directly with climate change and health.

Summary: Previous research suggests that providing information about the health effects of climate change and the health benefits of climate action can increase public engagement with the issue. We sought to extend those findings with an experiment to test the motivational value of calling attention to opponents of climate action. In February, 2022, we conducted a survey experiment with adults from the USA, quota-sampled to represent the USA population (n=2201). Participants were randomly assigned to a no-message control condition, or one of four message conditions identified as authored by concerned health professionals. These messages warned recipients about the negative effects of climate change on health, and either made no mention of an opponent to climate action, or were messages augmented by identifying one of three opponents: (1) fossil fuel chief executive officers and their lobbyists, (2) politicians, or (3) a combination of the two. Portrayal of opponents to climate action increased attitudinal engagement, support for mitigation policies, and intentions to advocate for climate solutions, compared with message conditions not identifying an opponent—with the combined opponent portrayal tending to result in the largest effects; these effects were evident with audiences across political lines, especially political conservatives. Climate and health messages—with or without portrayal of an opponent—also increased trust in the messengers relative to the no-message control. These findings suggest that identifying opponents to climate action can be advantageous to building support for such action, reducing political issue polarisation, and fostering greater trust in health professionals as climate messengers.

Curbing the worst impacts of global climate change will require rapidly transitioning away from fossil fuel across all sectors of the economy. This transition will also yield substantial co-benefits, as fossil fuel combustion releases harmful pollutants into the air. In this article, we present an analysis of the co-benefits to health and health-care costs related from decarbonization of the power sector, using the Virginia Clean Economy Act (VCEA) as a case study. Using a model that combines a source-response matrix approach to pollutant concentration modelling tied to health impact functions, our analysis shows that, by 2045, the VCEA will save up to 32 lives per year across the state, and avoid up to $355 million per year in health-related costs. Fossil-fuel free generation will also help the most disadvantaged communities, as counties in the highest poverty rate quintile also avoid the most pollutant-related deaths.

IntroductionAs emotions are strong predictors of climate policy support, we examined multiple discrete emotions that people experience in reaction to various types of information about climate change: its causes, the scientific consensus, its impacts, and solutions. Specifically, we assessed the relationships between four types of messages and five discrete emotions (guilt, anger, hope, fear, and sadness), testing whether these emotions mediate the impacts of information on support for climate policy.MethodsAn online experiment exposed participants (N = 3,023) to one of four informational messages, assessing participants' emotional reactions to the message and their support for climate change mitigation policies as compared to a no-message control group.ResultsEach message, except the consensus message, enhanced the feeling of one or more emotions, and all of the emotions, except guilt, were positively associated with policy support. Two of the messages had positive indirect effects on policy support: the impacts message increased sadness, which in turn increased policy support, and the solutions message increased hope, which increased policy support. However, the solutions message also reduced every emotion except hope, while the impacts, causes, and consensus messages each suppressed hope.DiscussionThese findings indicate that climate information influences multiple emotions simultaneously and that the aroused emotions may conflict with one another in terms of fostering support for climate change mitigation policies. To avoid simultaneously arousing a positive motivator while depressing another, message designers should focus on developing content that engages audiences across multiple emotional fronts.

The 2017 March for Science was an international march organized in response to concerns over the Trump administration's misuse of science that drew unprecedented numbers of supporters as well as attention from the media, celebrities, and political figures. The March's turnout and publicity begs the question: what motivates people to defend science? Using data from a survey of March for Science listserv members in the US, we used a structural equation model to test posited relationships between self- and collective response efficacy, perceived threat, anger, fear, and the intention to engage in advocacy to defend science. We found that each of these constructs were associated with the intention to engage in advocacy, illuminating the motivators that lead to this intention and how individuals may be activated to engage on behalf of science in the future. These insights have both theoretical and practical significance, as advocacy is integral for both supporting and advancing fact-based policy- and decision-making.

Because of the world's dependence on fossil fuels, climate change and air pollution are profoundly harming both human and planetary health. Fortunately, climate solutions are also health solutions, and they present both local and global opportunities to foster cleaner, healthier, and safer communities. In this review, we briefly discuss the human health harms of climate change, climate and health solutions, and provide a thorough synthesis of social science research on climate and health communication. Through our review, we found that social science research provides an evidence-based foundation for messaging strategies that can build public and political will for climate and health solutions. Specifically, messages that convey the health harms of climate change and highlight the health benefits of climate solutions may be especially effective in building this public and political will. We also found that health professionals are trusted sources of information about climate change, and many have shown interest in engaging with the public and policymakers about the health relevance of climate change and clean energy. Together, the alignment between message strategies and the interest of highly trusted messengers strongly suggests the potential of health students and health professionals to create the conditions necessary to address climate change as a public health imperative. Therefore, our review serves as a resource for those interested in communicating about climate change and health and suggests that social scientists can continue to support practitioners with research and advice on the most effective communication strategies.

Abstract Despite the increased salience of infectious disease risk due to the COVID‐19 pandemic, two recent surveys of the business and scientific communities have found a continued belief in the prominence of environmental risks. In particular, failure to take action on climate change was seen as a highly likely risk whose impacts would become locked‐in barring an immediate global response. These expert opinions are consistent with a growing body of evidence and give us insight into the priorities of global thought leaders who study and respond to risk. Given this alignment in priorities, we argue for the importance of integrating climate and environmental action into responses to emerging threats.

Background: Climate change represents a threat to the health of all Americans. We wanted to know if federal representatives are informing their constituents about this risk. Methods: To answer this question, we reviewed the official websites of all 100 United States senators to determine if they made statements about health, climate change, and the health and/or environmental justice relevance of climate change. We also determined their vote on the only climate change-related bill to come to a senator vote during the 116th Congress (S.J. Res 53). Findings: We found 86% of senators’ websites mentioned health, 51% climate change, 21% climate change and health, and 7% environmental justice and health. Among voting senators, 46% voted yes, including 76% of those with websites mentioning climate change, and 100% of those whose websites mentioned an interaction of climate change with health or environmental justice. Interpretation: There is opportunity for senators to improve website messaging on climate change and health.

Effectively responding to global warming requires mitigation and adaptation efforts worldwide. Although developed countries have pledged substantial financial support to help developing countries respond to climate change, these pledges have yet to be fulfilled. A majority of American voters support providing aid to developing nations, however, levels of support differ sharply between Democrats and Republicans. To investigate the predictors of support for climate aid among registered voters in the United States and to assess the effect of political party identification, we conducted hierarchical regression and relative weight analysis on a nationally representative sample of U.S. registered voters ( n = 898) surveyed in 2021. Among all voters, the predictors of support for climate aid were: party identification (with more support among Democrats), perceived risk to developing countries, worry about global warming, injunctive beliefs that the U.S. should do more, and global warming belief certainty. Among Democrats, the predictors were: perceived risk to the U.S., worry, injunctive beliefs the U.S. should do more, education, and income. Among Republicans, the predictors were: perceived risk to developing countries, and injunctive beliefs the U.S. should do more. These findings have both theoretical and practical relevance for efforts to build public support for development assistance aimed at reducing climate change.

Health professionals are in a unique position to accelerate the creation of policies to mitigate and adapt to the public health emergency that is the climate crisis. At the forefront of the burgeoning climate and health movement are state and national health professional networks that are educating their colleagues and the lay public about the gravity of this threat and advocating for equitable solutions. Here we present a case of one such group, Wisconsin Health Professionals for Climate Action (WHPCA), highlighting its organizational structure and path to success. We also present a logic map to help understand the primary leverage points for health professional advocacy.

Previous research has shown that providing information about the health consequences of climate change can increase climate change issue engagement and support for mitigation policies. Here, we extend that research by testing the motivational value of three categories of climate information (termed information categories): health consequences of climate change; health benefits of climate solutions; and calls-to-action intended to motivate people to engage in political advocacy for climate solutions. The use of choice-based conjoint analysis enabled us to determine the effectiveness of each information category, as well the effectiveness of specific types of information within each category. Research participants were adults quota-sampled to represent the U.S. population (n=7,596). We found that each of these categories–consequences, solutions, and a call-to-action–enhanced the overall motivational value of the message, with solution information being the most influential. Of the 360 message combinations tested, the most compelling first described the negative impacts of climate change on air quality, then explained how transitioning to clean energy will benefit people's health, and ended by explaining that most Americans support this solution, and many are taking action to advocate for it. These findings are consistent with a large body of risk communication theory, and provide practical insights to health professionals and others seeking to build public and political will for actions that reduce the health threats posed by climate change.

Summary: Climate change arguably represents one of the greatest global health threats of our time. Health professionals can advocate for global efforts to reduce emissions and protect people from climate change; however, evidence of their willingness to do so remains scarce. In this Viewpoint, we report findings from a large, multinational survey of health professionals (n=4654) that examined their views of climate change as a human health issue. Consistent with previous research, participants in this survey largely understood that climate change is happening and is caused by humans, viewed climate change as an important and growing cause of health harm in their country, and felt a responsibility to educate the public and policymakers about the problem. Despite their high levels of commitment to engaging in education and advocacy on the issue, many survey participants indicated that a range of personal, professional, and societal barriers impede them from doing so, with time constraints being the most widely reported barrier. However, participants say various resources—continuing professional education, communication training, patient education materials, policy statements, action alerts, and guidance on how to make health-care workplaces sustainable—can help to address those barriers. We offer recommendations on how to strengthen and support health professional education and advocacy activities to address the human health challenges of climate change.

Health professionals have the potential to address the health threats posed by climate change in many ways. This study sought to understand the factors that influence health professionals’ willingness to engage in climate advocacy. We hypothesized and tested a model with six antecedent factors predicting willingness to engage in advocacy for strengthening global commitments to the Paris Agreement. Using survey data from members of health professional associations in 12 nations (n = 3,977), we tested the hypothesized relationships with structural equation modeling. All of the hypothesized relationships were confirmed. Specifically, higher rates of perceived expert consensus about human-caused climate change predicted greater climate change belief certainty and belief in human causation. In turn, all three of these factors, including higher levels of perceived health harms from climate change, positively predicted affective involvement with the issue. Affective involvement positively predicted the feeling that health professionals have a responsibility to deal with climate change. Lastly, this sense that climate advocacy is a responsibility of health professionals strongly predicted willingness to advocate. As a unique study of predictors of health professionals’ willingness to advocate for climate change, our findings provide unique insight into how an influential set of trusted voices might be activated to address what is arguably the world's most pressing public health threat. Limitations of the study and suggestions for future research are presented, and implications for message development are discussed.

Abstract Background Previous research suggests that providing generalized information about the health implications of air pollution from fossil fuels may be effective at promoting public support for a transition to cleaner sources of energy. We sought to extend that work by identifying the specific messages about the health implications of air pollution from fossil fuels that are most and least concerning to people, and whether rankings of concern vary among different audiences. We also hypothesized that reading the statements would influence people’s attitudes and behavioral intentions in a manner supportive of a transition to cleaner sources of energy. Methods We conducted a survey with a diverse sample of U.S. adults (n = 1644) from a non-probability internet panel. Using maximum difference scaling, participants ranked a set of ten statements that revealed which statements were the most and least concerning to them. We also measured attitudes about air pollution and energy use before and after the ranking exercise to assess changes in opinion caused by cumulative exposure to the messages. Results Across all sub-groups examined, participants were most concerned by a message about the neurological impacts of air pollution on babies and children. After the ranking exercise, participants expressed increases in perceived health harm of air pollution and fossil fuels, a desire for more clean energy, and intention to engage in consumer advocacy to support clean energy. Conclusions To our knowledge, this study is the first to assess how people respond to information about the neurological health harms of air pollution from fossil fuels. While efforts to communicate the cardio-pulmonary health harms of air pollution are well established, our study suggests that efforts should now be organized to communicate the neurological effects of air pollution from fossil fuels, especially the neuro-developmental effects on babies and children.

A stable climate is the most fundamental determinant of human health. Therefore, the goal of the Paris Agreement—limiting global warming to no more than 2 degrees Celsius—is arguably humanity's most important public health goal. To accomplish this goal, nearly all nations must greatly increase the ambition of their Nationally Determined Contributions at the upcoming United Nations COP26 meeting in 2021. We argue that health professionals and health organizations can and must join the growing global community of science-based advocates working to achieve the goal of the Paris Agreement. Doing so can be our greatest contribution to the health and wellbeing of all people, especially the world's most vulnerable, marginalized and disempowered people who tend to be harmed first and worst.

Limiting climate change requires effective policy solutions. In democratic societies, voting for candidates who support climate policy solutions is arguably the most important action citizens can take. Therefore, understanding the dynamics of global warming as a voting issue is crucial for building public and political will for climate solutions. Using data from two nationally representative surveys conducted in November 2019 and April 2020, this exploratory study investigated the influences of cognitive, experiential, socio-cultural, and sociodemographic factors on two measures of perceived importance of global warming as a voting issue: absolute importance (i.e., how important is it?) and relative importance (i.e., is it the most important issue?). As expected, in both surveys, Democrats were more likely than Republicans to perceive global warming as an important voting issue. The perceived importance of global warming as a voting issue was also positively associated with certainty in belief that global warming is happening, perceived risk, worry, positive social norms, and discussing global warming with family and friends; in April 2020, it was also negatively associated with exposure to conservative media (The Fox News Channel). In both surveys, discussing global warming with family and friends was positively associated with considering global warming to be the most important voting issue, whereas perceived personal experience and worry were significant predictors in only one survey. These results suggest that global warming's importance as a voting issue is influenced by a range of individual, social, and media influences, and that the predictors of the issue's absolute importance to voters overlap only partially with the predictors of its relative importance.

Public attitudes toward climate change influence climate and energy policies and guide individual mitigation and adaptation behaviors. Over the last decade, as scientific certainty about the causes and impacts of, and solutions to the climate crisis has increased, cities, states, and regions in the United States have pursued diverse policy strategies. Yet, our understanding of how Americans’ climate views are changing remains largely limited to national trends. Here we use a large US survey dataset ( $N = 27\,075$ ) to estimate dynamic, state-level changes in 16 climate change beliefs, risk perceptions, and policy preferences over 13 years (2008–2020). We find increases in global warming issue importance and perceived harm in every state. Policy support, however, increased in more liberal states like California and New York, but remained stable elsewhere. Year-by-year estimates of state-level climate opinions can be used to support sub-national mitigation and adaptation efforts that depend on public support and engagement.

We report on two independent failures to conceptually replicate findings by Ballard & Lewandowsky (Ballard and Lewandowsky 2015 Phil. Trans. R. Soc. A 373, 20140464 (doi:10.1098/rsta.2014.0464)), who showed that certainty in, and concern about, projected public health issues (e.g. impacts of climate change) depend on how uncertain information is presented. Specifically, compared to a projected range of outcomes (e.g. a global rise in temperature between 1.6°C and 2.4°C) by a certain point in time (the year 2065), Ballard & Lewandowsky (Ballard and Lewandowsky 2015 Phil. Trans. R. Soc. A 373, 20140464 (doi:10.1098/rsta.2014.0464)) showed that focusing people on a certain outcome (a global rise in temperature of at least 2°C) by an uncertain time-frame (the years 2054–2083) increases certainty in the outcome, and concern about its implications. Based on two new studies that showed a null effect between the two presentation formats, however, we recommend treating the projection statements featured in these studies as equivalent, and we encourage investigators to find alternative ways to improve on existing formats to communicate uncertain information about future events.

The severe threats posed by anthropogenic climate change make hope and a sense of efficacy key ingredients in effective climate communication. Yet little is known about what makes individuals hopeful–or in contrast, doubtful–that humanity can reduce the problem, or how hope relates to activism. This study uses mixed-methods with two national surveys to (1) identify what makes people hopeful or doubtful that humanity will address the problem (Study 1, N = 674), and (2) whether hopeful and doubtful appraisals are related to activism or policy support (Study 2, N = 1,310). In Study 1, responses to open-ended questions reveal a lack of hope among the public. For those with hope, the most common reason relates to social phenomena–seeing others act or believing that collective awareness is rising (“constructive hope”). Hope for some, however, stems from the belief that God or nature will solve the problem without the need for human intervention (which we call “false hope”). The most prevalent doubts are low prioritization, greed, and intergroup conflict (i.e., the need for cooperation at various scales to successfully address the issue). We identified both “constructive” and “fatalistic” doubts. Constructive doubts are concerns that humanity won't address the problem effectively, while fatalistic doubts are beliefs that we can't address the problem even if we wanted to because it is in the hands of God or Mother Nature. In study 2, we used these emergent hope and doubt appraisals to develop survey measures. Regression analyses suggest that constructive hope and doubt predict increased policy support and political engagement, whereas false hope and fatalistic doubt predict the opposite. An interaction exists between constructive hope and doubt in predicting political behavioral intentions, which suggests that having hope that humans will reduce climate change, along with recognition that humans are not doing enough may also be constructive and motivate political action. Climate change communicators might consider focusing on constructive hope (e.g., human progress, the rise of clean energy), coupled with elements of constructive doubt (e.g., the reality of the threat, the need for more action), to mobilize action on climate change.

Many people who are concerned about the issue of climate change do not engage in the collective action behaviors that are most likely to lead to societal‐scale solutions. Such attitude‐behavior inconsistency is a well‐documented phenomenon. This study investigates whether exposure to an effectively framed message from a highly credible source can increase the consistency between attitudes and activism behaviors among people with pre‐existing strong attitudes, particularly for behaviors that are less difficult. The release of Pope Francis' climate change encyclical, Laudato Sí, and subsequent visit to the United States provide an opportunity to test this research question in a natural field setting. A nationally representative, within‐subject panel survey was conducted two months prior to the release of the encyclical and again four months later, after the release and papal visit, to assess the impact of the Pope's message on Americans' climate change consumer and political advocacy behaviors. Among people who are already concerned about climate change, higher exposure to the Pope's climate change message is associated with increases in attitude‐behavior consistency for less difficult activism behaviors. The findings suggest that sustained exposure to compelling climate messages from trusted sources can increase the performance of activism behaviors.

Effectively addressing climate change requires significant changes in individual and collective human behavior and decision‐making. Yet, in light of the increasing politicization of (climate) science, and the attempts of vested‐interest groups to undermine the scientific consensus on climate change through organized “disinformation campaigns,” identifying ways to effectively engage with the public about the issue across the political spectrum has proven difficult. A growing body of research suggests that one promising way to counteract the politicization of science is to convey the high level of normative agreement (“consensus”) among experts about the reality of human‐caused climate change. Yet, much prior research examining public opinion dynamics in the context of climate change has done so under conditions with limited external validity. Moreover, no research to date has examined how to protect the public from the spread of influential misinformation about climate change. The current research bridges this divide by exploring how people evaluate and process consensus cues in a polarized information environment. Furthermore, evidence is provided that it is possible to pre‐emptively protect (“inoculate”) public attitudes about climate change against real‐world misinformation.

Human-caused climate change is happening; nearly all climate scientists are convinced of this basic fact according to surveys of experts and reviews of the peer-reviewed literature. Yet, among the American public, there is widespread misunderstanding of this scientific consensus. In this paper, we report results from two experiments, conducted with national samples of American adults, that tested messages designed to convey the high level of agreement in the climate science community about human-caused climate change. The first experiment tested hypotheses about providing numeric versus non-numeric assertions concerning the level of scientific agreement. We found that numeric statements resulted in higher estimates of the scientific agreement. The second experiment tested the effect of eliciting respondents' estimates of scientific agreement prior to presenting them with a statement about the level of scientific agreement. Participants who estimated the level of agreement prior to being shown the corrective statement gave higher estimates of the scientific consensus than respondents who were not asked to estimate in advance, indicating that incorporating an "estimation and reveal" technique into public communication about scientific consensus may be effective. The interaction of messages with political ideology was also tested, and demonstrated that messages were approximately equally effective among liberals and conservatives. Implications for theory and practice are discussed.

Individuals who identify changes in their local climate are also more likely to report that they have personally experienced global climate change. One way that people may come to recognize that their local climate is changing is through information provided by local TV weather forecasters. Using random digit dialing, 2,000 adult local TV news viewers in Virginia were surveyed to determine whether routine exposure to local TV weather forecasts influences their perceptions of extreme weather in Virginia, and their perceptions about climate change more generally. Results indicate that paying attention to TV weather forecasts is associated with beliefs that extreme weather is becoming more frequent in Virginia, which in turn is associated with stronger beliefs and concerns about climate change. These associations were strongest for individuals who trust their local TV weathercaster as a source of information about climate change, and for those who identify as politically conservative or moderate. The findings add support to the literature suggesting that TV weathercasters can play an important role in educating the public about climate change.

BACKGROUND TO THE DEBATE: Isotretinoin is an effective treatment for severe acne, a condition which can be physically, emotionally, and socially disabling. Because the drug is teratogenic, causing severe birth defects, women taking the drug are directed to avoid pregnancy. In the United States, a series of risk reduction programs have been implemented that aim to prevent pregnant women from taking the drug and to prevent women taking it from getting pregnant. The most recent, and most stringent, is an Internet-based, performance-linked system called iPLEDGE, which tries to ensure that the drug is dispensed only when there is documentary proof that the patient is not pregnant and is using two forms of birth control. Is iPLEDGE the best way to reduce isotretinoin birth defects, or is it an unproven and overly burdensome system?