GeoLog | #policy Archives

Pole to Paris: Communicating climate change in a divided society

Erlend Moster Knudsen August 2, 2019

In today's politically divided landscape, what is the role of science? Climate scientists Daniel Price and Erlend Moster Knudsen established an outreach campaign, Pole to Paris, to break down barriers and create dialogues on climate change. Right photo: London February 15 2019 (27) School Students Strike for Climate Action. Credit: David Holt via Flickr. Left photo: Trump Digs Coal LAGOP GOTVR Dec2016 140. Credit: Tammy Anthony Baker via Flickr

The recent European Parliament election illustrated how divided Europe has become politically and intergenerationally. While the established parties lost their ground, both far-right populistic, anti-EU and liberal, green pro-EU parties grew in popularity among voters¹, with the younger generation favoring the latter and the generations above the former². What role is there for science in this divided landscape? Climate scientists Daniel Price and Erlend Moster Knudsen established an outreach campaign, Pole to Paris, to break down barriers and create dialogues on climate change with a broad audience from all corners of the Earth. The discoveries they made from this initiative were published recently in EGU’s new open access journal Geoscience Communication.

To build bridges in a divided terrain, our recently published paper makes a strong case for the importance of science communication training. In this publication³, we argue that the politicisation[i] and polarisation[ii] of climate change over the last decades call for a new role for climate scientists, in which scientists more actively engage with society at large. The role of the ‘pure scientist’, one that generates facts without consideration for its usage or users, is outdated, and the need for the ‘science communicator’ and the ‘honest broker of the policy alternatives’⁴ is rising. The time has come for climate scientists to offer expert interpretation of climate science and draw attention to its implications.

Just how is the key.

In the paper, we suggest five key components for successful science communication with non-academic audiences. Discussed in more detail in the publication, these are relevance, listening, positivity, perseverance and passion. They derive from our experience with science communication in 45 countries, through 10 languages, to audiences from three to 90 years old, within a wide range of societal groups. This experience comes from giving workshops on climate science, acting in a theatre play on climate skepticism, producing a biodiversity documentary, being a TV spokesperson on climate issues and writing two comic books on climate change and biodiversity loss, but – more importantly – from the 3000-km run and 10,000-km bike ride outreach campaign called Pole to Paris.

In the 7.5 months leading up to the climate summit COP 21⁵ in Paris 2015, we were part of the climate awareness campaign Pole to Paris⁶. This outreach project focused on reshaping the way climate scientists engage with the public on climate change issues. Instead of communicating pure scientific facts, Pole to Paris highlighted the human faces of climate change. We did so by leaving our academic offices, running and cycling across half the globe, from Earth’s polar regions to Paris, to interact with a wide range of audiences along the way and through traditional news outlets and social media. Along the way, we carried with us flags from the Arctic and the Antarctic, symbolizing the global significance of climate change near the poles, and in a sense bringing these regions closer to the people.

Map of the two Pole to Paris journeys: the Northern Run (blue trajectory) and the Southern Cycle (red trajectory). Also included
are the Global Voices events organized in collaboration with the partner United Nations Development Programme (green dots). Credit: E. M. Knudsen and O. J. de Bolsée 2019.

It was fundamental to the journeys that we engaged an audience not normally reached by scientific messages. Dan and I, two climate scientists with PhDs in Antarctic and Arctic climate change, respectively, led these journeys, which contributed to this goal, but there was more to the picture than just a one-way communication from the bike saddle and running shoes. To create a two-way interaction, we strove to use a familiar language and a known format in their home forums. Moreover, by establishing these dialogues, we were lucky to hear their own personal experiences of a changing environment.

As climate scientists, we are more used to talk in scientific terms like 2°C and 450 ppm, but human stories of climate change connect on a whole different level with laypeople. We therefore retold these stories at the open events and educational institutions along the way, and we shared them in traditional news outlets and social media. Overall, we estimated that the latter gave us a reach of more than 1 million people. Through video analyses and a follower survey, we propose that the inspirational messages of climate action by a younger generation were among the key reasons for this reach. Our 10 team members were all in our 20s, possibly explaining why we were especially successful in reaching other millennials and the Generation Z.

Left photo: Hundreds of cyclists joining Daniel Price for a morning ride in Jakarta, Indonesia. Right photo: Group run with Erlend Moster Knudsen in Trondheim. Credit Paul Kopperud/Tekna

Messages of climate action from climate scientists, however, can be problematic, as they question our objectivity. Our professional credibility as scientists, as defined by Nordhagen et al. (2014)⁹, comes from our peer-reviewed publication record, which scientific co-authors we collaborate with and what research institutions we are affiliated with. However, by advocating for positive personal and societal action on climate change, we moved beyond our core scientific base. Nevertheless, by making the problem tangible, concrete and possible to mitigate, climate change moves from something far away in space and time to something here and now. According to theories on science communication^7,8, such actions do not foster climate denial, which was also our experience.

When doing outreach on a divisive topic like climate change, scientists need in any case to tread carefully to maintain their credibility as well as that of the scientific community. During Pole to Paris, we did so by avoiding partnerships with either side of the climate advocacy fringes and not favoring one political party over another. Instead, we partnered with scientific institutions and international organizations like the United Nations Development Programme and the World Meteorological Organization. By following these measures, along with giving talks and interviews, interacting with politicians and literally walking the talk, we experienced a boost in personal and public credibility, which altogether enhanced our overall researcher credibility.

Photo from a Pole to Paris open event in Kabelvåg, Lofoten Islands (Credit: Espen Mortensen)

Our experience supports suggestions published in a previous study¹⁰ that science participation and outreach can indeed rebuild the credibility among communities most critical of scientists. This is encouraging considering that post-factual societies have arisen in many parts of the world, from the US to Brazil and from Hungary to the Philippines, where a significant number of people accept an argument based on their emotions and beliefs rather than scientific facts. Fake news has become a threat to science, researchers and institutions alike, as highlighted at the 2019 EGU General Assembly¹¹. Fostering constructive conversations about science and society, on the other hand, can improve decision-making, promote trust and credibility in scientific findings, and strengthen democratic processes^12,13, ultimately counteracting the politicisation and polarisation of science and post-factual movements, respectively.

In our paper, we argue that the current training to become a scientist does not fulfill the position climate science and scientists has received in our daily discourse. To adapt to and play our new role as providers of trustworthy information of climate change, we argue that more emphasis should be placed on teaching researchers how to communicate science and interact with media, policymakers and pseudoskepticism, while less focus should be on the published record. This training will not only help narrow the widening gap between academia and the rest of society but, within academia, also provide better tools for teaching, mentoring, taking part in scientific discussions as well as contributing to better-written research proposals and journal publications.

As a scientific community, we will all benefit from reducing the politicisation and polarisation of climate change, depressing the breeding ground for post-factual movements, and acquiring tools to deal with a new generation of students angry about the older generations’ lack of climate action. Predominantly paid by taxpayers, we have a self-interest in providing recognizable services back to our society. Publishing an academic paper in scientific jargon being a paywall is not enough in itself. Rather, we need to better position ourselves through communication training to engage non-academic audiences in scientific facts about one of the biggest threats of our time: climate change.

By Erlend Moster Knudsen

You can learn more about the Pole to Paris campaign on their Facebook page: https://www.facebook.com/poletoparis/

Erlend Moster Knudsen is a climate science researcher and communicator, currently working as a Senior Data Scientist for StormGeo in Bergen, Norway, and as the Deputy Director of Pole to Paris in Christchurch, New Zealand. He holds a PhD in Arctic climate dynamics from the University of Bergen. Erlend tweets at @ErlendMK

References

[i] Referring to how the science behind political decisions is increasingly promoted and attacked by advocates and opponents.

[ii] Referring to the growing division between elites, organizations and political parties viewing climate change as a negative consequence of industrial capitalism and those opposing such views.

FRANCE 24: Populist push, green wave, establishment in turmoil: a round-up of the EU elections, France 24, 2019.
Schminke, T. G.: How different generations voted in the EU election, Europe Elects, 2019.
Knudsen, E. M., and de Bolsée, O. J.: Communicating climate change in a “post-factual” society: lessons learned from the Pole to Paris campaign, Geosci. Commun., 2, 83–93, doi:10.5194/gc-2-83-2019, 2019.
Rapley, C., and De Meyer, K.: Climate science reconsidered, Nat. Clim. Change, 4, 745–746, doi: 10.1038/nclimate2352, 2014.
United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change: COP 21, United Nations Climate Change, 2015.
Price, D., Knudsen, E. M., Gillman, T., Willis, J., de Bolsée, O. J., Jones, C., Ward, B., Gustafson, J., Woodhouse, K.-S., Miao, W.: Pole to Paris, 2019.
Witte, K.: Putting the fear back into fear appeals: The extended parallel process model, Commun. Monogr., 59, 329–349, https://doi.org/10.1080/03637759209376276, 1992.
Stoknes, P. E.: What we think about when we try not to think about global warming: Toward a new psychology of climate action, Chelsea Green Publishing, Vermont, USA, ISBN 978-1-60358- 583-5, 2015.
Nordhagen, S., Calverley, D., Foulds, C., O’Keefe, L., and Wang, X.: Climate change research and credibility: balancing tensions across professional, personal, and public domains, Climatic Change, 125, 149–162, doi:10.1007/s10584-014-1167-3, 2014.
Gauchat, G., O’Brien, T., and Mirosa, O.: The legitimacy of environmental scientists in the public sphere, Climatic Change, 143, 297–306, doi:10.1007/s10584-017-2015-z, 2017.
Hill, C.: GeoPolicy: Fake news and populism – a threat to science in Europe, GeoLog, 2019.
Wooden, R.: The principles of public engagement: at the nexus of science, public policy influence, and citizen education, Soc. Res., 73, 1057–1063, 2006.
Nisbet, M.: Scientists in civic life: facilitating dialogue-based communication, American Association for the Advancement of Science, 2018.

GeoPolicy: Preventing mercury leakage from a WWII submarine

Chloe Hill July 5, 2019

U-864 Submarine Wreckage. Credit: NGI - Norges Geotekniske Institutt (distributed via Youtube).

I recently had the opportunity to interview Matthias Kaiser, a professor at Bergen University and, at the time of the interview, Director of the Centre for the Study of the Sciences and the Humanities. He is part of an expert team that has given scientific advice to Norwegian policymakers, highlighting the issues that should be considered when dealing with the U-864 submarine wreckage and its cargo, 67 tonnes of mercury.

Firstly, can you tell us a bit about the history of the submarine – why was it was carrying so much mercury in the first place?

It was during the late phase of World War II, the Nazis believed that the Japanese were at risk of losing and decided to help them by sending over materials for weapon production. One particular submarine that they sent from Europe to Japan had a load of 67 tonnes of mercury.

Map of Fedje where the sunken U-864 submarine is located. Map created December 7 2006, by ‘NormanEinstein’.

When the submarine left Norway, it was hit by a torpedo from an English submarine and sunk immediately down to the continental shelf [to a depth of 150m] just outside of Bergen, in a place called Fedje. The submarine was located in the early 2000s and after negotiations between Germany and Norway, Norway decided that they would take possession and organise what to do with it. Since then, discussions have started regarding what should be done with the submarine and particularly, what should be done with the mercury on it. To lift it up, out of the water or to cover it up – with basically mud and stones.

What did the Parliament decide and what information did they base their decision on?

There has been a little bit of a public debate and there has been, as there is very often is, conflicting scientific views in the newspapers. There was also an official assessment undertaken by the [Norwegian Coastal Administration] at the request of the Ministry which, again, acts on behalf of the Norwegian Parliament (Stortinget). They recommended that the submarine be covered up. One of the reasons for this was that their risk assessment showed there was no strong risk associated with it. And the other reason for the decision was that that it would only cost a third of the money compared to the alternative.

For many reasons, it took a long time to get through the bureaucratic processes and then there was some assessment made on how it could be covered up. Last year, the Parliament put it into their budget. At that point, the coastal community (Fedje) contacted us at Bergen University and asked for help because they said “What has been done here is not good”.

So, we formed an expert team of three people. One chemist, one environmental toxicologist and me, because I have done something on risk assessment and worked on the precautionary principle. We went to the Parliament – first, to the group from the western coast of Norway, and we said,

“Hey folks, you’re about to make some decisions on this, but we want to tell you that the scientific basis that has been presented to you is insufficient” and we gave them some of our reasons and worries.

This led to another hearing in parliament with a larger committee. They were also convinced and sent a message back to the ministry saying, “Hey! Take that out of the budget and do a new assessment”.

Then, we had a meeting with the minister and the ministry which was problematic because they wanted to be finished with it after so many years. We recommended an independent study but they didn’t quite follow-up on it, instead giving it back to the Coastal Administration who then had a competition, a call, for consultants to come up with new information about technical possibilities – this all had to be done within 5-6 weeks.

Later, we met with the consultancy who was selected. They came back with a report saying that yes, the initial assessment was incomplete but they wouldn’t be able to do it better in such a short period of time. Otherwise, they said that they didn’t know much more except that the possibility of [removing the submarine] is much easier than previously thought.

We also had a meeting with a company who do such things and they convinced us that it would be the same price [as burying the submarine] and that there’s virtually no risk.

Right now, we are still in the process. An Op-Ed I wrote is about to be published and I will probably do a television interview. And after the summer, there’s going to be a new debate in Parliament.

Can you explain what the worst-case scenario would be?

The worst-case scenario would assumedly be if they cover [the submarine] up and that leads to a very quick leakage. There is potential for this to happen because there are torpedoes onboard the submarine which might be impacted by the coverup. That would affect all of the marine life, not only in this region but also in all of the North Atlantic, especially when it comes to the fish stocks. Because it’s a very sensitive area for some important fish stocks such as the cod, herring and mackerel. The ecology would be very much destroyed.

Secondly, it may have an impact on people’s health. The water would not be very safe anymore and it be a long-term effect. There was an event in Minamata, Japan that was tragic and actually involved less mercury. It led to the Minamata Convention on Mercury for which Norway was a signatory and said they would do everything possible to avoid this kind of leakage.

Illustration of U-864, showing the slope of the seabed where the wreckage is situated. Credit: Norwegian Coastal Administration

What do you think is going to happen?

I would like to be an optimist. In my life, I always hope that the better argument will survive and convince. On the other hand, looking back on my experience, I know that this is very often not the case. So, I don’t really know. Particularly, my hopes are with the Parliament, not with the administration so much. I think the Parliamentarians may be more open.

Final question, what is your advice to scientists who would like to engage with policy and who have never done it before?

The first thing that you need to do, and this is not only for natural scientists but all scientists who go into academia, is to improve your dialogical skills. Talk to people who disagree with you and who have very different views than you. This starts maybe at the University or maybe with your local community.

You can start this as a young scientist. For example, there will often be community hearings on environmental issues or construction plans – go and attend these meetings and try to ask intelligent questions.

Don’t talk down to people! Don’t talk as if you’re the only expert, because other people know other things. Listen, but present what you know. In that sense, start where you have the opportunity to make a difference. And on the local level, every student has, every young scholar has. And if that interests you, if you’re good at talking to people and people like to talking to you, aim higher!

A warm thank you to Matthias Kaiser for providing insights and sharing his experiences.

GeoTalk: Meet the EGU’s president, Alberto Montanari

Olivia Trani May 28, 2019

EGU President Alberto Montanari receiving the 2017 Union Service Award at the during the 2017 General Assembly. Credit: EGU/Pflugel

GeoTalk interviews usually feature the work of early career researchers, but this month we deviate from the standard format to speak to Alberto Montanari, president of the EGU. Alberto has a long-standing involvement with the Union, stretching back more than 15 years. Following a year as vice-president, Alberto was appointed president at this year’s General Assembly in Vienna. Here we talk to him about his plans for the Union and how the science community can get involved, European integration for the benefit of scientific research, and placing value on scientific initiatives that are hard to measure.

In case some of our readers don’t know who you are, could you introduce yourself and tell us a little about your career path so far and your involvement with the EGU over the years?

I have been a professor of water engineering and hydrology at the University of Bologna since 2001. My background is civil engineering. After finishing my master’s degree my thesis advisor suggested that I attend a PhD program. He pushed me to pursue an international vision in my research activity, something that was not frequent in Italy in the early nineties. At the time I could not communicate in English, even reading papers was a challenge for me. In 1994 I attended my first General Assembly of the European Geophysical Society (which later merged into EGU). It was love at the first glance! I was so excited by my first experience that I did not miss any EGS/EGU General Assemblies since then. Once I got a permanent position as a professor, I felt motivated to contribute to the development of EGU, to give back what I received. I served as president of the Hydrological Sciences Division, chair of the Awards Committee and now I am serving as the Union president. Let me say that EGU is great, and I am thankful to those brilliant scientists who created it! If you asked me what has been the most difficult challenge in my career so far, I would say that it was (and still is!!) to communicate in the English language 🙂

At this year’s General Assembly, you were appointed Union president (after serving as vice-president for a year). What are the main things you hope to achieve during your two-year term?

I identified a few keywords to summarize my wishes for the future of EGU:

diversity and equality of opportunities,
visibility of Earth, space and planetary sciences,
European integration, and
early career scientists.

With regard to 1, I would like to encourage diversity in the widest sense. A diverse community and diversity of opinions are vital for promoting science. As for 2, I would like to involve excellent communicators as EGU ambassadors by giving dedicated recognitions. Issue 3 is essential for promoting European and global research. At the EGU General Assembly 2019 we organized an excellent conversation on European integration with Former Italian Parliamentarian Ilaria Capua and Former Italian Prime Minister and European Commissioner Mario Monti. The amazing attendance at that event was a clear sign that many researchers were interested in the topic and that we need to follow up with more events. Finally, with regards to 4, let me say that early career scientists are the lifeblood of the Union. I am motivated to promote their efforts and amplify their voice more and more, with dedicated initiatives.

Why these in particular?

During my service with EGU I tried to listen to people as much as possible. I collected an uncountable set of opinions and views. After speaking with colleagues – and early career scientists in particular – the above keywords clearly came forward. I am happy to say that I meet an impressive number of interesting people involved with EGU and during the EGU meetings. I am motivated to further increase my efforts to speak with the community. I encourage colleagues to contact me!

EGU President, stand along side Amanda Maycock, recipient of the 2019 Arne Richter Award for Outstanding Early Career Scientists. Credit: EGU/Pflugel

Last month, the EGU Council issued a declaration supporting a united Europe for the benefit of global scientific research and condemning “fake news”, biased reporting, social media bots and malicious state actors which threaten European integration. Why are these forces so troubling and, in your opinion, what can Union members do to address the challenges that a united Europe and scientific research face?

As I said, I firmly believe in European integration. A strong EU is beneficial to scientific research and societal development. However, such benefits are not so evident to people. I think one of the reasons is the complexity of modern society. It is a challenge for the public to understand how economy and politics work. Therefore, people hardly agree with forward looking political decisions and are tempted to support short-term strategies.

The same happens in science. Sometimes scientists speak in a language that cannot be easily understood, and therefore people are not supportive of inconvenient truths that may look obscure. In such situations fake news stories easily proliferate because they easily address people’s skepticism and concern. Such stories offer an apparently easy solution, but actually they mislead people and threaten scientific integrity and democracy. Politicians and scientists are partly responsible for this situation: sometimes they seek immediate consensus instead of looking forward and promoting transparency.

What can we do to be more constructive? At the EGU General Assembly 2019 Mario Monti replied to a question by former EGU President Günter Blöschl by suggesting, “Be yourself and tell surrounding people who you are and how the EU relates to you. And what aspects in your activity would not be there, or not be there so productively, if the EU was not there [or] if the EU was undermined”. I cannot agree more. I would additionally suggest to make it simple. Let’s use an accessible language to summarise the positive feedbacks that a strong EU and collaborative science can deliver to Europeans. Last but not least, we have to welcome diversity with a constructive attitude. Diversity – including diversity of opinions – makes science more transparent and more convincing.

On a similar note, At the EGU General Assembly 2019, you also convened a session on rewards and recognition in science for contributions that cannot be easily measured, such as engaging with the public and policy makers. In your opinion, how can the science community properly credit such contributions that are sometimes less tangible than publications, citations and grants?

I believe that the current system for academic recognition suffers from many shortcomings. Citations and bibliometric indexes give a far incomplete picture of the value of one’s contribution. We need to devise efficient methods for measuring the value of other activities, like teaching and participatory work in the community. Finally, let me quote Demetris Koutsoyiannis, a professor at the Technical University of Athens, who, in the conclusions of his talk during the above session, pointed out that “Metrics can serve as thresholds and shortlisting criteria. They are not sufficient to support final decisions, which should move away from the ‘audit culture’”.

The EGU is a bottom-up organization run primarily by its members. We’ve discussed what the Union hopes to do for its members, so I’d now like to ask how the EGU membership can take a more active role in the Union’s activities?

EGU is like a family; everyone has a role. EGU would not exist without each individual contribution. Any single person attending EGU activities is important. It is easy to get involved in EGU: just contact the relevant division president or myself. EGU is very open, and any member is welcome to test this openness; just send an email to propose your own ideas!

Interview by Olivia Trani, EGU Communications Officer

GeoPolicy: What inspires you to be a scientist?

Noel Baker: Project Manager, Royal Belgian Institute for Space Aeronomy May 2, 2019

Horizon Geoscience Dinner Debate, Brussels 2018. Credit: Anita Stein, EFG

What inspires you to be a scientist? For me, the motivation comes from a strong desire to make the world a better place, to use our skills and knowledge as scientists to help society and shape the future. Increasing our collaboration and involvement is an excellent way to expand our influence, but for early career scientists (ECS) like me, it can be a challenging task.

EGU has an incredible opportunity for ECS to overcome this challenge: the 2019 ECS Policy Competition. As the very fortunate winner of 2018, I received an invitation to an exclusive event in Brussels: a dinner debate, attended by an impressive guest list of EU Commission and Parliament members as well as influential scientists and industry leaders. This fantastic experience gave me a platform to voice my opinion, learn how to get more involved in policy, and directly network with policymakers and important stakeholders.

The format of the dinner debate was simple and effective. First, a high-level panel of speakers discussed the evening’s theme: how geoscientists can play a bigger role in tackling societal challenges. Afterwards, the discussions continued over dinner in a round-table activity, allowing each of us to give our thoughts and perspectives – these discussions were recorded and the summarised version can be seen here. I was able to have informal conversations with influential politicians: definitely a rare opportunity! The overwhelming consensus of the evening was that there is a strong need for researchers in geoscience fields to get more active and involved in interdisciplinary efforts in order to address societal issues. It was pointed out that we, as scientists, are uniquely qualified to provide highly informed advice in our fields of expertise. We are strongly encouraged to initiate a dialogue with scientists in multiple disciplines as well as policymakers and other stakeholders, and our input is extremely valuable. Activities like this dinner debate provide an excellent means for that communication to happen.

I consider the dinner debate to have been a very worthwhile experience for me. The opportunities didn’t end that evening, though; as a direct result of this event, my network of contacts has grown, and to my delight, I have since received job offers as well as invitations to other events and activities. Taking part in EGU’s policy competition has had a positive impact on my career, and I wholeheartedly recommend it to any ECS with an interest in expanding their network outside of science and getting more involved in policy.

The EGU’s 2019 Policy event will take place on October 17 in Brussels. It will focus on the five upcoming Horizon Europe Missions (adapting to climate change, cancer, healthy oceans & inland waters, climate-neutral & smart cities, and soil health & food) and how the geosciences can help contribute to these. the ECS Policy Competition winner will receive an invitation to the event, support for travel expenses within Europe and one night accommodation. You can find more information about the competition and how to apply here.