CHAPTER THREE LITERATURE REVIEW
3.8 Climate change and learning
In an economy where the only certainty is uncertainty, the one sure source of lasting competitive advantage is knowledge. (Nonaka, 2005: 287)
The IPCC (2014) claims that human influence on the climate system is clear and that recent anthropogenic emissions of GHGs are the highest in history. Gifford et al. (2011) confirm that human behaviour is changing the climate, and humans are, in turn, impacted by climate change. Furthermore, according to Lorenzoni and Pidgeon (2006), climate change is not only an environmental issue, but is closely linked to development at personal, social and political levels, which all attempt to shape our choice of future.
Wasdell (2011) claims that the main and critical challenges of dealing effectively with climate change is that there are many powerful countries, MNCs, global industries and financial institutions, who are highly dependent on the constant and increasing exploitation of fossil fuels for their wealth, influence and economic survival. Moreover, this group focuses primarily on financial sustainability and tend to resist any significant move to implement
111
climate change mitigation strategies, as this will mean limiting their GHG emissions and consequently a loss of revenue. Additionally, millions of dollars are poured into a globally concerted campaign of fossil energy protection. Furthermore, the energy intensive countries with their highly consumptive lifestyles currently depend on the accelerating use of fossil fuels and on the wealth generated by those involved in its extraction and provision. This is underscored by York (2012) who claims that any move to support climate mitigation is often countered by mobilisation of resources to protect the profitability of the fossil fuel domain, using all necessary force and by all available means. This view is further supported by Outka (2012) who indicates that there is conflict between fossil fuel industry and renewables, as each side sees survival as dependent on defeating the opposition and therefore scientific arguments or the lobbying of strategic stakeholders and decision-makers is often matched by equal and opposite intervention on behalf of the power-block whose wealth and survival would be threatened by any mitigation action. Furthermore, Obani and Gupta (2016) point out that the concern about the world recession is threatening to spiral out of control and is driving countries to make financial stability their main priority and the economy and growth of, especially wealthy nations depend on the escalating use of mainly fossil fuels which results in increasing levels of GHG emissions, causing an acceleration of climate change.
Politicians obtain their mandate from the views and demands of their respective constituencies (Fung, 2015) but, according to Bliuc et al. (2015), since public awareness of climate change is varied or support for decisive action to deal with climate change is deeply divided, the public is unable to give a clear signal to its political representatives. Wasdell (2011) expresses the view that countries that are most vulnerable to the destructive impacts of climate change such as small island states and poor countries that have a clear mandate to act are overshadowed by the rich countries of the industrially developed world. Additionally, many millions of dollars are allocated to the multi-media disinformation campaign mobilised to create public doubt, cripple political decision-making and ensure that no international action could be taken to mitigate the threat of dangerous climate change. Curran (2015) goes on to say that there has always been a resistance and avoidance of any effective action on climate change that threatens the immediate and vested interests, sources of wealth and access to power of the fossil fuel industry and its dependant financial and political institutions. Additionally, under such circumstances, clear, rational and objective communication of the science of climate change does not lead to effective and appropriate action. Carlton and Jacobson (2016) indicate that although rational scientific arguments are necessary, it is not sufficient to bring about a positive response to climate change and the
112
views of stakeholders and strategic decision-makers are unfortunately often thwarted by others whose priority is finance. Bauer et al. (2016) go on to say that since most individuals or businesses are motivated by the defence of wealth and the sources of wealth, any scientific analysis that threatens wealth tends to be suppressed, undermined and countered at all cost. In addition, Taylor et al. (2016) confirm that climate science information is undermined as it is perceived to be a threat to economic stability, consumer lifestyle and the debt-based ground of sustained economic growth.
Clayton et al. (2015b) suggest that if humans are the source of the problem, they can also be the solution to the problem. There is strong evidence that climate change learning and awareness will play a significant role in addressing the climate change crisis, at all levels, according to Van Wijnbergen and Willems (2015). Guy et al. (2014) advocate that fostering a shared understanding of the nature of climate change, and its consequences, is critical in shaping behaviour, as well as in supporting national and international action. This is underscored by Geiger et al. (2017a) who suggest that evidence-based communication that includes science knowledge and community-level solutions improve value beliefs and inspire public engagement on climate change. Bofferding and Kloser (2015) are of the opinion that shaping and sustaining future climate policy-making will be facilitated by educating school learners about climate change, while Bliuc et al. (2015) contend that there is also a need for broad public and international debate which will support today’s policy-makers in taking strong action immediately. Moreover, Kolieb and Harrould-Kolieb (2011) suggest that it is vital for the human race to innovate its way to a solution to climate change, both on the localised and global levels. Dobson and Tomkinson (2012) identify one of the challenges of sustainable development is tackling worldwide problems, like climate change, from positions of little knowledge or influence. Additionally, this is highlighted in the difficulties in tackling the reduction of GHG emissions, at a local level where there is very limited influence beyond the immediate community. Moreover, there are limitations due to other priorities such as meeting basic needs, eradicating poverty, or competition between stakeholders or nations.
Faling et al. (2012) report that local municipalities in South Africa have other more pressing developmental priorities and hence planning for climate change is still at the policy and discussion level with no real actions in place. It is understood though that municipalities are important role-players in local climate change adaptation (Hackenbruch et al., 2017).
113
In view of the foregoing, Article 6 of the UNFCCC (UN, 1992; UNFCCC, 2016) provides countries with the guidance on climate change education, training and public awareness. In order to fulfil the requirements of the above-mentioned Convention, countries are required to:
• Promote and facilitate, at the national, sub-regional and regional levels, and in accordance with national laws and regulations, and within their respective capacities, the development and implementation of educational and public awareness programmes on climate change and its effects; public access to information on climate change and its effects; public participation in addressing climate change and its effects and developing adequate responses; and training of scientific, technical and managerial personnel.
• Cooperate in and promote, at the international level, using existing bodies, the development and exchange of educational and public awareness material on climate change and its effects; and the development and implementation of education and training programmes, including the strengthening of national institutions and the exchange or secondment of personnel to train experts in this field, in particular for developing countries.
According to Ziervogel and Taylor (2008), different stakeholders view climate change differently and respond according to their particular experiences and priorities. Additionally, many people develop and implement strategies at various scales to cope with existing challenges and adapt to perceived changes. However, Shackleton et al. (2015) comment that such actions and strategies are often constrained by resource deficiencies and to complicate the issues, there is often poor understanding and appreciation between groups of the limitations and frustrations felt by other stakeholders. It can therefore be argued that the lack of effective communication between stakeholder groups such as communities, government officials, employees and researchers restrict involvement in decision-making and disempowers people from responding meaningfully to climate change adaptation and sustainable development. Additionally, such complexities indicate the need for an integrated approach to tackling climate change, with inter-sectorial planning that incorporates climate information into the decision-making processes. Klenk et al. (2015) recommend that to improve the climate change response, it is necessary to engage stakeholders better by listening to their needs and perspectives, sharing scientific information, and collectively exploring the likely implications. Additionally, it is also vital that the participation of the
114
general public is enhanced to enable an active engagement in the process, ensure priorities are sufficiently aligned, and increase awareness of the existing opportunities and limitations.
Furthermore, Brügger et al. (2015) and Shi et al. (2015) maintain that people’s willingness to adapt to climate change is determined by their knowledge, understanding, beliefs and attitudes regarding climate change and the environment, both at an individual or cognitive level.
Recent studies undertaken by Pasquini et al. (2013) in the Western Cape reveal that climate change is mainly considered an environmental issue and that most respondents were of the view that the environmental department was responsible for dealing with climate change, while Shackleton et al. (2015) comment that institutional constraints to climate change adaptation influence the tendency of respondents to view climate change as an environmental issue. However, according to IPCC (2014), many climate-sensitive systems such as food supply, infrastructure, health or water resources are vulnerable to climate change and hence Millner and Dietz (2015) suggest that climate change and adaptation are critical to development and are important issues for many other departments such as planning, engineering and community services. Burch (2010a; 2010b) and Critchley and Scott (2005) argue that organisational segmentation which fails to ensure collaboration among departments and individuals is due to entrenched past practices.
Dobson and Tomkinson (2012) suggest that one of the learning outcomes for those examining sustainability issues, including climate change, is the understanding that change can be achieved through societal change, policy change, technology change or a combination of all three. In other words, by understanding how an environmentalist or a business economist thinks, or considering policies for achieving social or behavioural change, an interdisciplinary approach to climate change can be adopted, rather than looking for technical solutions. Trede and McEwen (2015) suggest that in responding to the challenges of climate change, people learn most from practising in the context that they will be working in their future professional life and that solutions to sustainable development challenges cannot be achieved in isolation as these are complex issues. Additionally, it is important to understand the complexity of sustainable development, and adopt an inter-disciplinary approach that will underpin the systemic approach to addressing these issues. Abdul-Wahab (2003) and Hanning et al. (2012) underscore this by concluding that even engineers can expect to come into contact with environmental problems during their career and engineering curricula
115
therefore should include environmental components such as climate change. According to Morton et al. (2010), understanding the psychological orientations toward climate change is important for a proactive approach to incorporate climate change into design and construction. Steentjes et al. (2017) also demonstrate that there are important consequences for social and environmental change from how people view the wider social constructions of ethics around climate change.
Colbert et al. (2016) contend that people, especially the youth, tend to rely on expensive technology such as smart phones, tablets, the internet, or other Information and Communications Technology for information, learning and entertainment, as it is easier to have information at hand, retrieve it efficiently and there is no need to recall many facts, as the learner just has to learn to operate, access and apply knowledge from these new technologies. According to Stolovitch (2015), a more cost-effective technology for learning is human performance technology, namely, an investment in human capital which focuses on people to ensure that the correct approach is adopted that will deliver the optimum return on investments in training. Additionally, if there are unresolved problems with technology, the beneficial effects of training will not be lost, especially if the focus is on people. In addition, Mahoney and Kor (2015) are of the view that performance is affected by knowledge and skills and is the domain of education, development and training. This is underscored by Elnaga and Imran (2013) who assert that changing attitudes, knowledge and skills of employees will ensure innovative solutions to problems, and although training can contribute to solutions, it cannot stand alone. Additionally, a combination of improved information and documentation, better feedback, special non-standard systems and processes and some briefing, training and education is required to bind it all together.
People’s attitudes towards climate change, according to Clayton et al. (2015a), consistently indicate similar patterns such as concern for the future, an understanding that some of the impacts of climate change include ocean level rise, more frequent storms, possible water shortages, and general agreement that this is a serious or potentially serious problem.
However, Capstick et al. (2015) indicate that public unease over climate change is highly dependent on weather fluctuations and media attention, as there is greater anxiety when there is extreme weather events and increased media attention, and vice versa. Brügger et al.
(2015) suggest that climate change is poorly understood and most people do not find it relevant to their daily lives as it is not something people regularly ponder and worry about.
116
Additionally, an improved understanding of public perceptions about climate change can contribute to more knowledgeable scientific and policy discussions of climate change. Post (2016) recommends that it is important for scientists and policy-makers to understand the public’s different responses to climate impacts as such responses can help to design policies that will be supported or at least tolerated by the majority of people. According to Wittneben and Kiyar (2009), there appears to be an incremental increase in the awareness of climate change issues by managers, although there is still a big gap in climate change education.
Stevenson (2017) emphasises that increasing the climate change awareness of all individuals in society today is critical for promoting positive change.
Burke et al. (2015a) maintain that emission reductions are not easy, as the majority of countries’ economies continue to rely heavily on fossil fuels and Kohler (2013) indicates that with the focus on growth and development in South Africa, the demand for electricity is increasing. Pasquini et al. (2015) indicate that at the local government level, municipalities in South Africa acknowledge climate change, but there is limited action. For example, Hunt and Watkiss (2011) reported that the eThekwini Municipality has highlighted the importance of flexibility, experimentation and ‘learning-by-doing’ in their climate change strategy. One of the main barriers for climate change action by local government is the lack of authority held by environmental departments to address climate change due to the silo approach of government departments which does not support an integrated approach to addressing climate change (Pasquini et al., 2015). It is therefore vital that political and bureaucratic infrastructure changes to support more integrated cross-sectorial responses (Ziervogel et al., 2014).
Simoes et al. (2017) and Ziervogel et al. (2014) identify some of the following institutional barriers that hinder effective climate change action:
• a lack of capacity (both in terms of numbers of people and expertise);
• high turnover of staff within departments;
• limited understanding of and expertise in tackling climate-related issues;
• the positioning of climate change as an environmental issue rather than as a development issue;
• conservative financial management practices; and
117
• poor communication and coordination between departments and between different levels of government (especially national to local and provincial to local).
Tyler and Gunfaus (2015) emphasise that relationships between different stakeholder groups in South Africa such as government, civil society, researchers, practitioners and private sector is critical to drive climate change actions although there is currently a weak relationship between these groups. Additionally, it is also important to have truthful discussions between stakeholders of different cultural and educational backgrounds, although this is difficult to achieve especially in a highly unequal society such as South Africa. Buizer et al. (2016b) advise that in order to reach a broad audience effectively and credibly, it is essential that the current methods for communicating climate science and impacts are significantly improved.
Gifford et al. (2011) are of the view that climate-relevant individual decisions are at the heart of climate change responses. It is important to note the views of Ferguson and Branscombe (2010) who point out that climate change-relevant behaviour is not solely dependent on individuals as the role of the collective psychological processes cannot be ignored. Terwel et al. (2010) support this as they indicate that shared emotions and collective decision-making must be considered in order to fully encourage climate change mitigation actions.
There is widespread concern about climate change, but Clayton et al. (2015a) and Kurz et al.
(2015) are of the view that many people fail to engage in behaviours necessary to reduce climate change and that this is due to the gap between environmental attitudes and behaviour.
This gap is caused by various barriers which have been identified by Gifford et al. (2011) and includes both structural barriers (poverty and infrastructure aligned to climate change mitigation and adaptation requirements) which hinder behaviour change, and psychological barriers. Steg et al. (2015) indicate that some barriers are internal such as psychological and others are external such as structural issues, and recommend that some of the solutions to address structural barriers are social programmes and infrastructure improvements even though psychological barriers are more difficult to overcome. To help citizens overcome these identified barriers, Gifford (2011) and Kabisch et al. (2016) recommend that psychologists, scientists, technical experts, and policy-makers all work together.
Furthermore, Lorenzoni et al. (2007) believe that barriers are perceived at two different levels:
118
• Individual level barriers include uncertainty, lack of knowledge and reluctance to lifestyle change; and
• Social level barriers include lack of political action, social norms and expectation, and lack of enabling initiatives.
This is underscored by Gifford et al. (2015) who identify the following seven categories of psychological barriers to climate change learning: limited cognition, ideologies, other people, sunk costs, distrust, perceived risks and limited behaviour. The aforementioned barriers, which are relevant to this research, can be described as follows:
• Limited Cognition
Gough (2015) asserts that humans are not as rational, as initially assumed. Additionally, this irrational thinking also applies to climate change issues as the slow evolution of the human brain over thousands of years has not changed and human thinking therefore still focuses on the exploitation of resources and mankind’s own survival, risks and needs.
Brügger et al. (2015) point out that such priorities are not aligned with solving climate- related problems, as climate change is a more distant risk with delayed impacts.
According to Taylor el al. (2009), many people are not likely to respond to climate change, as they are ignorant of the realities of climate change and those who are more aware, are often handicapped to act due to their lack of knowledge about which specific climate change mitigation actions to take, how to undertake those behaviours, and the lack of information on the different benefits of various mitigation activities. Gifford (2015) is of the view that there are many indicators of the environment which are overwhelming for humans which can lead to environmental numbness and can cause people to attend only to selected cues. Additionally, small changes in the climate or the slow increase in air pollution is often not noticeable, for example, when people are unaware of difficult elements in the environment, it is not likely that here will be a change in behaviour. Clayton et al. (2015a) argue that regular pro-environmental behaviour is reduced by any perceived or real uncertainty as when there is doubt about climate change, people tend to interpret this as a weakening of evidence for climate change. Additionally, this uncertainty is used to serve people’s self-interest and people are therefore less likely to engage in climate change actions. People also tend to undervalue spatially distant risks due to judgemental discounting, for example, McDonald et al. (2015) point out that