Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.Researchers at George Mason University's Center for Climate Change Communication (4C) in the US state of Virginia found that environmental woes are much more interesting when linked to a public or personal health issue, according to an announcement by the university on July 19.
The new study was published in the June online edition of the peer-reviewed journal BioMed Central Public Health.
It details how Americans can be divided into six distinct groups, "the Alarmed (18% of the adult population), the Concerned (33%), the Cautious (19%), the Disengaged (12%), the Doubtful (11%), and the Dismissive (7%)" with respect to their "beliefs, behaviors and policy preferences about global warming." 4C defines these people as "Global Warming's Six Americas."
"Post-hoc analysis showed that five of the six segments responded more positively to information about the health benefits associated with mitigation-related policy actions than to information about the health risks of climate change."
Edward Maibach, the director of 4C, explained, "Re-defining climate change in public health terms should help people make [a] connection to already familiar problems such as asthma, allergies and infectious diseases;" additionally it shifts "the visualization of the issue away from remote Arctic regions and distant peoples and animals.
"The public health perspective offers a vision of a better, healthier future - not just a vision of an environmental disaster averted."
However the authors advised staying clear of specific campaigns that may "trigger counter-arguments and negative reactions," as is the case with the movement to ‘eat less meat to save the planet.'
Full study, "Reframing climate change as a public health issue: an exploratory study of public reactions": http://www.biomedcentral.com/qc/1471-2458/10/299#IDAATPUAB
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments