How Americans Respond to Information About Global Warming's Health Impacts: Evidence From a National Survey Experiment

Climate Change, Kidney Health, and Environmentally Sustainable Kidney Care: A Multinational Survey of Health Care Professionals

Key Points

Background

Given the threat of climate change to kidney health and the significant environmental effect of kidney care, calls are increasing for health care professionals and organizations to champion climate advocacy and environmentally sustainable kidney care. Yet, little is known about their engagement, and existing literature is primarily emerging from high-income countries.

Methods

We conducted a cross-sectional survey to understand the knowledge, attitude, and practice of health care professionals on the interconnectedness of climate change and kidney health; to identify personal and organizational initiatives in sustainable kidney care and strategies to increase their engagement; and to compare responses by their country's income level as classified by the World Bank.

Results

Participants (n=972) represented 108 countries, with 64% from lower- or middle-income countries. Ninety-eight percent believed that climate change is happening, yet <50% possessed knowledge about the effect of climate change on kidney health or the environmental effect of kidney care. Only 14% were involved in climate change and kidney health initiatives (membership, knowledge/awareness, research, and advocacy), 22% in sustainable kidney care initiatives (education/advocacy, preventative nephrology, sustainable dialysis, promoting transplant/home therapies, and research), and 26% reported organizational initiatives in sustainable kidney care (sustainable general or dialysis practices, preventative/lean nephrology, and focused committees). Participants from lower-income countries generally reported higher knowledge and variable level of concern. Engagement in sustainable kidney care did not vary by income level. Guidance/toolkit (79%), continuing education (75%), and opportunities (74%) were the top choices to increase engagement. National initiatives (47%), preventative measures (35%), and research endeavors (31%) were the top avenues for organizational engagement. These varied by income level, suggesting that the vision and priorities vary by baseline resource setting.

Conclusions

We have identified knowledge and practice gaps among health care professionals on the bidirectional relationship between kidney disease and climate change in a multinational context and several avenues to increase their engagement.

We can use our superpower to help end fossil fuel pollution and rise to the challenge of climate change

In this commentary, we argue that health professionals can play a pivotal role in accelerating the adoption of public policies that will help communities, nations, and the world end fossil fuel pollution and rise to the challenges of climate change. We briefly describe our previously published research showing that communicating about fossil fuel pollution and the health relevance of climate change has many benefits in building public support for climate action. Most importantly, we make the case that because health professionals, especially medical doctors and other clinicians, are highly trusted, we collectively have a unique opportunity to bring people together across the political continuum to have constructive dialogues about the intertwined problems of fossil fuel pollution and climate change and what to do about them - even in the current hyper-partisan environment.

Science-Consistent Climate Health Beliefs As Predictors of Climate Behaviors and Support for Inflation Reduction Act Provisions and a Carbon Emissions Tax

Understanding the factors associated with acceptance of climate action is central in designing effective climate change communication strategies. An exploratory factor analysis of 12 science-consistent beliefs about the existence, causes, and consequences of climate change reveals three underlying factors: climate change [a] is real and human caused, [b] has increased the frequency of extreme weather events, and [c] negatively affects public health. In the presence of demographic, ideological, and party controls, this health factor significantly predicts a 3-6 percentage point increase in respondents' [a] willingness to advocate for climate change; [b] reported personal pro-climate behaviors; and [c] support for government policies addressing climate change. These results are robust when controlling for respondents' underlying belief in the existence and causes of climate change, respondent worry, self-efficacy, and respondent belief that extreme weather events and heat waves are increasing. These findings suggest ways to bolster public support for climate policies that may otherwise be at risk.

Calling attention to opponents of climate action in climate and health messaging

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.

Climate change and health: three grand challenges

Climate change may be the greatest health threat of the twenty-first century, impacting lives both directly and indirectly, through undermining the environmental and social determinants of health. Rapid action to decarbonize economies and build resilience is justified on health, human rights, environmental and economic grounds. While the necessary health response is wide ranging, it can largely be encapsulated within three grand challenges: (i) promote actions that both reduce carbon emissions and improve health; (ii) build better, more climate-resilient and low-carbon health systems; and (iii) implement public health measures to protect from the range of climate risks to health. The health community can make a unique and powerful contribution, applying its trusted voice to climate leadership and advocacy, providing evidence for action, taking responsibility for climate resilience and decarbonization of healthcare systems, and guiding other sectors whose actions impact substantially on health, carbon emissions and climate resilience.

Perceptions of the health impacts of climate change among Canadians

BACKGROUND

Understanding public perceptions of the health risks of climate change is critical to inform risk communication and support the adoption of adaptive behaviours. In Canada, very few studies have explored public understandings and perceptions of climate impacts on health. The objective of this study was to address this gap by exploring perceptions of the link between climate change and health.

METHODS

We conducted a survey of Canadians (n = 3,014) to address this objective. The 116-question survey measured prior consideration of the link between climate change and health, affective assessment of climate health impacts, unprompted knowledge of climate health impacts, and concern about a range of impacts. ANOVA tests were used to assess differences among sociodemographic groups.

RESULTS

Overall, Canadian's have a similar level of concern about health impacts of climate change compared with concern about other impacts (e.g. biophysical, economic, and national security). Among health-related impacts, respondents were more concerned about impacts on water, food and air quality, compared with impacts on mental health, infectious diseases and heat-related illnesses. There were differences among sociodemographic groups; women were significantly more concerned than men about all of the health-related impacts; respondents with a high school level of education were significantly less concerned about all health-related impacts compared with respondents with more education; and respondents on the political left were more concerned with those in the political centre, who were more concerned than those on the political right.

CONCLUSION

There is emerging literature suggesting that framing communication around climate change in terms of the health risks it poses may increase perceptions of the proximity of the risks. These results suggest that it is important to be specific in the types of health risks that are communicated, and to consider the concerns of the target sociodemographic groups. The differential knowledge, awareness, and concern of climate health impacts across segments of the Canadian population can inform targeted communication and engagement to build broader support for adaptation and mitigation measures.

Communication research to improve engagement with climate change and human health: A review

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.

Evidence-based recommendations for communicating the impacts of climate change on health

Climate change poses a multifaceted, complex, and existential threat to human health and well-being, but efforts to communicate these threats to the public lag behind what we know how to do in communication research. Effective communication about climate change's health risks can improve a wide variety of individual and population health-related outcomes by: (1) helping people better make the connection between climate change and health risks and (2) empowering them to act on that newfound knowledge and understanding. The aim of this manuscript is to highlight communication methods that have received empirical support for improving knowledge uptake and/or driving higher-quality decision making and healthier behaviors and to recommend how to apply them at the intersection of climate change and health. This expert consensus about effective communication methods can be used by healthcare professionals, decision makers, governments, the general public, and other stakeholders including sectors outside of health. In particular, we argue for the use of 11 theory-based, evidence-supported communication strategies and practices. These methods range from leveraging social networks to making careful choices about the use of language, narratives, emotions, visual images, and statistics. Message testing with appropriate groups is also key. When implemented properly, these approaches are likely to improve the outcomes of climate change and health communication efforts.

Can citizen pressure influence politicians' communication about climate change? Results from a field experiment

Urgent reductions in greenhouse gas emissions depend on governments implementing and enforcing rigorous climate policy. Individuals in democracies seeking to persuade government officials to reduce greenhouse gas emissions can take steps such as voting, protesting, and contacting officials directly, but it is unclear how effective each of these actions is in changing the behavior of elected officials. Here we take advantage of the public nature of social media to evaluate the actual efficacy of climate campaign emails using an original, real-world experiment where 335 Members of Canadian Parliament were asked by constituents to post a pro-climate message to their Twitter account. Only one Member of Parliament posted the exact text suggested by the campaign. After scraping and coding 18,776 tweets, we first find no evidence that a public health messaging frame is more effective than a standard environmental frame in eliciting pro-climate posts. Furthermore, we find only a marginally significant relationship between volume of constituent contact and increased pro-climate tweeting from Members of Parliament. Follow-up interviews with political staffers suggest that analog alternatives may be more effective than campaign emails in some cases. Interview findings also reveal that some offices receive low levels of constituent communication on climate change, indicating that increased pressure from constituents could still be consequential.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s10584-021-03215-9.

Science Policy to Advance a Climate Change and Health Research Agenda in the United States

Climate change is thought to be one of the greatest public health threats of the 21st century and there has been a tremendous growth in the published literature describing the health implications of climate change over the last decade. Yet, there remain several critical knowledge gaps in this field. Closing these gaps is crucial to developing effective interventions to minimize the health risks from climate change. In this commentary, we discuss policy trends that have influenced the advancement of climate change and health research in the United States context. We then enumerate specific knowledge gaps that could be addressed by policies to advance scientific research. Finally, we describe tools and methods that have not yet been fully integrated into the field, but hold promise for advancing the science. Prioritizing this advancement offers the potential to improve public health-related policies on climate change.

Views of health professionals on climate change and health: a multinational survey study

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.

Making the climate crisis personal through a focus on human health

Climate change-driven health impacts are serious, widespread, and costly. Importantly, such damages are largely absent from policy debates around the costs of delay and inaction on this crisis. While climate change is a global problem, its impacts are localized and personal, and there is growing demand for specific information on how climate change affects human health in different places. Existing research indicates that climate-fueled health problems are growing, and that investments in reducing carbon pollution and improving community resilience could help to avoid tens to hundreds of billions of dollars in climate-sensitive health impacts across the USA each year, including those stemming from extreme heat, air pollution, hurricanes, and wildfires. Science that explores the underappreciated local health impacts and health-related costs of climate change can enhance advocacy by demonstrating the need to both address the root causes of climate change and enhance climate resilience in vulnerable communities. The climate crisis has historically been predominantly conceived as a global environmental challenge; examination of climate impacts on public health enables researchers to localize this urgent problem for members of the public and policymakers. In turn, approaches to climate science that focus on health can make dangerous climate impacts and the need for cost-effective solutions more salient and tangible.

Multisolving Innovations For Climate And Health: Message Framing To Achieve Broad Public Support

Rapid diffusion of solutions to a changing climate is paramount if the US is to mitigate carbon emissions. A timely response depends on how people perceive and understand innovations such as new practices, programs, policies, and technologies that promise to reduce emissions. This article explores multisolving innovations in the context of interventions that can be targeted to community leaders and decision makers. We focus on examples led by policy staff; directors of municipal offices and departments of transportation, housing, sustainability, urban planning, and public health; and elected county and city officials where there may be mixed support for efforts to reduce carbon emissions, to show that some innovations can be accurately framed solely in terms of community health benefits. When communicating with stakeholders who are dismissive or skeptical of climate change, we suggest using messages that describe the benefits of mitigation innovations in terms of human health, rather than climate, to achieve broader acceptability.

Developing and implementing a targeted health-focused climate communications campaign in Ontario-#MakeItBetter

SETTING

Public health practitioners are called to effectively communicate with the public on climate change. The climate crisis requires swift action that starts with public awareness of climate-related health impacts and leads to public support for individual, community and systemic actions to mitigate and adapt to climate change.

INTERVENTION

This paper discusses learnings about public opinion research and communication strategies and how a health-focused climate communication campaign-#MakeItBetter-could help to increase awareness and engage new audiences, including public health partners, in conversations about climate change in order to reduce climate-related health impacts for current and future generations. The #MakeItBetter campaign was grounded in evidence-informed messaging, being sensitive to health inequities. Emerging research and pre-campaign testing suggest that framing climate change as a health issue is a promising practice.

OUTCOMES

The #MakeItBetter campaign appeals to parents/caregivers to learn more about climate-related health impacts, take protective action for children and support multi-level climate action. The campaign launch secured 89 news stories, including multicultural media coverage. Longer-term evaluation is required to determine the campaign's effectiveness in building public support for climate action.

IMPLICATIONS

An innovative approach to climate communication that draws on the intersections between behavioural and climate sciences and engages in multi-sectoral collaboration can spur both climate action and health protection, aiding public health practitioners and partners in effectively communicating the urgency for climate action. More work is needed to support communication on climate change as an inequity multiplier and promote climate action and community resilience for health equity co-benefits.

Fossil fuels are harming our brains: identifying key messages about the health effects of air pollution from fossil fuels

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.