in addition to writing about climate change, deaton also runs a website called climate chat, which aggregates research on climate change communication. climate chat began as his thesis project in grad school at gw, and now he uses it to keep people informed on the latest research, sending monthly updates via a newsletter.

we recently spoke to deaton about how to overcome the struggles in communicating the gravity of climate change and why climate change denial is a problem in the u.s. 

q: generally, how informed is the american public on climate change and climate issues?

a: i would say that the public is not as informed as scientists and advocates would hope it is. when you look at what people think of the causes of climate change, we are at the point where a little more than half of americans say that humans are causing climate change. but when you break that question down and ask, “do you think humans are the sole cause? do you think humans are the primary cause? do you think that humans are causing climate change, but also nature is causing climate change?” — that is a lot more confusing. and it seems that not enough americans understand that humans are the primary driver of warming. 

q: do the american people have an understanding of the mechanism behind climate change? it can be a relatively abstract concept at times, and what is your feeling on americans understanding of this?

a: i think that people, generally, have a pretty vague understanding of the mechanism of climate change. i think they understand that industrial pollution– pollution of carbon from cars and trucks and planes and factories and power plants–is making the earth warmer. but if you ask people to name as many greenhouse gasses as they can, i imagine that people might say co2, but they wouldn’t get to methane or hydrofluorocarbons or some of the other more obscure gases.

but i also don’t think it’s really important that americans understand the mechanism of climate change. i don’t think they need to understand the nitty-gritty of the science. i think they need to understand the basics — that pollution from cars and trucks and planes and factories and power plants, pollution from agriculture — from specifically raising livestock — pollution from deforestation is warming the planet, and that is a catastrophic risk. 

q: while only 5% of americans, in recent polling, fully deny climate change is occurring. why is there still a relatively large chunk of americans who are not willing to pin climate change on human activity? what do you think the root cause for that is? are there things that are causing that?

a: let me break that answer down into a couple of parts. one, i think it is tempting to divide climate change deniers into these many different groups, depending on what their specific views are… i think it is functionally fine to just group together anyone who denies that climate change is an overwhelming problem that requires an immediate and drastic response. you can just put them all together. if someone acknowledges that the planet is warming but denies that we need to do anything about it, that is functionally the same as someone denying that the planet is warming. 

as for why people would deny the need for drastic action for climate change, i think the answer is tribalism. for 30 years now, fossil fuel companies have been aligning with conservative politicians and conservative media to persuade conservative americans that climate change is a liberal conspiracy to create a global government, and you have gotten to the point where climate denial is a shibboleth for conservative politicians. membership to this group is now contingent upon denying the need to take drastic action to address climate change. it is really hard to change that. it is completely entrenched, and is really hard to form a new norm, particularly when you have all these forces that are reinforcing the current norm. 

i think there has been a lot of time and attention and energy devoted to trying to convert conservatives on climate change. the environmental movement has spent a lot of time and energy and money on that cause in the last couple of decades. and i think that energy would be better devoted to trying to mobilize people who are already inclined to care about the problem. and i think that the movement we’ve seen in public opinion in the last few months or last year, where you see more americans caring about climate change, and it has risen in importance among liberals and democrats, i think it has to do with the fact that you see more movement on the left.

you have charismatic politicians like (alexandria ocasio-cortez) who are making this an issue. you have advocates like the extinction rebellion that are making this an issue, and you are pulling from the left, and it’s having an effect on the whole spectrum of public opinion. you see progressives care about it more, and you see swing voters starting to pay attention. and, as a result, you’ve got republicans starting to — or at least trying to — sound sensible on climate change. mitch mcconnell acknowledges that it’s a thing. i don’t think he should get any credit for that, but i think that it is a result of pulling from the left.     

q: if drastic measures are necessary to make the impact that needs to be made to save the planet and try to mitigate as many problems as possible, wouldn’t you need that percentage of people on the right to be on board, especially when it comes to policy?

a: i think that in our system of government you need consensus to make policy, because of the way electoral votes are distributed across the country and what you need to win a presidential election and because of the way the senate works. you have to win in conservative-leaning states and you have to persuade people in conservative-leaning states because in the senate, at least currently and for the foreseeable future, you need 60 votes to pass anything.

so when i look at that, and i consider that fact, one conclusion you could draw would be that environmental advocates need to win over conservatives. now i think that is a reasonable conclusion, but i think that that is actually much harder than trying mobilizing progressives, mobilizing people to care about this problem. our system of government may be such that it is difficult to pass policy without bipartisan cooperation, but it is easier to imagine democrats taking unified control of government and passing climate policy than it is to imagine that conservatives will come along with that policy.   

q: we talked about what you believe should be done when it comes to tackling this problem of acceptance of the problem and understanding of the problem on a macro level, what about on a micro level? let’s say you are going to thanksgiving and your more conservative family members are there, and climate change comes up. what do you think the best way to deal with a situation like that? you are addressing someone face to face instead of a constituency or instead of a whole population, what would you suggest someone do?  

a: first, i would say, i wouldn’t get your hopes up. even if you are able to persuade someone to care about climate change — and there are a lot of conservatives who do — climate change still ranks pretty low as an issue for conservatives. they are going to vote on issues like terrorism, or fears of immigration, or concerns about national security, and those issues will likely supersede any concerns they have about climate change.

that doesn’t mean you can’t try. if you are going to try, then the way to do it is to make climate change a local and personally relevant problem. there is a lot of research that, in particular, points to the efficacy of highlighting the health risks of climate change.

let’s say you live in arizona, and you have historic heat waves, record-setting heat waves, that are making life miserable and are also a life-threatening risk for elderly people, and the infirm, and children. and those heat waves also make pollution worse, and that pollution is a threat to children. it’s a threat to your kids. it raises the risk of asthma, or it exacerbates existing asthma, those are the kinds of arguments that resonate with people.

one thing i would add to that is that there is a temptation to think that extreme weather on its own is going to change minds about climate change, that when people see and experience severe storms, drought, wildfires, heat waves, that they will be converted by virtue of their experience. but the research tends to suggest that extreme weather does not have a lasting impact on public opinion. people may be more concerned for a short time, but that is not going to convert them over the long term.

the things that do convert people are the efforts of advocates, cues from political elites, and the volume and quality of news coverage. those are the things that tend to change minds. you can point out to that, “hey, scientists say that burning fossil fuels has made this heat wave worse, and is a threat to your health,” and that might make someone more concerned about climate change, but you can’t assume the heat wave will do that on its own. you have to consistently repeat the message. it has to be present in the mind of the person you are talking to. it has to be a salient concern for it to matter.  

q: what science is saying now is that we need to start taking drastic and immediate action, not just in our county, but around the world. do you think that the level of support for something that drastic is possible to get in the timeframe that it needs to happen?

a: i don’t know the answer to that. i am a bit pessimistic, but i will also say i have been surprised by the shift in public opinion the last few months and the last year. so it is certainly possible. but whether or not it is possible doesn’t really have any bearing on what advocates or elected officials do. it has to be done, and we have to make every effort to persuade the public and persuade policymakers… we have no other choice.

q: the first democratic debate was last night, and there was a question about climate change, but there has been some criticism that climate change should be the first and biggest issue that anyone running for president should be addressing, because of the gravity of it. do you think that the issue of climate change should be more elevated in the current campaigns and current political discourse?  

a: yes, absolutely. i think there are moral reasons for that, as you suggested. climate change is the defining issue of our time. it is the biggest issue. it is the literal end of the world, and it is the thing we should be talking about more than anything else. it is also an issue that encompasses every other issue. it is an issue of public health and national security and inequality and injustice and so forth.

in addition to the moral argument, there is a pragmatic argument. across several polls and according to different methods of trying to determine what is important to democrats, we find that climate change is the number two or three ranked issue. it’s something democratic voters want to talk about. it is something democratic voters care about.

at the first debate, i think that moderators waited more than an hour to ask the first question about climate change, and the questions weren’t great. they were questions that tend to focus on the politics of climate change instead of the policy of climate change. i think that journalists who are going to be asking politicians about climate change, particularly in a debate setting, should understand this is something that democratic voters want to talk about. 

i like to do a little thought experiment sometimes when i think about the news coverage of climate change. we know that climate change is a problem that threatens the health and safety and lives of hundreds of millions of people — billions of people over generations. and we know that it is a problem that demands a world war ii-scale mobilization to solve. that’s a comparison scientists have used again and again. so we have a problem on the order of world war ii. are we talking about this problem the way that we would talk about world war ii? are we talking about this problem the way we would talk about the threat of japanese imperialism or nazi fascism? no, and we should be.

what would that actually look like? climate change would be the first question in the debate, and then the next 12 questions would also be about climate change, and they would be substantive questions about what candidates would actually do to solve the problem. 

the sunshine state’s underground freshwater reserves are being drained at an alarming rate, threatening the drinking water of millions, and severely damaging the complex ecosystem of the water cycle.

state and local governments already are working on solutions, but experts are calling for firmer action.

“if we just keep going the way we are going now, we are likely to be in trouble in the not too distant future,” said todd crowl, a professor at florida international university in the department of biology and director of the southeast environmental research center.

“the supply is finite, but the access to it is not finite. it’s limitless,” said robert glennon, regents’ professor and professor of law and public policy at the university of arizona. glennon studies water policy around the world and believes that florida is part of a greater water crisis in the u.s.  

“we americans are spoiled. we wake up in the morning, and we turn on the faucet and out comes as much as we want, for less than we pay for cell phone service or cable television,” glennon said. “most of our fellow citizens, when they think of water, if they think of it at all, they think of it as the air, infinite and inexhaustible, when for all practical purposes it is quite exhaustible, so we take it for granted.”

the associate director of the florida springs institute, heather obara, said, “we have a lot of overpumping of our aquifer, meaning that the demand for water in florida is really high, and we are using more water faster than our aquifer can replenish itself.

“we have a lot of water usage here in florida, such as large scale agricultural usage, as well as urban residential usages that are depleting the aquifer at a rapid rate,” she said.

this depletion of groundwater is a problem throughout the state, with both southern and northern florida experiencing shortages and environmental effects, according to the florida department of environmental protection. many of florida’s biodiverse ecosystems are dependent on freshwater to be clean of pollutants and at a certain water level to function.

the florida dep’s most recent water management assessment states that without new planning efforts, “existing sources of water will not adequately meet the reasonable-beneficial needs for the next 20 years.”

springs are a visible health indicator

in north florida, the natural springs are one of the best indicators of the health of the aquifers, obara said. the freshwater flows up from the underground aquifers into these springs through cracks in the limestone.

the florida springs institute, which studies north florida’s aquifers, has documented a significant drop of freshwater flowing into springs. according to a study they conducted in 2018, average spring flows in florida have declined by an estimated 32% from 1950 to 2010.

another consequence of low flow in springs is that nitrogen is polluting the ecosystem. according to obara, runoff inundated with nitrogen and phosphorus from agriculture and septic tanks is entering the water system, which shifts the balance of the whole ecosystem. nitrogen is fuel for plant growth, and when there is an overabundance of nitrogen in the springs, there are massive algae blooms. obara explains that without a strong flow, the springs cannot flush the algae out of the system, which ends up killing food sources for animals and disrupting the food chain.

“we thought we could just use and use that water, and now we’re dealing with the reality,” obara said.

the everglades is just as vital to the water cycle

unfortunately, the water crisis is not limited to north florida. statewide population growth has caused more and more land to be claimed for residential use. and local governments continue to authorize the drilling of new wells — and to expand development into swamps, despite the wetlands acting as a filter for water entering the aquifer.

like the springs in north florida, the everglades — a unesco world heritage site and a designated international biosphere reserve — is an integral part of south florida’s water cycle. the everglades plays a vital role in the delicate equilibrium required to maintain the aquifers by keeping a pressure counterbalance against saltwater pushing its way into the aquifer, said crowl, the florida international university professor. as the water drains out of the aquifer and the everglades, saltwater begins to intrude into freshwater reserves.

“it’s just a simple pressure problem,” crowl said. but the problem is only worsened by rising sea levels, which are increasing the pressure, he said. crowl studies the salinity of underground well water, sampling more than 100 wells throughout south florida.

crowl was not ready to make any predictions without continued monitoring in the future, but he did say “we are getting higher and higher concentrations in more and more of our wells where we measure saltwater intrusion. watching the rate that’s happening is a little bit scary.”

the government has a plan, but…

the florida department of environmental protection is one of the multiple statewide government agencies that are studying the problem and collaborating with local governments to address the crisis.

in a report published in 2017, the dep projected that between 2015 and 2035, the population in florida will grow by 27%, to 25.2 million, and that public demand for water will increase by 23%.

the dep has formulated a plan to address the increasing dependence on the aquifer. in the same 2017 study, they proposed 747 projects around the state to conserve water, costing $3.7 billion. the majority of the projects either use water reclamation or call for treatment of brackish groundwater.

but these projects seem to only treat the crisis, rather than address the underlying problem. obara and crowl both believe the most crucial step to addressing the crisis and eventually reverse it, is to commit to conserving the natural aquifer.

with one hand, florida’s state and local governments seem committed to fixing the problem, but with the other hand, they continue to take actions that seemingly contradict that first commitment. the miami-dade county commission recently approved the construction of american dream miami, a massive megamall, larger than the mall of america in minnesota. american dream will have 2,000 hotel rooms, an indoor ski slope, an ice-climbing wall, and a water park with a “submarine lake.” the project is now working to secure environmental and water permits for the 174-acre site, which is a previously developed area adjacent to the everglades.

“there really hasn’t been a good emphasis on conservation in florida,” obara said. “we need a shift in the mentality here in florida that we haven’t had before. we have always looked at the environment as a resource rather than something that not only benefits our health for our environment to be healthy, but it also benefits our state’s economy.”

“the point is if we don’t get the everglades restored pretty quickly to have freshwater to push back saltwater, we are going to be in a world of hurt,” crowl said.

so what can be done?

glennon suggests using economics and policy as a possible solution. he believes if the government increases the price of water, the natural economic response will be to conserve the resource. “it is a matter of supply and demand,” he said.

glennon still believes that access to water should be a human right, and suggests that 12-to-15 gallons per person, per day should be subsidized, avoiding penalizing those who cannot afford the price increase. glennon also calls for reform within agriculture, proposing that farms need to change their methods.

“i think the farmers developed their farms at a time when water was plentiful, and they’re doing what they’ve always done, using water the same way,” glennon said.

florida’s water problem is complicated and challenging to fix, but the outlook is still positive. according to crowl, it is possible to reverse saltwater intrusion, the health of the everglades can be restored, and the aquifer can be allowed to refill. for florida, there is still time to reverse the crisis.

“i am optimistic. is there a crisis? you bet there is. but can we do something about it? yes, and what we want to do is act before the crisis turns into a catastrophe,” glennon said.