#30 · Before the Assembly
## How to deal with situations in which participants' beliefs about the criticality, causes, or consequences of the climate crisis are not aligned? How to frame questions around climate change?
—
A major obstacle to taking action on climate change is the widespread presence of misconceptions, particularly narratives that support delaying climate policies or outright deny climate change, often driven by vested interests. This normalises the acceptance of the status quo, despite the urgent need for transformative action. CCAs are thought to counter or mitigate such misperceptions, even if they suffer from self-selection bias, meaning that most participants are aligned in their concerns for climate.
Climate change denial may be connected to grief or anxiety as people confront changes needed in ways of living or when acknowledging a future that can no longer be characterised by growth. When participants do not share common beliefs, such as those who deny climate change, collaboration may be compromised. In these cases, designing activities that establish common ground can help set the scene for constructive discussions.
Requiring participants to justify their viewpoints is a particularly effective way to counteract biases in individual reasoning, such as confirmation bias. Talking helps to establish common ground, as does non-verbal communication, and workspaces designed for information sharing. Recent work suggests that technology (data-driven systems such as Large Language Models) can assist facilitators in establishing common ground on controversial topics.
The CLIMAS toolbox in its general information sheet addresses the framing of questions around climate change, reflecting on the different reactions to narratives, language and visuals used in CCAs (e.g. images of climate impacts, protests, or scientific charts). It also proposes to pose questions such as: ‘Should the focus be on the most likely scenarios for global warming or on the worst-case outcomes? Should the causes of climate change be explained using technical terms such as ‘greenhouse gas emissions’ and ‘industrial processes’, or should they be framed in moral terms, highlighting the responsibility of wealthier nations for the impact on vulnerable communities?’ TheInformation Booklet of the Global Assembly on the climate crisis breaks down knowledge into accessible learning materials.
For integrating emotional awareness and acknowledging climate emotions, the Climate Justice Toolkit provides an overview and definition of climate emotions such as anxiety and grief, and offers approaches to create safe spaces for reflection and how to safely engage in climate justice dialogue. Climate Feeling Space
A major obstacle to taking action on climate change is the widespread presence of misconceptions, particularly narratives that support delaying climate policies or outright deny climate change, often driven by vested interests. This normalises the acceptance of the status quo, despite the urgent need for transformative action. CCAs are thought to counter or mitigate such misperceptions, even if they suffer from self-selection bias, meaning that most participants are aligned in their concerns for climate.
Climate change denial may be connected to grief or anxiety as people confront changes needed in ways of living or when acknowledging a future that can no longer be characterised by growth. When participants do not share common beliefs, such as those who deny climate change, collaboration may be compromised. In these cases, designing activities that establish common ground can help set the scene for constructive discussions.
Requiring participants to justify their viewpoints is a particularly effective way to counteract biases in individual reasoning, such as confirmation bias. Talking helps to establish common ground, as does non-verbal communication, and workspaces designed for information sharing. Recent work suggests that technology (data-driven systems such as Large Language Models) can assist facilitators in establishing common ground on controversial topics.
The CLIMAS toolbox in its general information sheet addresses the framing of questions around climate change, reflecting on the different reactions to narratives, language and visuals used in CCAs (e.g. images of climate impacts, protests, or scientific charts). It also proposes to pose questions such as: ‘Should the focus be on the most likely scenarios for global warming or on the worst-case outcomes? Should the causes of climate change be explained using technical terms such as ‘greenhouse gas emissions’ and ‘industrial processes’, or should they be framed in moral terms, highlighting the responsibility of wealthier nations for the impact on vulnerable communities?’ TheInformation Booklet of the Global Assembly on the climate crisis breaks down knowledge into accessible learning materials.
For integrating emotional awareness and acknowledging climate emotions, the Climate Justice Toolkit provides an overview and definition of climate emotions such as anxiety and grief, and offers approaches to create safe spaces for reflection and how to safely engage in climate justice dialogue. Climate Feeling Space
Bannon, L., & Bødker, S. (1997). Constructing common information spaces. In Proceedings of the Fifth European Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work (pp. 81-96). Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands.
Convertino, G., Mentis, H. M., Rosson, M. B., Carroll, J. M., Slavkovic, A., & Ganoe, C. H. (2008). Articulating common ground in cooperative work: content and process. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems (pp. 1637-1646).
Haltinner, K., & Sarathchandra, D. (2018). Climate change skepticism as a psychological coping strategy. Sociology Compass, 12(6), e12586.
Tessler, M. H., Bakker, M. A., Jarrett, D., Sheahan, H., Chadwick, M. J., Koster, R., … & Summerfield, C. (2024). AI can help humans find common ground in democratic deliberation. Science, 386(6719), eadq2852.
Smith, G., & Setälä, M. (2018). Mini-publics and deliberative democracy.
Mercier, H., & Landemore, H. (2012). Reasoning is for arguing: Understanding the successes and failures of deliberation. Political psychology, 33(2), 243-258.
Flanigan, B., Gölz, P., Gupta, A., & Procaccia, A. D. (2020). Neutralizing self-selection bias in sampling for sortition. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 33, 6528-6539.
