Francis A. Commerçon, Matthew H. Goldberg, Karine Lacroix, Jennifer P. Carman, S. Rosenthal, A. Leiserowitz
{"title":"Evaluating the Terms Americans Use to Refer to “Carbon Emissions”","authors":"Francis A. Commerçon, Matthew H. Goldberg, Karine Lacroix, Jennifer P. Carman, S. Rosenthal, A. Leiserowitz","doi":"10.1080/17524032.2022.2156907","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT\n The effectiveness of climate change communication depends in part on how people perceive common terms used to describe key climate concepts. In a mixed methods study (N = 2859), we examined affect, top-of-mind associations, beliefs, policy support, and behavioral intentions elicited by terms communicators colloquially use to refer to the gases responsible for climate change: greenhouse gas emissions, carbon emissions, and carbon pollution. Open-ended responses revealed that, of the three terms, carbon pollution evoked more negative images of harm; carbon emissions evoked more negative images of pollution; and greenhouse gas emissions evoked more images of climate change. Respondents had generally stronger negative affect toward carbon emissions and carbon pollution than greenhouse gas emissions. Although Americans had similar beliefs about carbon emissions and carbon pollution, they linked both terms more strongly than greenhouse gas emissions to harms to human health and the environment and to poor air quality.","PeriodicalId":54205,"journal":{"name":"Environmental Communication-A Journal of Nature and Culture","volume":"1 1","pages":"87 - 100"},"PeriodicalIF":3.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Environmental Communication-A Journal of Nature and Culture","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/17524032.2022.2156907","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"COMMUNICATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
ABSTRACT
The effectiveness of climate change communication depends in part on how people perceive common terms used to describe key climate concepts. In a mixed methods study (N = 2859), we examined affect, top-of-mind associations, beliefs, policy support, and behavioral intentions elicited by terms communicators colloquially use to refer to the gases responsible for climate change: greenhouse gas emissions, carbon emissions, and carbon pollution. Open-ended responses revealed that, of the three terms, carbon pollution evoked more negative images of harm; carbon emissions evoked more negative images of pollution; and greenhouse gas emissions evoked more images of climate change. Respondents had generally stronger negative affect toward carbon emissions and carbon pollution than greenhouse gas emissions. Although Americans had similar beliefs about carbon emissions and carbon pollution, they linked both terms more strongly than greenhouse gas emissions to harms to human health and the environment and to poor air quality.
期刊介绍:
Environmental Communication is an international, peer-reviewed forum for multidisciplinary research and analysis assessing the many intersections among communication, media, society, and environmental issues. These include but are not limited to debates over climate change, natural resources, sustainability, conservation, wildlife, ecosystems, water, environmental health, food and agriculture, energy, and emerging technologies. Submissions should contribute to our understanding of scientific controversies, political developments, policy solutions, institutional change, cultural trends, media portrayals, public opinion and participation, and/or professional decisions. Articles often seek to bridge gaps between theory and practice, and are written in a style that is broadly accessible and engaging.