Challenges of Right-Wing Populism in Environmental Transitions

1. Unprecedented Disasters and Environmental Emergencies: What the Rise of Right-wing Populism Means for Transitions towards Sustainability, and What We Should Do Next Winnifred R. Louis1, Kelly Fielding, & Joanne Smith 1 School of Psychology, the University of Queensland

2. Who am I? • Former Canadian, immigrant to Australia • School of Psychology at the University of Queensland • 15 years & 100 papers into my career • Longstanding activist, with a focus on the environment, peace • w.louis@psy.uq.edu.au

3. Terms I throw around a lot • “Norms” – social rules or standards for behaviour • “Identities” – people’s sense of themselves re who they are – staff members, students, activists, Green voters, etc.

4. We need to learn about groups in conflict • From the 1960s on, carbon pollution • From now on groups, group norms, and partisan conflict • right-wing populism compels us to come to GRIPs with this asap • Three key points are laid out in the GRIP model (*TED talk) • slides are posted online at socialchangelab.net

5. If partisanship over the environment is a barrier to progress we can • Stop demonising our opponents. • Recognise opponents’ environmentalists as effective, valued. • Support incremental change. • Mobilise coalitions. • As scientists: Fill the gaps. Sample conservatives. Look at age, political orientation as moderators. Publish null findings. Denunciation & annunciation. Don’t equate broken lefties with rightwing voters. Study mistrust.

7. 4 steps of change (Klandermans & Oegema, 1994) • Awareness • Sympathy • Intention • Action • Stopping our opponents / Winning them over ( )

8. Grist reporting Canadian Science protests Sept 2013

9. Effective communication • Science newsletters • The Conversation • Skeptical Science website • ABC/SBS Science TV shows Content or audience?

10. Inventors Early adopters Scientists Entrepreneurs Artists Activists Production Opinion leaders Mass Production Community groups Opportunists Infrastructure Political partisanship Changes to laws Political mainstream Lifestyle changes Social change

11. Carrying the message … My Group A • Talks & papers • News media • Commercial marketing, production • Social networks My Group B Your Group B Your Group C

12. And what about the end of the world? Public religion research institute, cited in Washington Post, November 2014

13. Trust and openness are given within groups

14. The importance of Getting a GRIP • GROUPS not individuals • INCLUSIVENESS • PRIORITISE CHANGE over time

15. The importance of Getting a Grip 1 We need to focus on GROUPS not individuals

16. …. Is there something we are missing when we communicate that is contributing? Yes • Environmental attitudes and behaviour (like most attitudes and behaviour) are group normative • They vary within a range set by social norms (a group’s standards or rules) • Environmental communication is about groups and identities • That is why we totally fail to influence some people

17. https://www.digitaltrends.com/social-media/twitter-tea-party-left-wing-tweeters-stay-separate/https://www.digitaltrends.com/social-media/twitter-tea-party-left-wing-tweeters-stay-separate/

18. Some environmental messages make things worse • highlight a negative norm • polarize opponents (make salient their conflicting identity and increase their adherence to oppositional norms) • credential opponents (making them look tough or like legitimate leaders because they are attacked) • delegitimise allies, agents of change (e.g., attacking half measures) • Make adherence to green ideology partisan

19. From the Huffington Post, Nov 6 2014 • Michael Brune, executive director of the Sierra Club, was … blunt in an interview Wednesday morning. First, he recounted some of the ways 2014 was a success: It elevated the issue of climate change generally and made candidates in a number of key races change the way they talked about the issue. But when it came to electing a slate of pro-environment candidates, which environmental groups spent an unprecedented amount of money on this year, "on that," Brune said, "there's been a miserable fucking failure.“ • …Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.), a guy who wrote a book saying climate change was a giant hoax, is poised to take control of the Environment and Public Works Committee, the Senate's most powerful environmental panel.

20. So what next? • In the US, from the Huffington Post, Nov 6 2014: Environmental groups say they're not turning down the heat on politicians for the next two years -- or the cash. Tuesday was "not a referendum on climate," said Elizabeth Thompson, president of the Environmental Defense Action Fund, the Sierra Club's political arm. "It was a really, really bad day for Democrats." As for the more than $85 million environmental groups spent, she maintained that it was still "too low." • "It's really expensive to play effectively in politics," said Thompson. "I think the resources were very well spent. I think we needed more.“ …Environmental PACs are emerging as major funders in 2014, however. Between Steyer's pledged $50 million and another $25 million that the League of Conservation Voters plans to spend this year, green PACs are on pace to spend as much or more than the largest independent groups spent in 2010. While many outside groups are increasing spending this year, the growth moves enviros into the heavy-hitters category, with groups like the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and American Crossroads.

22. What about evidence? • Is it possible to imagine evidence-based advocacy and even evidence-based activism? • If so, we need scientists • Let’s channel our millions of $ / hours towards what has been found empirically to work • Let’s acknowledge when things don’t work • Let’s remedy the lack of research, & direct some $ into trying to find out what creates backlash • And what works in the short-term and long-term

23. To Influence Conservatives, vs To try to defeat them? • Partisanship has many virtues and purposes, which is why it is recurrent • Yet we need to shift individual choices and group norms (including laws) as swiftly as possible to take as radical action as possible • … without having decisions reversed every time the conservatives come to power • So we need to shift conservatives’ individual & group environmental decisions, in the short term (while they are in power) and in the longer term

24. Emotionally accepting conservatives as part of the solution & not a causal factor • All major human thrashing of the planet has been bipartisan and continues to be – think cars, meat-eating, travel • Five years after both sides have embraced it, we are all committed to the cause – no one wants to re-introduce DDT – think ahead to that time and act as if we are already there • The environment IS a bipartisan issue • Hate the conservatism. Love the conservative.

25. What changes society? • If we knew we would do it • We need to know more

26. 2. We need todefine our group InclusivelyAnd the problem narrowly The importance of Getting a Grip

27. political opponents of authority Passive constituents of political opponents What is the problem? Terrorists Authorities

28. Environmental Activism and Identity • People engage in environmental action when they identify with a supportive group (e.g., Fielding, McDonald, & Louis, 2008, JEP)

29. Conscious fuel users All of us What is the problem? Fossil Fuel Greenies

30. The importance of Getting a Grip 3. PRIORITISE CHANGEover time

31. What kind of action do they take? • Normative action • There are NORMS– social rules or standards • People identify with groups (Tajfel & Turner, 1979) • And enact their norms (Turner et al., 1987; Turner, 1991; Terry & Hogg, 1999) • Collective Action is shaped by group norms • Forms change over time • Descriptive norms (what people do) may be different from injunctive norms (what people believe should be done) – Kallgren, Cialdini, 1990, 1991; Smith & Louis, 2008, 2009

33. Norm conflict can lower intentions • Smith et al., JEP, 2012: Similar pattern in 3 studies in Aus, China, UK

34. Staunton et al. (2014), Healthy Eating • Exposing Ps to messages about positive support for healthy eating weakly increased intentions • But if the negative DN was present, a positive IN sig decreasedintentions

35. Our own multiple ingroups’ norms also matter McDonald, Fielding, & Louis (2013), PSPB; (2012), E&B (2014),Multiple ingroups’ norms for environmental behaviour • When asked to reflect about the conflicting norms of ingroups, people with strong favourable attitudes are energised But target audience = paralysed, demotivated

36. Is it possible thatWe design campaigns that motivate ourselves And demotivate targets?

37. What could we do? Empower voices within the other group Chain of trust (pass message to others) Attaaaaaaaaaaaaaack!

38. Or : a contest for power? • Passing the message across a chain of trust • Giving a message from people in the target groupabout positive change

39.  Target audiences  Target audiences  Activists

40. Attack messages: rally the troops, radicalise the enemy • Louis & Taylor (2002); Louis, Taylor, & Neil (2004); Louis, Taylor, & Douglas (2005) • Louis (2008, 2009a,b); Christie & Louis (2012) • Thomas & Louis (2013, 2014), Thomas, McGarty, & Louis (2014)

41. So does attack work? Hornsey et al. (2006): actions can ‘work’ by: affecting policy-makers, changing public opinion, expressing values, & building an oppositional movement

42. Non-violence is > persuasive if systems not corrupt • Thomas & Louis (PSPB, 2014) • Experiment 1 (N = 158) non-violent collective action is seen as more effective and legitimate than violent action • Non-violence more effectively conveys a sense of illegitimacy of the issue and group efficacy. • Experiment 2 (N = 139) perceived corruption effectively undermined the efficacy and legitimacy of non-violent collective action, relative to support for violence.

43. Violence is prompted by group discussions of inefficacy of past action and illegitimacy of status quo Thomas, McGarty & Louis, 2014, EJSP Small groups discussing radical action w/ efficacy/legitimacy prompt showed more willingness to break the law (N = 114)

44. Why do we keep alienating people? Not enough listening Also : roaring sense of urgency and frustration, repeated failure

45. Winnifred R. Louis, Emma F. Thomas, Craig McGarty, Catherine E. Amiot, Fathali M. Moghaddam, Timothy Rach, Grace Davies, & Joshua Rhee Outcomes of political action are understudied (Louis, 2009)DIME model

46. Grace Davies: 2 studies • Against fracking (coal seam gas) • Ps = sympathisers • The protest is conventional or radical • The protest succeeds or fails

47. Variable effects of successful and failed conventional and radical action • Main effect of conventional action increased conventional action intentions of American Mturkers and identification with the activists • But radical action increased the mobilisation of students (conventional, radical, and lawbreaking) • Main effect of success for students only: failure increased innovation

48. Type of action interacts w/ success to predict support for democracy, lawbreaking Conventional Radical* Failure Success For conventional action ns; for radical action, failure led to sig lower support for democracy, trend to lawbreaking

49. #1: Outcomes of collective action understudied; #2 failure effects complex, important; #3 radicalisation, democracy outcomes • “Trump’s America will also be a new golden age of activism” (Ruiz, 2016) • “Democracy under threat as young people warm to authoritarian rule” (0’Malley, 2016)

50. What we do know:Messages about sustainability are messages about groups • Campaign designers today are like doctors in the 19th century – often counterproductive • Moderators poorly understood