Global warming and climate change

World wide views on global warming: evaluation of a public debate

B. Bovenkerk1 and F.W.A. Brom1,2 1Ethics Institute, Utrecht University, Janskerkhof 13a, 3512 BL Utrecht, Netherlands; 2Rathenau Instituut, P.O. Box 95366, 2509 CJ the Hague, the Netherlands; b.bovenkerk@uu.nl

Abstract
On 26 September 2009 a public debate was held simultaneously in 38 different countries about global warming, in preparation for the climate negotiations that were to be held in December 2009 in Copenhagen (the COP15). This was the first time that an international public debate of this size was organised. In this experiment on initiative of the Danish Minister of the Environment (host of COP15) an effort was made to include popular voices from all over the world in the political debate on climate policy. Such a debate needs close scrutiny in order to develop lessons for new steps in global citizen participation. In this paper we want to sketch some of these lessons. We will first briefly argue that a public debate regarding global warming is necessary because of the different dimensions of uncertainty and controversy that surround this topic; global warming is a paradigmatic case of a so-called unstructured problem. Next, we will set out a number of criteria for the evaluation of debates about unstructured problems, such as inclusivity and the absence of power differences. Finally, we will evaluate the debate. In the debate form that was used, resembling that of the deliberative poll, information has to be offered in a structured manner and this leaves little room to stimulate an interaction between experts and lay people. For example, open expert controversy could have been emphasised more. This evaluation should gives us an indication of what needs to be improved in future exercises with public debate. Keywords: public debate, complex problems

Introduction
On September 26, 2009, World Wide Views on Global Warming was held simultaneously in 38 countries. This public debate about climate change was organised as a preparation for the climate negotiations that were to take place in December that year in Copenhagen (the so-called COP15). The purpose of the debate was to make clear to government leaders how citizens think about climate policy and to send out a message to take with them to the negotiating table. A total of 4400 men and women of different age, nationality, ethnicity, education, and geographical origin deliberated all day about CO2 emission reductions and fossil fuel prices. De debate was divided in different rounds centring on specific topics and after each round the participants got to vote about their preferences. The results of voting in other countries could be followed live over the internet, leading to veritable Eurovision Song contest scenes. We were present as respectively moderator of one of the debate cells and co-organiser at the Dutch debate, organised by the Rathenau Institute. It was a unique experience, especially because this was the first time that an international public debate of such magnitude was held. Was this debate successful and what could we learn from this experience for future international public debates? In this paper we will evaluate World Wide Views according to a set of criteria that we will first briefly defend. But before we start our evaluation we need to make clear why a public debate about climate change is necessary in the first place.

Disagreement about climate change as an unstructured policy problem

Climate change is a phenomenon that gives rise to intractable disagreement; few other areas of scientific research have led to as much controversy as the question whether and to what extent our climate is changing through human action. We can distinguish several sources of this disagreement. First of all, the
T. Potthast and S. Meisch (eds.), Climate change and sustainable development: Ethical perspectives on land use and food production, DOI 10.3920/978-90-8686-753-0_12, Wageningen Academic Publishers 2012

95

Section 3

idea of climate itself is conceptualised differently in different societies and different eras; climate has both physical and cultural connotations. More importantly, people can interpret results of scientific research about climate change differently and they can have different opinions about conducting science and about scientific knowledge as such. Climate change is a classic example of what Funtowicz and Ravetz have called a complex problem within post-normal science (Funtowicz, 1993). It concerns science that is applied in public issues where both facts and values are subject to disagreement and governments need to take urgent decisions, while fundamental vested interests are present (Hulme, 2009). According to the theory of postnormal science in this type of problem scientists need not only spell out the facts, but also need to make clear where disagreements lie, what is uncertain or unknown, and what values play a role in their scientific assumptions and methodologies. Especially because so many interests are at stake in combating climate change the process of scientific fact-finding should be more open to public scrutiny. Moreover, disagreement about climate policy can often be traced to value conflicts, sometimes on a fundamental level. An important question, for example, is how much weight we should give to the interests of future generations. Another important question is how different objects or states we value could be compared. Some argue that in principle we can assign a monetary value to everything, while others argue that no price tag can be attached to human and ecological damage caused by climate change and that such values are simply not comparable. This conflict plays a role in the discussion about tradable emission permits. Finally, the discourse about climate policy is framed by the choices of the media, administrators, scientists, and ngos: no message about climate change is neutral; certain aspects of the story are emphasised and others are downplayed or ignored, due to different groups interests (Hulme, 2009: 226). We are, then, not dealing with solely a factual problem that can be solved by scientific experts, nor with solely a value disagreement that could be solved in politics. There is disagreement about both facts and values, and these two can often not be neatly separated. In policy literature a problem with these dimensions is characterised as an unstructured problem. Besides disagreement on facts and values, disagreement already exists about the definition of the problem and about policy aims, procedures, and instruments (Hisschemller and Hoppe, 1995). Moreover, in defended that in unstructured problems the division between lay persons and experts is artificial (Wynne, 2003). Lay persons can have a certain experiential knowledge and can challenge the knowledge frameworks of experts. Scientific disciplines are becoming more and more specialised and this leads to a certain blindness to the bigger picture. This on its own is already a reason to involve citizens in debate about climate change, but a related reason is that among experts themselves disagreement exists about causes and solutions to climate change. By discussing this disagreement publicly it cannot so easily be abused by parties with vested interests. After all, there are parties such as companies that greatly rely on fossil fuels that benefit from scientific disagreement by casting doubt on anthropogenic climate change. Moreover, the value-ladenness of scientific research raises the question of who has the prerogative to determine what values are prioritised. Scientific experts do not by definition have better values than anyone else. Furthermore, according to the theory of deliberative democracy that justifies public deliberation a decision is only legitimate after everyone that is affected by the decision has been able to participate in its realization (Habermas, 1996: 458). A final, more practical argument for public debate about climate change is that the implementation of measures to decrease greenhouse gas emissions will only work if as many citizens as possible live up to the rules and this is more likely to happen if these citizens support these rules. Being involved in drafting the rules could strengthen the acceptance of the rules.

Evaluation criteria
Suppose we agree that public debate needs to take place about climate policy, then we can still disagree about how this should happen. A great diversity of public debate forms exists, such as consensus conferences, citizens juries, planning cells, and deliberative polls. World Wide Views could be characterised
96 Climate change and sustainable development

Global warming and climate change

as an adapted form of the latter. In a deliberative poll a relatively large group of citizens meets for a weekend to exchange ideas with experts and to have discussions in small debating cells led by a moderator. They have been sent information about the topic under discussion, that is as neutral and balanced as possible, to study beforehand. After the weekend everyone votes anonymously for his or her preference (Fishkin and Luskin, 2005). Is this the right debate form for the topic of climate policy and what are the pros and cons of this choice? Elsewhere a set of criteria that a public deliberation about an unstructured problem should meet has been argued for in more detail, so here we will just briefly introduce them (Bovenkerk, 2009). A first criterion is that a debate should be open-ended. This does not mean that the debate should not aim for decisions, but rather that these decisions should be reversible. This criterion is important for two reasons. Firstly, we want to avoid that people become disillusioned if a debate has not generated their preferred outcome and feel forced to take more extreme measures in order to be heard. It has to be clear to these people that they could influence the decision making process in the future. Secondly, when we are dealing with a dynamic problem such as climate change it is very well possible that new insights emerge or new developments take place that could not have been anticipated. More specifically, this criterion means that people have a right to revision and that the public needs to have real influence on decision making processes. A second criterion is that of inclusivity, meaning that no reasonable arguments or considerations and no relevant groups of people are excluded from the debate. This criterion is based on the view that governments should respect citizens and their intellectual capacities and ultimately relies on the principle of equality. More specifically, this criterion means that all relevant viewpoints need to be heard, that marginalized groups need to have the opportunity to express their views, and that there should be open expert controversy. Moreover, if one wants to be as inclusive as possible, the debate needs to reach others than those who were present. Therefore, we also need to consider the question of how the results of the debate are made public for example if citizens can partake in discussions via the internet and whether sufficient media attention was generated. A third criterion is the absence of power differences. This criterion is based on Habermas (1990: 158-159) famous slogan that decisions should be made on the basis of the forceless force of the better argument and means that in public deliberation decisions should not be forced by powerful groups to the detriment of those with less power. Of course, it is difficult to envisage a public debate that perfectly fulfils all these criteria. Particularly the last criterion will be hard to realise in real-world conditions. These criteria should, therefore, be taken as ideal-typical criteria and our evaluation will consider to what extent these ideals have been met.

World wide views

In the Netherlands the participants to World Wide Views were selected by an independent market research agency. Firstly, they received especially selected information material about climate change. How objective was this information and is objectivity even possible in this context? The brochure acknowledges that uncertainty exists within the field of climate science and that not all scientists believe in anthropogenic climate change. However, input of scientific experts remained limited to the brochure. During the actual discussion no climate scientists were present to answer questions or exchange ideas with. In the context of a one day event the relationship between experts and lay people was confined to one-way traffic. Expert controversy was added to the meeting after the deliberation: after all discussions were finished and all votes counted the citizens were treated to entertainment during dinner: six experts, such as climatologists, climate-sceptics, and representatives of NGOs such as the World Wide Fund for Nature had a kerfuffle about climate policy. The confrontation with different points of view is a valuable aspect of public debate, but also having to justify ones own point of view to others. The latter could have been emphasised more. A reason for this lack of what deliberative democrats call cross-cutting exposure could be that the set-up of a deliberative
Climate change and sustainable development 97

Section 3

poll was chosen. There are advantages to this model: a larger group of citizens can participate than in, for example, a consensus conference. Also, because preferences are voted for anonymously, group pressure or groupthink are avoided. A disadvantage is that participants are not stimulated to reach a solution together and this excludes finding alternatives or making compromises. As said before, a disadvantage of this model is also that there is less need to justify ones point of view to others. At least at the table one of us moderated, the discussion primarily consisted of a polite exchange of viewpoints and the arguments were not pulled onto a higher level. In other words, it is doubtful whether decisions were really reached on the basis of the force of the better argument, as Habermas envisaged. On the other hand, his criterion of forceless force was fulfilled. All participants clearly had the same interest in clear climate policy and power differences were not discerned. Everyone had their say and people were not held back by status differences. One cause is probably, again, the set-up of the deliberative poll, where discussions take place in small groups and are intensively led by a moderator. The day was divided in a number of components, each with a specific policy question. While these questions gave direction to the discussion, one can wonder whether such specific questions do not leave out relevant considerations that citizens might have. Not only the questions, but also the response options were highly prestructured and left little to the imagination. All this was done to create similar discussion arenas in the different countries and to make the results between the different countries comparable. However, the structuring raises questions about the inclusivity of the exercise. If we consider the results of the voting it appears that participants support far-reaching measures to counter climate change. For example, a large majority wants to limit the temperature increase to 2 degrees Celsius or less and are willing to pay more for their fuel to achieve this. Also, most participants support heavy sanctions on countries that do not reach their targets (http://www.rathenau.nl/publicaties/resultatenwereldwijd-klimaatforum.html). One can wonder whether these results are surprising; could it have been different in this pre-structured set-up. Despite the critical views of citizens, the climate negotiators did not appear to take the public view seriously during COP15. This is a common problem of citizen participation; governors can cherry pick or interpret results favourable to their own cause. And if this is not possible, they can always question the representativeness of the results: We now know the opinion of 94 citizens, but is this really a reflection of the rest of the Netherlands? This raises the question to what extent others than these 94 people were reached. The debate was characterised by a lack of media attention. A few radio-interviews were held, but no cameras were detected and newspapers did not give much attention to the debate.

Conclusion
In this paper we have aimed to show that climate change policy should be the subject of public debate, because it is an instance of a so-called unstructured problem. Unstructured problems cannot simply be solved by scientific experts or by bureaucrats, but they need to be deliberated by the broader public. We are pleased that in September 2009 a public debate was organised about climate policy. This debate World Wide Views was spectacular, because of its large and international character. In order to benefit even more from such debates in the future it is necessary to critically evaluate this debate. We have done so with the help of three overarching criteria: the debate should be open-ended and inclusive, and should be led by power differences as little as possible. We have argued that in some respects this can be called a successful debate, but that in other respects it could be improved. The fact that lay people had a say at all, and on such large scale, is an important step forwards. Also, the fact that power differences hardly seemed to play a role in the discussions at least between the Dutch participants is positive. However, we signalled a few problems as well.

98

Climate change and sustainable development

Global warming and climate change

The criterion of open-endedness was at least until now not fulfilled. It is unclear whether a sequel will be organised and it seems that the influence on actual policy was minimal. The criterion of inclusivity was only partially met. Lay people were given a voice and marginalised groups were represented. However, the debate was quite pre-structured, which means that perhaps not all relevant considerations were debated. Moreover, the interaction between lay people and experts was minimal and it was determined beforehand who were experts, disregarding the fact that the lay-expert division is disputed in the case of unstructured problems. Due to the absence of experts during the discussions the communication had the character of one-way traffic and so-called experts could not learn from the input of lay people. Open expert-controversy was planned only at the end of the day as the icing on the cake. Moreover, the debate could have been more inclusive if more media-attention had been generated. The criterion of absence of power differences was met, although in practice it is doubtful whether the best argument has conquered. Because of these critical remarks one can wonder whether the appropriate debate form was used to reach the intended goal. The aim of deliberative polls is in the first place to inform a large group of lay people and helping them reach a well-founded personal decision. Another important goal of deliberative polls is informing governors and experts about the opinion of lay people. These appeared to be the most important goals of World Wide Views as well and in that sense the right debate form was chosen. However, from our evaluation it becomes clear that the first goal was achieved better than the second one. If one directly wants to influence governors this debate form may be too undetermined.

References
Bovenkerk, B. (2009). Evaluating Participatory Methods. In: Millar, K., Hobson West, P. and Nerlich, B. (eds.) Ethical futures: bioscience and food horizons. Wageningen Academic Publishers, Wageningen, the Netherlands, pp. 305-309. Fishkin, J. and Luskin, R. (2005), Experimenting with a Democratic Ideal: Deliberative polling and public opinion. Acta Politica 40: 284-298. Funtowicz, S. and Ravetz, J. (1993). Science for a post-normal age. Futures 25: 739-55. Habermas, J. (1996). Between Facts and Norms: Contributions to a Discourse Theory of Law and Democracy, trans. William Regh. Cambridge: Polity Press. Hisschemller, M. and Hoppe, R. (1995). Coping with Intractable Controversies: The case for problem structuring in policy design and analysis. The International Journal of Knowledge Transfer and Utilization 8: 40-60. Hulme, M. (2009). Why We Disagree about Climate Change (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press). Wynne, B. (2003). Seasick on the Third Wave? Subverting the Hegemony of Propositionalism: Response to Collins & Evans (2002). Social Studies of Science 33: 401-17.

Climate change and sustainable development

99