In the 2021 film Don’t Look Up, two scientists discover a comet hurtling towards earth and embark on a campaign to warn people about the impending danger. Despite glaring evidence of the comet and the devastating impact it will cause, politicians, the media and the public refuse to act appropriately. An allegory for climate change, the film highlights passivity in the face of catastrophe. Are our politicians showing this inaction in response to devastating floods, heatwaves and wildfires?
New research by Dr António Valentim, from LSE’s European Institute, and colleagues explores how political parties in Europe respond to extreme weather events and if they influence whether parties pay more attention to environmental issues.
To find out, the researchers collected 260,000 press releases from 68 political parties in nine countries, including the UK, from 2010 to 2020. As parties can publish numerous press releases a day, this provides a dynamic measure of party communication and priorities.
To measure the occurrence of extreme weather events, the researchers used data on fatal storms, floods, wildfires and spells of extreme temperatures. These are events that increase with climate change and invite a political response. They then used learning algorithms to track whether these events were mentioned in party press releases in relation to climate change.
They found that apart from Green parties, extreme weather events did not lead to increased political attention on environmental issues. Even Green parties only showed increased attention immediately after an event. One week later, this increased attention dissipated. These results are consistent across the political spectrum, regardless of whether parties are in government or opposition, and the type of extreme weather event that has taken place.
These results are especially concerning as we investigate parties’ responsiveness to extreme weather events in conditions that should make effects likely
In the paper, the researchers state: “These results are especially concerning as we investigate parties’ responsiveness to extreme weather events in conditions that should make effects likely.”
“First, this study focuses on Europe where voters and politicians have been sensitised to environmental concerns for decades. Second, we focus on particularly severe extreme weather events that resulted in fatalities, increasing the signal effect for urgent action. Third, we analyse political speech that can register quicker responses compared with legislation. Finally, we focus on a broad category of environmental issues that would allow parties to react in numerous ways. Yet, we find no evidence of a response across different contexts.”
Politicians do talk about [extreme weather events] … just not in terms of climate change
The climate change perception gap
Dr Valentim was surprised by these findings. While he can’t be sure why extreme weather events have no impact on political behaviour, he has several theories. “One thing to make clear is that these results don’t mean that political parties do not talk about extreme weather events when they happen. They do talk about them, just not in terms of climate change. Instead, they are discussed in the context of emergency relief and recovery,” he says.
He also believes there may be a mismatch between how the public feels about climate change and what politicians think the public feels about climate change. “Politicians may underestimate the public’s support for climate policy and therefore believe it isn’t politically profitable to talk about it.” He also believes there is concern amongst politicians that mentioning climate policy can be polarising for the public, with the cost of climate initiatives like car bans or the use of new energy sources appearing very high but the benefits seeming far-removed and long-term.
Another theory the researchers explored was whether parties hold off releasing statements about weather events and climate change in the immediate aftermath of an event because they don’t want to be seen as ‘‘capitalising’’ on an event for political gain, especially when there are fatalities. However, if this was the case, you would expect parties to highlight the link in the long-term, maybe several months or years after the event when the dust has settled. The researchers did not find any evidence of this and thus dismissed it as a theory.
Politicians may underestimate the public’s support for climate policy and therefore believe it isn’t politically profitable to talk about it
Mobilisation and climate action
So, if these extreme and fatal events are not enough to increase political attention towards climate policy, what does Dr Valentim believe can be done to increase political action?
“I think it’s important to close these gaps in perception between support for climate policy on the ground and what politicians believe is the level of support,” he says, outlining the importance of establishing long-term supporbackingt for climate action.
In an upcoming working paper, he explores the value of a bottom-up approach, and the impact climate protests can have on public opinion. He finds that exposure to climate protests can increase the vote share of Green parties and change people’s preferences on the environment. Furthermore, he finds that repeated exposure to protests increases this effect.
For action to be taken in response to the devastating impacts of climate change, perhaps waiting for our politicians to react is not enough. Perhaps, first, more people need to make their voices heard.
Dr António Valentim was speaking to Charlotte Kelloway, Media Relations Manager at LSE.
