TALKING TO CLIMATE CHANGE SKEPTICS
I HAD AN OPPORTUNITY to speak at Harvard University to a room packed with students and community residents seeking advice on how to talk to climate change skeptics. The students would soon be heading home for Thanksgiving and were looking for suggestions about how to talk to family and friends who either don’t believe that global warming is happening or accept the fact that the climate is getting warmer but attribute relatively recent temperature changes to natural rather than human causes. To get things started, we heard from a local radio talk show host who really is a climate change skeptic. He made it very clear that he didn’t trust Al Gore, was sure that scientists disagree about almost everything (because that’s what science requires), and thought that anyone who believes that climate change is the result of human activity (rather than cyclical natural phenomena) has been sold a bill of goods.
First, I tried to make clear that seeking to convert “non-believers” is probably a mistake, and is certainly no way to encourage constructive dialogue. Rather, I suggested, the goal of dialogue ought to be to share ideas, advance the cause of mutual understanding, and see what opportunities to reach agreement might exist—in spite of fundamental differences in beliefs or levels of understanding. A number of the students at the meeting found this unacceptable. From their standpoint, the threat posed by the continued buildup of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere is so frightening that they feel compelled to convince anyone who doesn’t believe this to admit that they are wrong. They want to repeat and review what the vast majority of atmospheric scientists know to be true: The atmosphere is warming. This is caused by the buildup of greenhouse gases, particularly CO2 and methane. This build-up is caused by human activity, particularly the burning of fossil fuels. And the end result will be a worldwide catastrophe—rising sea levels that will inundate vast coastal areas, particularly in the developing world; increasing storm intensification that will cause destructive flooding and Katrina- and Sandy-like devastation; increased drought in some areas, and increasing numbers of extremely hot days that may cause massive eco-migration; more rapid spread of airborne disease; and irreversible harm to a range of marine and terrestrial species and habitats. The skeptic on the dais with me indicated that scientists can’t possibly know exactly when and where such things will and won’t happen (and he’s right). He also insisted that even if warming is occurring, it is impossible to know for sure whether it is mostly or entirely caused by human activity or nothing more than a natural phenomenon.
That was my cue. I said I didn’t think that mattered. I urged people interested in engaging in useful conversation with skeptics to shift their conversations to a discussion of risk—to talk about risk and risk management. I used the example of earthquakes. We don’t need to know for sure whether (where and when) an earthquake will occur to seriously consider taking action to minimize the severe adverse effects an earthquake could cause if it does occur. It turns out, we can require construction standards in new buildings that will protect people from collapsing structures. We can even retrofit existing buildings to make them more earthquake-proof (although this comes at a cost). While there doesn’t seem to be anything we can do to reduce the odds of an earthquake occurring, there are lots of things we can do (including organizing and practicing emergency evacuation efforts) to save lives and reduce misery and reconstruction costs when earthquakes do occur. Even if the majority of scientists are right—that if we don’t reduce to 350–450 parts per million of CO2 equivalents in the next fifty years, the worst effects of climate change will be impossible to correct—we won’t be able to reduce greenhouse gas emissions enough over the next three decades to mitigate those effects. Given the chance that the many thousands of scientists around the world who study these issues might be right, we could look for things to do that will reduce the disastrous effects if climate change is, in fact, occurring. Also, if we could find things that simultaneously achieve other laudable objectives (that help almost everyone), why would anyone be opposed?
So I suggested reframing the discussion around what is called “adaptation.” If we can switch to energy sources that don’t involve the burning of fossil fuels, but instead rely on infinite energy sources like sunlight, wind, ocean waves, biofuels, and the flow of fresh water, we may be able to simultaneously reduce the adverse effects of climate change (if it does occur), decrease our country’s dependence on imported oil and gas, dramatically reduce health dangers to human beings, minimize the ecological damage caused by air and water pollution and the degradation of surface lands, and create more jobs in our own country. This would be a “no-regrets” response to the possibility of climate change. Similarly, if we can help every household reduce the amount of electricity it wastes (especially at peak times), we can eliminate the need to build new power plants, thereby reducing everybody’s electricity rates and saving all consumers money. Even if the risks are not fully predictable, a shift to renewable energy (especially if planned in a way that compensates anyone who suffers any losses in the short term as a result of the shift) would be a more desirable way to proceed. If you think about each component of climate change risk, it should be possible to brainstorm adaptive responses that minimize the chances of serious harm to the public and to the environment while simultaneously improving the economy and enhancing social well-being.
Conversations with climate change skeptics—in fact with any true believer—no matter what social or business issue is involved, require improvisation. When someone expresses strong opposition to prevailing scientific findings, don’t challenge them (or call them names!). Instead, ask them to join you in a thought experiment that fits the situation. For example, ask them a thoughtful question and then follow up with some brainstorm ideas:
•Whatever you think the chances are that a buildup of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere is causing global temperatures to rise, and that such increases will trigger a host of dangerous and costly consequences, can we brainstorm cost-effective ways to reduce the harm that would occur if the worst happens and achieve a host of other benefits at the same time?
•Improved emergency preparedness in cities will help if flooding of the sort that occurred in New Orleans and the New York–New Jersey area happens more often. (Increased storm intensity is one of the anticipated effects of climate change.) It will also help cities respond to any kind of natural or human-made emergency. Almost every city could do more at a modest cost to update and practice its emergency response procedures.
•Investments in expensive transportation, wastewater treatment, and other municipal infrastructure should probably be made with greater consideration of the possibility of rising sea levels, saltwater intrusion into freshwater marshes, and increased storm intensity. It would be crazy to be in a position of having to pay off infrastructure bonds long after a facility is no longer useable because we didn’t think twice about climate change risks. Instead, by factoring the risks associated with climate change into infrastructure planning, safer locations or new designs for new facilities might be selected.
•As we think about the possibility of a lot more hot days (over 95 degrees Fahrenheit) every summer, what improvements might we make in public and elderly housing that would help people without air conditioning survive? It should be possible to design or retrofit public housing units and to add trees and plantings to keep these units cooler. It should also be possible to designate public cooling centers along with ways of helping the disabled get to these locations during a heat wave. Many lives could be saved. These are things worth considering regardless of whether anyone is sure that the increase in the number of hot summer days over the past decade was caused by climate change. People died in Chicago several years ago because of what is now called “the heat island effect.”
When you get into improvisational discussions or brainstorming sessions with skeptics, avoid asking yes or no questions. Instead ask when, where, and how questions. How could we reduce certain risks while accomplishing
other worthwhile goals? When we have the information in hand, and the public dialogue that follows can look at the full range of costs and benefits (and I don’t just mean in dollar terms) what kinds of choices might be made? People with very different views about what climate change science allows us to know might still agree on useful steps to take to reduce the risks associated with climate change because these same activities would help them achieve other things they see as important.
Don’t personalize these discussions. Focus on outcomes that would respect everyone’s principles. Talk to people you disagree with in the same way you would like to have them talk to you.
Don’t paint people into corners by saying something like, “Since science knows Fact A to be true, then you must agree that everyone ought to take Action 1.” That will just provoke a counterattack along the lines that there must be someone (somewhere on the Web) who disagrees with Fact A. Moreover, everyone who agrees that Fact A is true will not agree that only Action 1 is the logical thing to do. Instead, say, “Forget for a moment whether Fact A is true or not. What are things that people who don’t necessarily agree about Fact A would suggest are worth doing for a variety of reasons?”
Attentiveness, flexibility, playfulness, and an ability to take advantage of surprises are all valuable skills in dealing with climate change skeptics or negotiating with anyone who disagrees with you. As my colleague Michael Wheeler points out, negotiators who stick too closely to a script are unlikely to find their way into the trading zone or to win at win-win negotiation. Improvisation may be one of the most important tools for formulating agreements that are good for them and great for you.
DON’T LIKE SURPRISES? USE CONTINGENT AGREEMENTS
THE TOWN GOVERNMENT of “Pleasantview” and the private fuel-oil company “High-Energy, Inc.” have a standing contract that they have renewed for several years in a row. The contract is again up for renewal, and the town manager is under pressure from a substantial portion of the citizenry to reduce heating costs and avoid tax increases. The town’s fuel-oil consumption has remained relatively stable during the past five years, yet costs have shot up almost 60 percent. As a longtime client, Pleasantview feels it should get some protection from sudden price jumps.
The town manager hits on the idea of asking the company to provide a guaranteed annual price increase cap of 10 percent in exchange for agreed-upon delivery dates and amounts for the life of the contract. With a price cap in place, the town would not have to increase its fuel-oil budget by more than a certain amount each year. Although the town might have to pay a slightly higher per-gallon cost over the life of the contract in exchange for the consumption guarantee, this would be a reasonable tradeoff. High-Energy has never agreed to a price cap for a municipal customer, but it ultimately agrees to the manager’s requests for fear of losing the business and facing negative publicity.
The price cap proposed by the town manager is a type of contingent agreement, in which a range of “If this happens, then we do this or that” promises are added to a negotiated contract to reduce risk in the face of real-life uncertainty about the future. Whenever negotiators strike a deal, both sides must make forecasts and assumptions. Will current conditions remain the same or change after the agreement is signed? Will the other side hold up its end of the bargain? By including contingent incentives or penalties in a contract, you can protect yourself from the risk that your negotiating partner will renege on a commitment as well as improve the prospects of compliance.
Some argue that contingencies unnecessarily complicate business contracts and other kinds of agreements. It’s true that contingent agreements can add complexity to a negotiation; but with a little preparation, the benefits will far outweigh the costs.
When to Use Contingent Agreements
NEGOTIATORS CAN USE contingent agreements for several reasons, including making commitments more self-enforcing, managing technical disagreements, avoiding the need to reconvene if difficult circumstances arise, and reducing the chances of future litigation.
Make commitments self-enforcing. In negotiating agreements of all kinds, it’s a good idea to seek protection against possible surprises—broad changes that may occur through no fault or effort on the part of either side, such as fluctuations in market demand, prices, laws, policies, or technological innovations. When all the different “futures” are spelled out clearly at the time the contract is signed, contingent agreements have a useful self-enforcing quality: they can increase the durability of contracts by eliminating the need to reconvene or renegotiate whenever surprises occur.
Contingencies often create incentives for compliance as well as penalties for noncompliance. Professional athletes negotiate with their team owners for contractual performance bonuses. When hiring a contractor to build an expensive addition onto your house, you might add a contingency that rewards the contractor with a prenegotiated bonus if his team beats a certain deadline. Cities often ask developers to post a bond equal to the amount it would take to complete all the public services associated with an approved plan. The city doesn’t liquidate the bond until the developer has met all its obligations.
Insurance also can be viewed as a type of contingent agreement because it increases the security of contractual arrangements in an ever-changing world. A company invited to build a plant in an area highly susceptible to hurricane damage might want to ask the local government to purchase an insurance policy that would protect the company against a future disaster in return for its efforts to facilitate economic development.
Resolve technical disagreements. Negotiations often get hung up on technical considerations. Suppose that an oil company seeking a permit to build a new refinery promises to keep various environmental disruptions to a minimum. Not surprisingly, local residents worry that the refinery owners won’t live up to their commitments and that regulatory agencies will be lax or inefficient in tracking possible violations. What if an accident does occur? Maybe the company would prefer to pay a small fine rather than hold its facility to the highest possible standards. Meanwhile, the oil company might dispute whether the community’s informal observations and measurements were valid.
A contingent agreement could reduce the likelihood of such disagreements. If the company is confident that its plant will operate safely and cleanly, why not agree to address the residents’ concerns? A “good neighbor” agreement could include detailed monitoring and shutdown provisions beyond those required by law. The oil company might even agree to train and fund local residents in monitoring techniques, thereby avoiding future battles between independent experts. Through contingent provisions, both sides can reduce the risk of technical disagreements that might eventually lead to conflict.
Plan to reconvene. When one side suspects that the other has failed to live up to contractual promises, it might want to reconvene to discuss the possible breach. Negotiators can avoid such potentially awkward encounters in advance by setting fixed dates to meet and review progress during the life of a contract. It’s easier to agree to undertake a joint investigation and sort out what needs to be done at a prescheduled session than at a time when one side is claiming violation of contract terms.
In the construction world, such partnering agreements—in which the contractor and the client agree to meet periodically to maintain or improve their working relationship—are quite common. If no effort is made to enhance relationships before problems arise—especially once charges and countercharges have been leveled—it becomes all the more difficult to clarify misunderstandings and build greater trust.
Head off litigation. To reduce the likelihood of going to court at the first sign of difficulty, consider carefully spelling out informal dispute-handling clauses in your contracts. Typically, such contingencies stipulate that both sides must continue to meet their contractual obligations until a neutral party has investigated any potential violations. Without such measures, contractual charges and countercharges can take on a self-fulfilling quality.
&nb
sp; If I think you’re not living up to your end of our bargain, I might unilaterally disengage from the contract. Of course, if it turns out that I was mistaken, my contract breach would be reason enough for you to shed your obligations as well.
The advantages of contingent agreements might seem to qualify them as a normal step in any serious negotiation. All too often, however, this is not the case. But there are four steps you can take to overcome internal resistance to contingent agreements fairly easily.
CONTINGENT AGREEMENTS:
•Make commitments more self-enforcing
•Resolve technical disagreements
•Plan to reconvene
•Head off litigation
Raise red flags. During negotiations don’t be afraid to bring up concerns about things that might possibly go wrong in the future; point out that such predictable surprises can be handled with contingent agreements. Resist the charge that you’re being pessimistic or increasing the odds of trouble simply by looking at what might go wrong. Rather, argue that you are being optimistic: you believe it’s possible to make durable agreements that can traverse all kinds of bumps in the road.
Strive for self-enforcing agreements. By including incentives and disincentives, you’ll make it more likely that everyone involved will live up to their commitments without the need for messy, expensive enforcement proceedings. Prearranged incentives and penalties for meeting or exceeding contract terms foster not only effective negotiation but also effective implementation.
Good for You, Great for Me Page 9