the closest is done for now. the recommendations made by accidentally those would now have to be implemented. the longer that takes the conflict in easton, biase will drag one adamant toss out. i just have a bunch of findings as well as in one week before jennings about it in a snap. an extra and opinion poll suggest to shift to the right step boss and reports from the then this could be germany's new chancellor tags with restoring europe's powerhouse at a time when the content and security is being challenged. 69 to a lawyer, the police max, a conservative from the christian democratic union of germany as promised, and election debates the reduced taxes got red tape and increased investment isn't getting good. yeah, we're now in the 3rd year of a recession. this has never happened before in germany. we have 3000000 unemployed people in germany. it's a growing trend and $700000.00 vacancies, that cannot be filled with its anti immigration agenda. the far right

alternative for germany party led by alice rider is pulling seconds and could double it share of this vote. despite its glowing popularity, d a if the party has little chance to govern because there's a so called firewall and agreement after the holocaust, not to work with the file. right? outgoing chancellor oil actual recently accused mess of breaking the firewall when he wanted to change the immigration law with the help of the a f d for dog waterfront fund. and that's cause i've missed him. it said he wouldn't cooperate. does he has done? that's what he said in november. now he's done that and accepted it. i repeat again . well, nothing came of it. it's a breach of promise. i'm just to bu the whole though his body has dropped significantly in the pulse, shows his fill up the mistake. he can remain chancellor, most germans degree improving the economy is the most urgent task of hand. migration has been dominating, become pain, especially after recent attacks and folding migrants and asylum seekers. merits

main issue was teaching the waters back from the if the, with the migration issue, but this doesn't function that i have the get most strong during the last 2 years. the climate change considered the most important issue in the last election has barely been discussed. even the green party, with the jobs to remain in government has changed its focus. sunday's election is taking place in a decided journey at a time when europe is struggling to respond to donald trump's presidency and increasingly popular fall, right. admit an economic downturn, votes us, huge challenges for effort will leave the country next. the coming for us as seen as a test, not only for germany's political middle ground, but for democracy as a whole. step size, and i'll just say around bell and stay with us on algebra up next all hell the planet looks at the power of psychology and blocking climate change action. thanks

for watching the voters in europe's launch. the economy are heading to the poles with the far right expected to make is the biggest gain since the 19 thirty's, the german election could reshape your state without is there for the latest updates on things that phenomena of the german federal election supercharged by the climate crosby, on trick towards unreasonable, it's impossible to escape climbing directly into the account and whole neighborhood to the right people and the planet of these brussels by all dependence on fossil fuels. this rapid exploitation of natural resources and politics is meant that climate action has no. cornelia, as far as it should and then this individual and how we

process the enormity of the crisis where we're telling the story of climate change . psychology can reveal not only the ways in which we grapple with ecological breakdown, but also how big industries politicians and even the media are at times have of public understanding and action on the greatest crisis. humanity faces. the the 1st thing that comes to my mind when i see the word climate change is disaster waiting disaster. you know, a lot of fear, a lot of anxiety or frightening. i think i am scared of it for sure. be able to help us who vocal climate change for me is quite an overwhelming concept. hopeless

. most of the, the stuff like a really affects me and i feel like i have to blame on some of the things i feel responsible in a week with a sort of a musket davis man bacteria. and may have had that cleared idea already have a b, b and we'll have a few future. i do care about quite a bit. but i also kind of feel as a piece of bias, almost separate as see to some of them get guns of that nature. it's no one to people feel like this news is kind of break down, is inescapable. and even if you manage to switch off the tv, you took a break from social media. the impact of global warming is real, for many of us, temperatures us or in floods and drought. so both getting more frequent and most of the wildlife you seriously struggling. never before have we'd be more aware of the dice straits, the planet disease. so why is generating meaningful action on the climate crosses? so difficult scientists of science is becoming more and more certain about the urgency of the problem. but we haven't still caught up with how humans respond to

that science. so that's where i have been try to frontier beauty, paris construction is, is the overall of what we think about when we try not to think about global warming . he says some of the most significant, recent advances in our understanding of climate change hasn't come from the physical sciences. they've come from the social sciences and a deeper understanding of how well brain's work. i'm not in any way doing that. it's oil companies driving. there's other huge campaigns and there is corruption, there is, and they'll be under the same time, we have to ask, why does that propaganda so much impact when 2000 and scientific studies, 6 eyepiece and c report is not enough to come for it. and that is where it's a college, it cannot come in this propaganda place on psychological structures. and if you're able to fish into that, you're able to exploit those irrational tendencies. you are in a power game through his research per spin has found 5 psychological barriers that

prevent climate use from sinking in and leading to meaningful response and action. he calls from the 5 days psychological distance, the are the use of do too much distance, denial, and finally identity. so those 5 together are like clusters, ultimate cognizance that explain why it's so hard for people to really taken the alarm. okay, parents been let's start with the 50 psychological just the climate is in terms of perception and the way it's communicated, something very distant from me personally as far away and space optic pulling up as a facing near extinction. climate change is not an abstract notion for these on, but it's also far away in time because scientists have been formed speaking about 4 degrees by 2100 for the year, 2015. and the timeframe is very far away from my daily life. san to say we're on

track to go up for another half a degree by 2030. the earth temperature will rise by $3.00 degrees by the end of the century. this is a global issue of it's abstract, so whatever i do, it doesn't seem to make a dent. people hold on to focus on what you can do something about and not focus on stuff. you can't do anything about global greenhouse gas emissions. really have to be slashed nearly in half by 2030. i'm no scientist, but that's that sounds pretty hard to reach a friendly people who are hurt to people who are drowning or starving or burning. and why far as that so many steps between me and them who are suffering those for dying mentions time, space, influence, and responsibility at up to every strong perceived distance time. it doesn't really trigger my alarm center. so the next defense you have listed is do, how does that work? so imagine you say that kind of changes here which you know, to change everything they will be tomlins, they will breakdowns of the ocean and the weather systems. the issue is that most

of the days, i look out of the window and things look terrible. i most of the day, so there's food and most of the day. so people seem to go about their life. so there is a sense that there's quite rules a lot of the time. and what we know from psychology is the 1st time you wouldn't be going to a huge alarm in your brain and you feel fear and maybe with guilt. the 2nd time it's about 40 percent less, and then each time it's repeated, imagine the link goes down. so how comes another response, which is that it was uncomfortable to listen to this to previous times in my brain will try to avoid it. i'll change the channel or i go to another website and we pull that avoidance bayers. i finally, if i can this credit, the messenger of saying, oh, so god, i'm tree hugger, or climate historic. i can get of that do a feeling and i don't feel the threat anymore and the m and have it done. but mostly, but the minute human has to have them, but she is a, i don't know who to trust. most of them seem aggressive and they seem to be funded by some, uh, you know, uh,

lobbies which have their own agenda right now at this point, it's important to highlight that there are many of us who do not feel distance from the climate classes and are not put off by a sense of june around climate use, but the food various disciplines struck a chord with me because as a definite dissonance in some of the choices we make it daily lives. dependence is best described as an fina discomfort when your actions to correspond with what you know and believe people often experience dissonance when the facts that they understand and agree with. for example, that burning fossil fuels contributes to climate change, conflicts with what they actually do. such as driving or taking flights. if the brain picks up that you're not feeling too good about yourself, and it comes up with justifications like your car, isn't that bad? the neighbors car, he's even worse or my colleague, she flies 5 times. i don't, if i 2 times a year, i can say it's auto stray. every needs us, they have a problem or us can say it's not us,

it's china and they can always blame somebody else. it's them, let me. and this way the dissonance is removed, and if you do that design it's handling for some time, many can end up in a state of to not, right? yes, you may be a little bit alert or geared up by some body flood, or fire on thursday and then use. but then by monday morning you're leaving on words as if you've never heard you've just forgot it. we can see these things in the number of google searches, for instance, after how we can sign the smashed new york. it was an immense increase in the search and hurricane in climate, and then 3 weeks to 3 months later that peak was down to the baseline. again, we close making us your seem to your, to live without thinking much about it. sometimes the night is used as a kind of put your attention stupid dinner, but you can be intelligent and more and everything is just a very common that kind of some of the brain that we are learning to live with, of deeply troubling knowledge without being aware of it, and finally,

identity means that i spend a number of years building up my self image. i'm a dentist, i'm a boy worker product trucker. done the same thing in terms of politics. i've left and each time something comes up, i will scan it to see whether it goes well with my values or whether it's precious with. and if there's a conflict, then usually the fax will lose and i will defend my boss. so if, for instance, there are climate scientists saying that what you need is a higher tax, carbon, more government regulations, but i've construed my identity as somebody who loves a free markets and more government and won't taxes. then all those facts and those recommendations with crash. i guess my values, hence they must be wrong because now they're criticizing me. this is where a climate to this course goes really bad. when people feel their identity threatened, the knowledge of these psychological responses is helpful. but it's just one aspect

of the climate response. over time, outside the logical reactions has been voice intentionally and unintentionally play the big industry, politicians and even the media have been able to psychologically target us will public understanding and paralyze action on climate change. while we've shown in our work is that we've been the victims of a deliberate conscious organized this information, campaign name. your risk us is a story and of science at harvard university. she is known internationally for her work on the role of this information in blocking climate action, going back as far as the late 19 eighties. the fossil fuel industry has deliberately attempted to muddy the waters to poison the well of public debate and to prevent action by confusing us about what the problem even is. the creational doubts making people question the facts, making the one to what the human action even is the cause of the climate crisis has

been a powerful tactics of the corporations, especially the fossil fuel industry. i think that is powerful because it does tap into shooting psychology, right. the world is filled with doubt. the world is confusing. life is confusing. so figuring out who to trust, what to trust, what to focus on, where to put our energies. that's hard, and it's become even harder in recent decades because we're bombarded all the time now to the bi messaging 247. and so the gap monitoring lights back. it's based on knowing that if people aren't sure, they'll just. ringback up, or they'll just say, well, you know, i'll think about that tomorrow or that someone else's problem or i really got to go pick up my kids from football practice. right? so it's exploring that natural tendency. fossil fuel companies went the only ones to play on people, psychology and nipple conventions adapt. naomi, and stella, science historian, eric conway, spent used 53 more than 14000000 documents that came out of

a series of law suits against us tobacco friends. a strikingly familiar story image decades before the fossil fuel industry tried to undermine the case of climate change. tobacco companies had use the same techniques, even the same public relations phones to challenge the links between smoking and lung cancer in the 1950. 1 is queen of fresh air that smoke fresh filter. cool people were looking for a weight out of that distance between knowing that smoking was dangerous to a health. it is a judgment of the committee cigarette. smoking contributes substantially to mortality from certain specific diseases. and the overall death rates, the same thing happened with climate sometimes. so through the c o 2 kills if we don't do the right thing. now,

there are very serious problems that our children and grandchildren will have to face. and then somebody comes up and says to you, well actually it's not really sure these studies are contracted by other studies, trust us. so this is how doubt becomes psychologically beneficial because it ribs yourself out of that ugly feeling when you see the same pattern being used over and over and over again. and completely different context except what they have in common is that they're selling the dangers. they're selling you some of actually just hurt you. and then you begin to realize what these people have a strong incentive to lie. and guess what? not only do they live, but they live in the same way. just single that smoking is across an agent is on the evidence debate, compete down, gust there is no basis in the scientific literature. they found no consistent correlation between carbon dioxide, interest temperature. the

idea is to create confusion because if we're confused in most cases, we won't act as climate. this information campaigns wrapped up in the 1990 oil companies and the p off, propped up contrary and scientists to push narratives of on a certainty and shift tell, generalist covered the issue. big oil became a key of it out of where the coverage of their industry was. generally stickly sound. they would accuse those who didn't quite seniors and spokes people of bias. the ethics resulted in a denial machine, a scrolling network of talking heads from groups and false reset, job fits, built to persuade people that they have nothing to worry about. then in 9098, a newly qualified ph. d scientist michael man stole the show in the climate debate with a growth that would cause controversy. so the next 20 years, i found myself under assault by this massive climate denial machine back in the

late 19 ninety's when my co authors and i published the now i conic hockey stick curve, using temperature data dating back as a 1000 g is michael and his colleague exploded a graph called the hockey stick for obvious reasons and made the case that human activity is the undeniable cause of global warming. we believe we are seeing the effect of human beings on the climate of the 20th century. just wasn't the 1st convincing line of evidence that we were warming the planet and changing the climate. there were many independent minds, but it's but the hockey stick, i think was more visual because it told a simple story. all you had to do is look at it to realize the unprecedented challenge that we face today. and so all of the weight of the fossil fuel, this information machine came down on the other german 5 as a call to the testicle. rubbish! he's been called as the typical charlotte's, and he has had

a report after report attacking the found is and the idea of the 20th century temperatures are unprecedented. is what michael man is peddling through the un efforts to criminalize the science that i and other climate scientists were doing. michael's personal email support hacked and selected content were published on the internet to suggest the key and other climate t ologist were manipulating for hiding data. and so this is what the fossil fuel industry and their advocates recognize, that if we can pick off one scientist and make an example of the others, i would just retreat into my laboratory. i chose not to do that because i recognized that that's exactly what they wanted. they wanted to silence me. many of the media outlets that well within legal unwittingly part of the pilot justified the space they gave to ne say, is this part of the practice of jen was 6 pounds. the

skeptics is a senior fellow and final starters, the cato institute, and the side of familiar face. bill nye, the science guy. how to decide now he's well then he, what does that trip? i'm not sure which biscuits increase and if you're saying that the stabilizers freezing is winter, very small, it's important before but anyhow, the point is not so much to extend the range of views on the signs. the idea was balance, right? and it was tied to a kind of idea of objectivity. objectivity means you die as much as you are. she will be able to look at the evidence fairly not. oh, well i have to listen to joe's about lives for an equal amount of time as listening to my tell me the truth. i mean, that's absurd. notion of objectivity. again, the industry knew the journalist felt that way. and so they knew that they could exploit that and they could persuade journalist in the interest of objectivity to give equal time to the industry position, even as industry position was a lie. and even if we had scientific evidence to show that that industry position

was to the war on climate science has paid it out. all companies stop pushing yvette climate to know how more than a decade ago and well attacks and scientists do. and conspiracy theories. cleaning climate change is a hoax, mesas, occasionally, those tactics are no longer as effective as they once what. what is happening now is a war on climate action. as of the form of denial ism in which deception, deflection and destruction, i used ultimately to continued laying meaningful cups in global emissions. fossil fuel interest polluters, they have sought to deflect attention away from the needed systemic changes towards individual behavior as it is just about you and be changing our eating habits. also dividing climate advocates, getting climate advocates fighting with each other online using bod armies and trolls to divide the community delay kicking the can down the road,

talking about how they will use new technology that doesn't exist today at scale. as a way of excusing continued business as usual, as you move from denying just whether that is global warming or not. the next step is, it is there, but it's not dangerous. how dangerous is global warming? really? i don't think it's dangerous or if you accept that it's actually getting dangerous, then you can always point the finger to somebody else. so we don't have to do anything. now we can delay action because they should go 1st as part of the change room. yes it is, but if you wanted to really change the verbage, then we need to start telling china and india that they have to lower their and this. and then if you accept this, the interest, now there's flooding of the risk prior, but these are actually too costly to do much about it because we're doing our economy and we would lose our jobs climate change. we'll have a major impact unemployment funds on jobs. and the way businesses operate and

finally, or you can say, well, it's dangerous, it is costly, but now it's too late to do much about it done, the focus becomes on securing your life rather than doing something about it. this is a kind of continuum of arguments for your co, gradually, from denial to the layer is always been about to lay delaying action. continuing to promote business as usual, back in gain diversion. distraction. got monitoring. r o leads to the end of delay and it's what it was for tobacco. the tobacco industry knew they had a product that was crazy for the 1950s, but they also used the state to delay to back from charles. they could continue to make large profits and they would just keep doing that for as long as they could. but we're also seeing some progress and it's important to keep that in mind as well . we are seeing carbon emissions now globally started by a tow. and we know that's due to the shift underway from fossil fuels towards renewable energy. the problem is it isn't happening fast enough in large part

because of the forces of inaction in the stalling tactics that they're using. we live in an age of skepticism. some of it is completely justified and necessary some of that. those is the product of deliberate misinformation and misdirection. it is led to distrust of well established scientific claims about the climate. well, i think it's hardly surprising that people are confused and that some people don't trust scientists because they've been the victims of a campaign designed to confuse them. on the good side, i guess i could say the latest poll results showed that the number of americans who completely dismissed private science is actually down to only 9 percent despite this massive this information campaign. so that's really good news. the problem though is how long it has taken to the point. if somebody missed opportunities have been along the way to which today climate scientists bear some responsibility for portion of the missed opportunities for too long they operated under the night,

use the lease that the communication strategies dry sometimes and accessible and often not very engaging. we're fine, and that there was no other serious way to share scientific information. the temperature will arise perhaps by something like point $4.00 degrees fahrenheit per decade. in reality, dissuading people, demands a host of different communication styles. and it helps to collaborate with social scientists and patient experts to understand that it's not just the effects that you're providing. it's how you deliver those facts in a way that successive is sticking memorable scientist like myself recognize now that the debate over climate change isn't really about the science, it's a proxy war over policy and id, ology. and it's essential that you recognize that if you're going to target the denial isn't the delay is and yeah, it's important to talk about the science, but it's not sufficient. we have to help the public connect the dots or the

journalism community itself has become y, as in increasingly recognizes that you don't need to have a climate change, denied or quoted in every story along with main street in climate scientists. that when you do that, you're really skewing the discourse in the direction of misinformation and misunderstanding. we look to scientists to solve how to change it, because we thought if they could just explain it, then we'd ask uh, most people were pretty slow to recognize it as a put of time because it was framed from a geared towards the scientific question. so i get a little frustrated actually, when journalists go back to climate scientist asked about what, what do we do now? you're not actually asking the right people now, you really need to get people engaged with being involved in social movements to understand politics. who study political dynamics was very social change. we need much more of that expertise right now. yes, we actually need the science for sure. but we need to better understand that the

solution space is not a question of physical science. it is not as catastrophic itself literally. as i did the research for this episode, it became clear to me that climate psychology is really at the heart of what the series is about. seeking to understand why our response to this. it's a central process. it's the way that it is. it's been a pretty sophisticated psychological operation going on for decades. these skepticism parts that somebody else is dealing with this whole thing used against us. and in some cases we've made it easy. now though with time is how does it change and the need for understanding an action incredibly urgent. getting a group on that side is key and working at a strategy to counter the installation. so there's a lot of lessons that we can learned from the communications experts when it comes to obviously science communication. and one of those lessons is the importance of narratives important story telling fossil fuel industry. they have funded so much

research, they do focus groups, they pause, they understand which messages work. they understand how to tell compelling stories . and if we don't do the same, then we're going to lose this battle for the hearts and minds of the public. the in nature 9 made catastrophes and the rate was by severe weather event resulting an adult was think devastation. the variety of human factors means the intensity and impact. is it purely natural and the politics behind normalizing climate change? as was to fact, if i was supposed to be seen as normal, but if that's something that shouldn't be happening to any one, is it really a natural disaster? oh, hell, the permits on al jazeera,

the, and that's the, that's the mean k. obviously those, i'm sorry who the 3 months here before now is a scene potentially set up in the composer. that's the ones you in those includes, those are not exclusive. i mean that i sort of got the level here, negative i guess it up. i don't see data that is, is another student that glassy job for young people here as close as you think the a, the, the discuss the difference during the correction

which is a selection of the best news from across the network and the, the, the most coated launches a large scale, drawing to tackle and ukraine ahead of european the displeasing for tools on ending the war, the head of the home, and the put on them. and this is algebra, live from doha. also coming up is writing, negotiate has had to call, i will have to discuss the gospel sci fi, as well as still blocking shelters from entering district. the condition of the us secretary of state, marco rubio has arrived themselves. you are right.