If I had conducted an interview with Gina McCarthy, I would have asked a follow-up question to the ideas she shared when discussing the connections between psychology and climate change. I would start by asking about the connections between people’s everyday lives and lawmakers. For example, I would ask that given that people are more willing to act on events that are relevant to their lives and problems with probable solutions, how can lawmakers create policies that add relevance to climate change and work toward solutions? Further, which elements of new policies are most important: rhetoric, examples, consequences of inaction or something else entirely? In addition, it seems that an understanding of science is an important part of making change. Thus, how might institutions of higher education impart the importance of science to future policymakers and consider the implications of science during the policymaking process? And, how can policymakers present the science in ways that people care about and understand?
To watch the PredictionX interview with Gina McCarthy, you can find it here!
This is a great line of questioning and is one that I was struggling to articulate in my post. I think the only way that we are going to be able to combat climate change is to make it relevant to everyone's lives. If a doctor tells someone to take a medicine, that person likely will because the effects of it are very personal. However, if a climate expert tells people that we are in desperate need of change in order to save the earth, some people are hesitant because this problem is not as personal or tangible. I believe this is one of the biggest hurdles we need to overcome in the battle against climate change.