Why do we need Climate Mind?

The Problem

The biggest myth about climate change, isn't whether it's happening. Rather, it's the myth that it doesn't personally affect us. Scientists strongly agree: the impacts of climate change are here today, affecting each of us, the scale and speed of change is serious, threatening civilization as we know it, and we are responsible (mainly by burning fossil fuels). Fortunately, many hopeful solutions exist to address climate change while simultaneously making our lives better than they are today. But the pace and scale that we are implementing these solutions needs to be much faster to be appropriate.

The Solution

Talking about climate change meaningfully with friends and family drives better understanding, motivation, and lasting change for faster climate action from the bottom up.

Why aren't we talking enough? There are several key factors that Climate Mind addresses, such as:

• 😔 We don’t want to make others feel sad

Climate Mind to the rescue!

The Climate Mind app addresses these barriers by guiding users to effectively frame their conversations, strengthening relationships while discussing climate change in authentic and positive ways. We don’t have to change people’s values. People already have the values they need to care about a changing climate and be motivated to act, they just haven’t realized it yet. They haven’t connected the dots and found attractive solutions.

What can the Climate Mind App do for you?

1. Identify what makes you tick

2. Explore how climate change impacts you personally and relates to your values

3. Gain support, confidence, and opportunity for better climate convos with friends and family

4. Discover climate solutions tailored to you

How can you get involved?

Personalize your understanding of climate change

Climate Mind helps you explore how your values and personal interests are being affected by climate change and show you attractive solutions exist that you may not be aware of.

We’ll help connect the dots between you, a changing climate and actions you can take!

What are personal values?

What are YOUR personal values?

Take the quiz

Respond to 10 statements based on these to find out your core values. There are 10 more optional statements which you can skip. Then view your results, learn how climate change affects you now and explore exciting solutions.

Read each statement and decide how much you like or not like that. Don’t worry! There are no right or wrong answers!

Discover your top 3 personal values

On the next page, you will see your quiz result - the top 3 of your personal values alongside your personal value web.

Not a regular list of disasters

The problem is not a lack of information about climate change available to society, but an information connection and communication issue within society. This can be solved using a knowledge base that connects climate change impacts and solutions with geographic locations and personal values to enable a recommendation system that personalizes app experiences and improves climate conversations.

Climate change effects

We generate a personalized climate feed for you based on your personal values and location zip code. It consists of climate change effects that will affect you the most.

You can find the list of all climate change effects from our climate knowledge base in the article below:

The app shares the personal risks of climate change along with personally motivating climate actions.

I like to refer to John Holdren, a physicist at Harvard. When he talks about how to address climate change, he says we have three choices: mitigation, adaptation, and suffering.

We can mitigate the situation by reducing our emissions. We can adapt by preparing for a different future. Or we can suffer. That's not a word you hear scientists saying often. Holdren explains that we're going to do some of each; the question is what the mix is going to be.

The more we cut our emissions, the less adaptation is required, and the less suffering there will be. These are the choices that face all of us. Not just climate scientists, not just decision-makers, but every single person on this planet.

The big solutions to climate change look like this:

1. Stop putting so much carbon into the atmosphere (mitigation)

2. Take as much carbon out of the atmosphere as we can (mitigation)

3. Build resilience to the impacts that are already here, that we can no longer avoid (adaptation)

Climate Expert Katharine Hayhoe: Help Solve Climate Change by Talking With Others About It

To check all available mitigation actions go to the "Actions" tab. You can also find mitigation actions in the feed per climate effect next to adaptation actions.

All mitigations actions are listed in our knowledge base:

Adaptation actions could be found in your personal feed.

The full list of adaptation actions could be found in our knowledge base:

Climate Mind personalizes by using zip code

There are a variety of location-related data sets the app uses for this feature:

• US hurricane regions

• US extreme heat/heatwave areas

• US record heat

• US wildfire hazard potential

• US air pollution exposure

See our knowledge base article to learn more:

Tailor your results to include impacts affecting your local area by entering your zip code.

Okay, you feel you know enough and can't wait to spread the word. Good job!

Share the link with your interlocutor to know how you align.

Bond over shared personal values and interests.

Connect how climate impacts relate to your shared values and interests and how climate impacts are here today, where we live, affecting the things we care about most. And given the scale and speed of impacts, how it's an all-hands-on-deck situation.

Inspire with viable, accessible, practical and attractive solutions

Your interlocutor will choose the most interesting climate impacts to talk about.

And solutions he wants to know.

Thus you will be set up to have a constructive conversation about the climate change through the framing technique.

Your interlocutor will go throught the same quiz and receive the top three personal values.

The shared core value will be shown right away.

Selected topics could be also found on the conversation card.

Most common myths are listed on the myths page.

Your alignment is a key to constructive conversation. See how you align at the conversation tab.

When we think of our values, we think of what is important to us in life. Each of us holds numerous values (e.g., achievement, security, benevolence) with varying degrees of importance. A particular value may be very important to one person but unimportant to another. The value theory (Schwartz, 1992, 2006a) adopts a conception of values that specifies six main features that are implicit in the writings of many theorists ( e.g., Allport, 1961; Feather, 1995; Kluckhohn, 1951; Morris, 1956; Rokeach 1973):

1. Values are beliefs linked inextricably to affect (emotions). When values are activated, they become infused with feeling. People for whom independence is an important value become aroused if their independence is threatened, despair when they are helpless to protect it, and are happy when they can enjoy it.

2. Values refer to desirable goals that motivate action. People for whom social order, justice, and helpfulness are important values are motivated to pursue these goals.

3. Values transcend specific actions and situations. Obedience and honesty values, for example, may be relevant in the workplace or school, in business or politics, with friends or strangers. This feature distinguishes values from norms and attitudes that usually refer to specific actions, objects, or situations.

4. Values serve as standards or criteria. Values guide the selection or evaluation of actions, policies, people, and events. People decide what is good or bad, justified or illegitimate, worth doing or avoiding, based on possible consequences for their cherished values. But the impact of values in everyday decisions is rarely conscious. Values enter awareness when the actions or judgments one is considering have conflicting implications for different values one cherishes.

5. Values are ordered by importance relative to one another. People’s values form an ordered system of priorities that characterize them as individuals. Do they attribute more importance to achievement or justice, to novelty or tradition? This hierarchical feature also distinguishes values from norms and attitudes.

6. The relative importance of multiple values guides to action. Any attitude or behavior typically has implications for more than one value. For example, attending church might express and promote tradition and conformity values at the expense of hedonism and stimulation values. The tradeoff among relevant, competing values guides attitudes and behaviors (Schwartz, 1992, 1996). Values influence action when they are relevant in the context (hence likely to be activated) and important to the actor.

The above are features of all values. What distinguishes one from another is the type of goal or motivation that it expresses. The values theory defines ten broad values according to the motivation that underlies each of them. These values are likely to be universal because they are grounded in one or more of three universal requirements of human existence with which they help to cope. These requirements are needs of individuals as biological organisms, requisites of coordinated social interaction, and survival and welfare needs of groups. Individuals cannot cope successfully with these requirements of human existence on their own. Rather, people must articulate appropriate goals to cope with them, communicate with others about them, and gain cooperation in their pursuit. Values are the socially desirable concepts used to represent these goals mentally and the vocabulary used to express them in social interaction.

The Structure of Value Relations

In addition to identifying ten basic values, the theory explicates the structure of dynamic relations among them. One basis of the value structure is the fact that actions in pursuit of any value have consequences that conflict with some values but are congruent with others. For example, pursuing achievement values typically conflicts with pursuing benevolence values. Seeking success for self tends to obstruct actions aimed at enhancing the welfare of others who need one's help. But pursuing both achievement and power values is usually compatible. Seeking personal success for oneself tends to strengthen and to be strengthened by actions aimed at enhancing one's own social position and authority over others. Another example: Pursuing novelty and change (stimulation values) is likely to undermine preserving time-honored customs (tradition values). In contrast, pursuing tradition values is congruent with pursuing conformity values. Both motivate actions of submission to external expectations.

Actions in pursuit of values have practical, psychological, and social consequences. Practically, choosing an action alternative that promotes one value (e.g., taking drugs in a cultic rite—stimulation) may literally contravene or violate a competing value (obeying the precepts of one’s religion—tradition). The person choosing what to do may also sense that such alternative actions are psychologically dissonant. And others may impose social sanctions by pointing to practical and logical inconsistencies between an action and other values the person professes. Of course, people can and do pursue competing values, but not in a single act. Rather, they do so through different acts, at different times, and in different settings.

The circular structure in Figure 1 portrays the total pattern of relations of conflict and congruity among values. Tradition and conformity are located in a single wedge because, as noted above, they share the same broad motivational goal. Conformity is more toward the center and tradition toward the periphery. This signifies that tradition values conflict more strongly with the opposing values. The expectations linked to tradition values are more abstract and absolute than the interaction-based expectations of conformity values. They therefore demand a stronger, unequivocal rejection of opposing values.

Viewing values as organized along two bipolar dimensions lets us summarize the oppositions between competing values. As Figure 1 shows, one dimension contrasts ‘openness to change’ and ‘conservation’ values. This dimension captures the conflict between values that emphasize independence of thought, action, and feelings and readiness for change (self-direction, stimulation) and values that emphasize order, self-restriction, preservation of the past, and resistance to change (security, conformity, tradition). The second dimension contrasts ‘self-enhancement’ and ‘self-transcendence’ values. This dimension captures the conflict between values that emphasize concern for the welfare and interests of others (universalism, benevolence) and values that emphasize pursuit of one's own interests and relative success and dominance over others (power, achievement). Hedonism shares elements of both openness to change and self-enhancement.

higher order values:

self direction: education.

achievement: grades

Schwartz, S. H. (2012). An Overview of the Schwartz Theory of Basic Values. Online Readings in Psychology and Culture, 2(1). https://doi.org/10.9707/2307-0919.1116

Humans are currently in a war against global warming. Or is it a race against global warming? Or maybe it’s just a problem we have to deal with?

If you already consider climate change a pressing issue, you might not think carefully about the way you talk about it – regardless of how you discuss it, you already think of global warming as a problem. But the way we talk about climate change affects the way people think about it.

For scientific evidence to shape people’s actions – both personal behaviors like recycling and choices on policies to vote for – it’s crucial that science be communicated to the public effectively. Social scientists have been increasingly studying the science of science communication, to better understand what does and does not work for discussing different scientific topics. It turns out the language you use and how you frame the discussion can make a big difference.

The paradox of science communication

“Never have human societies known so much about mitigating the dangers they faced but agreed so little about what they collectively know,” writes Yale law professor Dan Kahan, a leading researcher in the science of science communication.

Kahan’s work shows that just because someone has scientific knowledge, he or she won’t necessarily hold science-supported beliefs about controversial topics like global warming, private gun possession or fracking.

Instead, beliefs are shaped by the social groups people consider themselves to be a part of. We’re all simultaneously members of many social groups – based, for example, on political or religious affiliation, occupation or sexuality. If people are confronted with scientific evidence that seems to attack their group’s values, they’re likely to become defensive. They may consider the evidence they’ve encountered to be flawed, and strengthen their conviction in their prior beliefs.

Unfortunately, scientific evidence does sometimes contradict some groups’ values. For example, some religious people trust a strict reading of the Bible: God said there would be four seasons, and hot and cold, so they don’t worry about the patterns in climate that alarm scientists. In cases like this one, how can communicators get their message across?

A growing body of research suggests that instead of bombarding people with piles of evidence, science communicators can focus more on how they present it. The problem isn’t that people haven’t been given enough facts. It’s that they haven’t been given facts in the right ways. Researchers often refer to this packaging as framing. Just as picture frames enhance and draw attention to parts of an image inside, linguistic frames can do the same with ideas.

One framing technique Kahan encourages is disentangling facts from people’s identities. Biologist Andrew Thaler describes one way of doing so in a post called “When I talk about climate change, I don’t talk about science.” Instead, he talks about things that are important to his audiences, such as fishing, flooding, farming, faith and the future. These issues that matter to the people with whom he’s communicating become an entry into discussing global warming. Now they can see scientific evidence as important to their social group identity, not contradictory to it.

Let me rephrase that

Metaphors also provide frames for talking about climate change. Recent work by psychologists Stephen Flusberg, Paul Thibodeau and Teenie Matlock suggests that the metaphors we use to describe global warming can influence people’s beliefs and actions.

Ready for combat? Thomas Hawk, CC BY-NC

The researchers asked 3,000 Americans on an online platform to read a short fictional news article about climate change. The articles were exactly the same, but they used different metaphors: One referred to the “war against” and another to the “race against” climate change. For example, each article included phrases about the U.S. seeking to either “combat” (war) or “go after” (race) excessive energy use.

After reading just one of these passages, participants answered questions about their global warming beliefs, like how serious global warming is and whether they would be willing to engage in more pro-environmental behaviors.

Metaphors mattered. Reading about the “war” against global warming led to greater agreement with scientific evidence showing it is real and human-caused. This group of participants indicated more urgency for reducing emissions, believed global warming poses a greater risk and responded that they were more willing to change their behaviors to reduce their carbon footprint than people who read about the “race” against global warming.

The only difference between the articles that participants read was the metaphors they included. Why would reading about a war rather than a race affect people’s beliefs about climate change in such important ways?

The researchers suggest that when we encounter war metaphors, we are reminded (though not always consciously) of other war-related concepts like death, destruction, opposition and struggle. These concepts affect our emotions and remind us of the negative feelings and consequences of defeat. With those war-related thoughts in mind, we may be motivated to avoid losing. If we have these war thoughts swimming around in our minds when we think about global warming, we’re more likely to believe it’s important to defeat the opponent, which, in this case, is global warming.

There are other analogies that are good at conveying the causes and consequences for global warming. Work by psychologists Kaitlin Raimi, Paul Stern and Alexander Maki suggests it helps to point out how global warming is similar to many medical diseases. For both, risks are often caused or aggravated by human behaviors, the processes are often progressive, they produce symptoms outside the normal range of past experiences, there are uncertainties in the prognosis of future events, treatment often involves trade-offs or side effects, it’s usually most effective to treat the underlying problem instead of just alleviating symptoms and they’re hard to reverse.

People who read the medical disease analogy for climate change were more likely to agree with the science-backed explanations for global warming causes and consequences than those who read a different analogy or no analogy at all.

Golden past or rosy future?

Climate change messages can also be framed by focusing on different time periods. Social psychologists Matthew Baldwin and Joris Lammers asked people to read either a past-focused climate change message (like “Looking back to our nation’s past… there was less traffic on the road”) or a similar future-focused message (“Looking forward to our nation’s future… there is increasing traffic on the road”).

The researchers found that self-identified conservatives, who tend to resist climate change messages more than liberals, agreed that we should change how we interact with the planet more after reading the past-focused passage. Liberals, on the other hand, reported liking the future-focused frame better, but the frames had no influence on their environmental attitudes.

Example of a past-focused image (top) and a future-focused image (bottom) of a reservoir. Image courtesy of NASA. Used in Baldwin and Lammers, PNAS December 27, 2016 vol. 113 no. 52 14953-14957.

And the frames didn’t have to be words. Conservatives also shifted their beliefs to be more pro-environmental after seeing past-focused images (satellite images that progressed from the past to today) more than after seeing future-focused ones (satellite images that progressed from today into the future). Liberals showed no differences in their attitudes after seeing the two frames.

Many climate change messages focus on the potential future consequences of not addressing climate change now. This research on time-framing suggests that such a forward-looking message may in fact be unproductive for those who already tend to resist the idea.

There’s no one-size-fits-all frame for motivating people to care about climate change. Communicators need to know their audience and anticipate their reactions to different messages. When in doubt, though, these studies suggest science communicators might want to bring out the big guns and encourage people to fire away in this war on climate change, while reminding them how wonderful the Earth used to be before our universal opponent began attacking full force.

You value freedom of thought and action, preferring to come to conclusions or decisions yourself. You also likely draw great satisfaction when creating or exploring the world.

At its essence, Self-Direction is a need for control, mastery, and independence - so it’s no surprise you might relish in choosing your own goals - and honing till they are just right. Likely curious, intelligent and a lover of freedom - you prefer to live by your own rules.

Defining goal:

independent thought and action-choosing, creating, exploring. Self-direction derives from organismic needs for control and mastery (e.g., Bandura, 1977; Deci, 1975) and interactional requirements of autonomy and independence (e.g., Kluckhohn, 1951; Kohn & Schooler, 1983).

Subtypes:

• Autonomy of Thought (freedom to cultivate one's own ideas)

• Autonomy of Action (freedom to cultivate one's own actions)

• Self-Direction Independent thought and action—choosing, creating, exploring.

• Stimulation Excitement, novelty and challenge in life.

• Hedonism Pleasure or sensuous gratification for oneself.

You highly value excitement, challenge, and positive change. Life is likely never dull with you around.

The world is a big place and you see the benefits of craving new experiences. On top of a need for variety and stimulation, you may also be a bit daring compared to most. You are likely a go-getter and change-maker at heart.

Defining goal:

excitement, novelty, and challenge in life. Stimulation values derive from the organismic need for variety and stimulation in order to maintain an optimal, positive, rather than threatening, level of activation (e.g., Berlyne, 1960). This need probably relates to the needs underlying self-direction values (cf. Deci, 1975).

Joy, pleasure and satisfaction are a big part of what drives you. From big moments to the little things, you find bliss in enjoying what you do.

Whether through exploring the world or indulging in your favourite food, you likely love instant gratification and value decisions that reward your senses.

Defining goal:

pleasure or sensuous gratification for oneself. Hedonism values derive from organismic needs and the pleasure associated with satisfying them. Theorists from many disciplines (e.g., Freud, 1933; Williams, 1968) mention hedonism.

(Although happiness is an important value, it is not included because people achieve it through attaining whatever outcomes they value (Sagiv & Schwartz, 2000)).

• Achievement Personal success through demonstrating competence according to social standards.

• Power Social status and prestige, control or dominance over people and resources.

• Hedonism Pleasure or sensuous gratification for oneself.

• Benevolence Preserving and enhancing the welfare of those with whom one is in frequent personal contact (the ‘in-group’).

• Universalism Understanding, appreciation, tolerance, and protection for the welfare of all people and for nature.

Control freak? Maybe. But in your eyes it’s more about embracing power, holding dominance and getting the job done. You value social status and prestige.

Power is invaluable. After all, it likely enables you to control the people and situations around you. When you're on top of making the decision, you feel most yourself.

Defining goal

social status and prestige, control or dominance over people and resources. The functioning of social institutions apparently requires some degree of status differentiation (Parsons, 1951). A dominance/submission dimension emerges in most empirical analyses of interpersonal relations both within and across cultures (Lonner, 1980). To justify this fact of social life and to motivate group members to accept it, groups must treat power as a value. Power values may also be transformations of individual needs for dominance and control. Value analysts have mentioned power values as well (e.g., Allport, 1961).

Both power and achievement values focus on social esteem. However, achievement values (e.g., ambitious) emphasize the active demonstration of successful performance in concrete interaction, whereas power values (e.g., authority, wealth) emphasize the attainment or preservation of a dominant position within the more general social system.

Subtypes

• dominance (control over people)

• resources (control over resources)

You care a great deal for the well-being of all people and life. You likely also value diversity and protecting the environment.

Broadminded and selfless, you likely focus on bolstering social justice and equality so that the world is more fair and peaceful for all.

Defining goal

understanding, appreciation, tolerance, and protection for the welfare of all people and for nature. This contrasts with the in-group focus on benevolence values. Universalism values derive from the survival needs of individuals and groups. But people do not recognize these needs until they encounter others beyond the extended primary group and until they become aware of the scarcity of natural resources. People may then realize that failure to accept others who are different and treat them justly will lead to life-threatening strife. They may also realize that failure to protect the natural environment will lead to the destruction of the resources on which life depends. Universalism combines two subtypes of concern—for the welfare of those in the larger society and world and for nature

Subtypes

• concern (appreciation and protection for the welfare of all people)

• tolerance (Acceptance and understanding of those who differ from oneself)

• nature (appreciation, protection, and preservation of the natural environment)

Forgiving, helping, and being loyal are important to you. You likely look to preserve and improve the lives of those that share your core interests or identities.

Being reliable and devoted to the needs of those around you gives you great satisfaction; you likely do a great deal to keep your close relationships thriving.

Defining goal

preserving and enhancing the welfare of those with whom one is in frequent personal contact (the ‘in-group’). Benevolence values derive from the basic requirement for smooth group functioning (cf. Kluckhohn, 1951) and from the organismic need for affiliation (cf. Maslow, 1965). Most critical are relations within the family and other primary groups. Benevolence values emphasize voluntary concern for others’ welfare.

Subtypes

• dependability (Promoting the welfare of one’s in-groups by being trustworthy and reliable)

• caring (Promoting the welfare of one’s in-groups by being devoted to the needs of the in-group)

Success - that’s a major goal in your life. Meeting your own standards of excellence is very important to you. It propels you forward.

Likely a perfectionist at heart, you strive to be the best you can be. And if you get recognition and approval in the process, that really is the cherry on top.

Defining goal:

personal success through demonstrating competence according to social standards. Competent performance that generates resources is necessary for individuals to survive and for groups and institutions to reach their objectives. As defined here, achievement values emphasize demonstrating competence in terms of prevailing cultural standards, thereby obtaining social approval.

(Achievement values differ from McClelland's (1961) achievement motivation. Achievement motivation concerns meeting internal standards of excellence. It is expressed in self-direction values.)

Rule breaker? Far from it. In fact, you love nothing more than sticking by the rules and conforming to social norms.

The idea of upsetting others or disrupting the status quo likely fills you with dread, so you work hard to bring self-discipline, responsibility and politeness to the table.

Defining goal

restraint of actions, inclinations, and impulses likely to upset or harm others and violate social expectations or norms. Conformity values derive from the requirement that individuals inhibit inclinations that might disrupt and undermine smooth interaction and group functioning. As I define them, conformity values emphasize self-restraint in everyday interaction, usually with close others.

Subtypes

• rules (Compliance with rules, laws and formal obligations (Avoidance of violating formal social expectations))

• interpersonal (Avoidance of violating informal social expectations (Avoidance of upsetting or harming others))

• Security Safety, harmony, and stability of society, of relationships, and of self.

• Conformity Restraint of actions, inclinations, and impulses likely to upset or harm others and violate social expectations or norms.

• Tradition Respect, commitment, and acceptance of the customs and ideas that one's culture or religion provides.

You value protecting the traditions of your family, community, and/or culture. You likely take pride in this commitment.

As a person, you care deeply about humility and accepting your place in the world. Most likely you are a religious person and find following your faith to be very important.

Defining goal

respect, commitment, and acceptance of the customs and ideas that one's culture or religion provides. Groups everywhere develop practices, symbols, ideas, and beliefs that represent their shared experience and fate. These become sanctioned as valued group customs and traditions. They symbolize the group's solidarity, express its unique worth, and contribute to its survival (Durkheim, 1912/1954; Parsons, 1951). They often take the form of religious rites, beliefs, and norms of behaviour.

Tradition and conformity values are especially close motivationally; they share the goal of subordinating the self to socially imposed expectations. They differ primarily in the objects to which one subordinates the self. Conformity entails subordination to persons with whom one frequently interacts—parents, teachers, and bosses. Tradition entails subordination to more abstract objects—religious and cultural customs and ideas. As a corollary, conformity values exhort responsiveness to current, possibly changing expectations. Tradition values demand responsiveness to immutable expectations from the past.

A feeling of safety, stability, and order is very important to you; this is true likely whether in society at large, at work, in your home, or in your relationships.

The sense of security that comes with feeling like you belong highly motivates you. Comfort for you is knowing the people and things you cherish are taken care of.

Defining goal

safety, harmony, and stability of society, relationships, and of self. Security values derive from basic individual and group requirements (cf. Kluckhohn, 1951; Maslow, 1965). Some security values serve primarily individual interests (e.g., clean), others wider group interests (e.g., national security). Even the latter, however, express, to a significant degree, the goal of security for self or those with whom one identifies.

Subtypes

• societal (safety, stability and order (security) in the wider society)

• personal (safety, stability and order (security) of self and one's immediate environment)