Kansas Opinions on Climate Change:

Results from a Statewide Telephone Survey and a Deliberative Discussion

Authors and Project Information

Ben Champion, D.Phil. Director of Sustainability Assistant Professor, Geography Kansas State University (785) 313-3085 champion@k-state.edu Tim Steffensmeier, Ph.D. Associate Professor and Department Head Department of Communications Studies Research Associate, Institute for Civic Discourse and Democracy Kansas State University (785) 532-6862 steffy@k-state.edu Dan Kahl, Ph.D. Instructor, Extension Community Development Center for Engagement and Community Development Kansas State University (785) 532-1905 dankahl@k-state.edu

Amber Campbell Hibbs, Ph.D. Program Coordinator Kansas EPSCoR Climate Change Mitigation Project Resilient Beef-Forage Systems USDA-AFRI-CAP Kansas State University (785) 532-3037 archibbs@k-state.edu Lisa Pytlik Zillig, Ph.D. Research Associate Public Policy Center University of Nebraska, Lincoln (402) 472-6877 lpytlikz@nebraska.edu

This research was conducted as part of the Great Plains Climate Education Partnership project at Kansas State University and the University of Nebraska, Lincoln.

This material is based upon work supported by the National Science Foundation under Grant No. 1043393. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation.

Table of Contents Executive Summary ....................................................................................................................................................1

What Kansans Think About Climate Change ................................................................................................................3

Telephone Survey Intent and Methodology ....................................................................................................................... 3

Demographics of Respondents to the Telephone Survey................................................................................................... 3

Results of Key Questions from the Telephone Survey ........................................................................................................ 7

Telephone Survey Summary: ............................................................................................................................................ 10

Deliberative Discussion and Climate Change ............................................................................................................. 11

Format: .............................................................................................................................................................................. 11

Participant Demographics – Comparing Deliberative Discussion Participants to Telephone Survey Respondents ........ 12

Initial Opinions and Interests of Participants – Comparing Deliberative Discussion Opinions to Telephone Survey

Responses ......................................................................................................................................................................... 16

Post-Event Participant Opinions and Interests and Comparisons to Pre-Event Responses – Changes in Opinion Due to

the Deliberative Discussion ............................................................................................................................................... 21

Summary: Biggest Changes Before-to-After Deliberative Discussion ............................................................................... 30

Observations, Interpretations, and Conclusions ........................................................................................................ 31

Appendix I: Telephone Survey Figures ...................................................................................................................... 34

Appendix II: Deliberative Discussion Figures ............................................................................................................. 39

Appendix III: Deliberative Discussion Pre-Reading Document .................................................................................... 49

1 | P a g e

Executive Summary Kansas State University and the University of Nebraska conducted research in 2010 – 2013 to better understand public

perspectives, attitudes, and understanding of issues related to climate science and change. This report contains research

results from a statewide telephone survey of over 300 Kansans and from a deliberative forum that was held in

Manhattan, Kansas, on June 1, 2013. Participants from the phone surveys and the deliberative forum requested that the

perspectives shared in this research be relayed to elected officials and a broad public audience. This report has been

developed to share findings and fulfill that commitment to project participants.

Statewide Telephone Survey Results

When asked to rate their knowledge and interest in climate and climate change:

Most people felt fairly knowledgeable about at least some aspects of climate change and also expressed

strong interest in knowing more about at least one or two aspects about climate change. There were small

minorities who did not think they were knowledgeable at all about climate change, and who did not have

any significant interest in any aspects of climate change.

When asked about who should be responsible for responsive action to climate change:

Kansans are divided in opinions about who is responsible for responding to climate change, but the

strongest categories of support were for government action (29%) and individual-level actions (28%. Of

those who preferred government action, 53% favored federal government action over state (26%) or local

government (15%). Overall, support for federal government, corporate/industry, and individual-level action

responding to climate change received roughly equivalent levels of support.

Deliberative Discussion Results

Deliberative discussion participants expressed higher levels of interest in climate and climate change than

respondents to the statewide telephone survey, and expressed more interest in some kind of

action/response to climate change. Deliberative discussion participants were, however, also divided in

opinions about who should be most responsible for responsive action.

Participating in the deliberative discussion resulted in some substantial shifts in opinion by participants from

before the event to afterward, as well as indications of developing more nuanced opinions.

o Overall, deliberative discussion participants seem to have increased their confidence that climate

change is happening and that it is human-caused. While participants started with relatively high

levels of confidence on the topic, opinions about how much harm individuals would experience from

climate change did tend to moderate, with a reduction in those answering a “great deal” and an

increase in those who answered a “moderate amount” and “a little”. This may reflect development

of more nuanced opinions through the event.

2 | P a g e

o Deliberation among peers seems to greatly increase confidence that there are tangible things that

can be done to address climate change and that humans can choose to do them successfully. Post-

event survey results show the lowest level of skepticism about societal willingness to address

climate change of any comparable category of responses to traditional polling at the national level.

Post-event survey results also show higher levels of confidence that society is going to address

climate change than any category of responses to traditional polling at the national level. These are

in comparison with more cautious pre-event response rates in line with national opinion polling

data1.

o Opinions about who is responsible for responding to climate change shifted from emphasizing

government and individuals in the pre-assessment, toward a greater balance between government,

individual, and industry approaches and an increase in interest in combinations of organizational

responses. In addition, post-event evaluation data indicates a high valuation of examples from

event panelists about water issues in Kansas and local governmental approaches to responding to

climate change, which may explain the significant rise in interest in local governmental solutions.

o Confidence that society should be doing much more to respond to climate change increased

dramatically, despite the continued diversity of opinions about what specifically should be done.

1 Leiserowitz, A., Maiebach, E., Roser-Renouf, C., Feinberg, G. & Howe, P. (2013) Global Warming’s Six Americas, September 2012.

Yale University and George Mason University. New Have, CT: Yale Project on Climate Change Communication. p.43. http://environment.yale.edu/climate-communication/files/Six-Americas-September-2012.pdf (accessed 9/22/2013)

3 | P a g e

What Kansans Think About Climate Change

Telephone Survey Intent and Methodology As part of the overall Great Plains Climate Education Partnership project, researchers involved with this project were

interested in the level of interest in climate change as a topic for the general population. A statewide telephone survey

assessed how much interest Kansans have in climate change, how much and what kind of information they would like

about climate and climate change, and their opinions about who should be responsible for responding to climate

change. The research investigated how people’s opinions might be related to their levels of civic engagement in their

communities as well as whether opinions differed between rural and urban residents.

A telephone survey was conducted using a sampling strategy to ensure strong representation of rural populations. Of

the participants, 70% of numbers were randomly selected throughout Kansas, while 30% were sampled strictly from zip

codes outside of standard Metropolitan Statistical Areas (MSA’s) as defined by the U.S. Census Bureau (Kansas City,

Wichita, Topeka, Manhattan and Lawrence). In addition, 70% of numbers were landlines and 30% were cell phones,

sampled using a stratified random approach. This strategy was intended to ensure a mixture of landline and cell phone

responses, as well as place an emphasis on rural populations in line with the Central Great Plains Climate Education

Partnership’s focus on rural needs. Overall, we interviewed 302 Kansas citizens by phone throughout April and May

2013.

Demographics of Respondents to the Telephone Survey

Rural/Urban Mix

A key purpose of the survey was to identify perspectives of rural Kansans on climate change. Based upon the zip codes

of respondents, we identified which participants were part of officially recognized Metropolitan Statistical Areas (MSA’s)

and which were not. MSA’s refer to both urbanized metropolitan areas and areas nearby to them which are closely

economically tied. This MSA vs. non-MSA characterization is our best approximation of whether the respondents were

urban or rural residents.

Respondents to the telephone survey were 69% non-MSA, 31% MSA, meaning about 2/3 of respondents were classified

as rural.

4 | P a g e

Using the same classification scheme, the overall population of Kansas in the 2010 census was 68% MSA and 32% non-

MSA, meaning about 2/3 urban and 1/3 rural – the opposite pattern as our telephone survey. The sampling scheme for

the telephone survey was successful in gaining the intended representation the rural population.

Age

The average age of telephone survey respondents was 58, with a median of 60, compared with a median age of 47 for all

Kansans in the 2010 Census2. Respondents to the survey were thus relatively older than the population age distribution

for Kansas. This is likely explained by the sampling methodology, primarily emphasizing landlines which at this point are

probably disproportionately answered by an older population given that nationally the age distribution of those who still

have landlines is heavily skewed toward an older demographic3. It also may be partly explained by the older age of rural

populations in Kansas4 and the intentional sampling of rural telephone numbers in our survey (see the skewing of non-

2 U.S. Census Bureau American Fact Finder Report for Kansas, 2010 Demographic and Educational Attainment Profiles,

http://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/nav/jsf/pages/index.xhtml (accessed 9/22/2013) 3 Blumberg, S.J. and Luke, J.V. (2009) Wireless Substitution: Early Release of Estimates from National Health Interview Survey, July

to December 2009. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nhis/earlyrelease/wireless201005.htm (accessed 9/22/2013) 4Associated Press. Median Age Rising in Rural Kansas. Topeka Capitol Journal, May 19, 2011. http://cjonline.com/news/2011-05-

19/median-age-rising-rural-kansas (accessed 9/22/2013)

5 | P a g e

MSA, i.e. rural, respondents toward older ages compared with MSA, or urban, respondents in the Age of Rural v. Urban

Participants in the Telephone Survey.

Follow this link to see a chart of the age distribution for telephone survey responses.

Education

Telephone survey respondents showed a diversity of educational backgrounds, with 27% having bachelor’s degrees, 20%

with an associate’s or technical degree, 16% with a graduate degree, and 31% with a high school diploma or GED.

According to the 2010 U.S. Census, for Kansans aged 25 and older, 19% had a bachelor’s degree, 7% had an associate’s

or technical degree, 10% had a graduate degree, and 30% had a high school diploma or equivalent5. While nearly 10% of

Kansans reported having less than a high school diploma in the 2010 Census, only 3% of the telephone survey responded

this way. The telephone survey respondents were generally more highly educated than the overall population of

Kansas, especially in the numbers of associate/technical degrees and bachelor degrees.

Civic Engagement

In addition to common demographic descriptions, this study also sought to characterize the levels of civic and

community engagement of respondents. These questions helped test an assumption that opinions about how society

should respond to climate change might vary depending on the levels of civic engagement of the respondents, such as

hypotheses from academic literature that more engaged people might have stronger and thus more polarized opinions6.

Questions about civic engagement inquired whether in the last twelve months respondents had 1)“contacted an elected

official about some public problem or issue”, 2)“attended a public meeting on community affairs”, 3)“discussed issues

affecting local community with friends or family”, 4)“worked with someone or a group to solve a problem in the

community where you live”, 5)“spent time participating in any community service or volunteer activity”, 6)“written a

letter to the newspaper”, and 7) reported whether they “belong to any community groups, or other local groups or

associations that help your community”?

5 U.S. Census Bureau American Fact Finder Report for Kansas, 2010 Demographic and Educational Attainment Profiles,

http://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/nav/jsf/pages/index.xhtml 6 Kahan, D. M., Peters, E., Wittlin, M., Slovic, P., Ouellette, L. L., Braman, D., & Mandel, G. (2012). The polarizing impact of science

literacy and numeracy on perceived climate change risks. Nature Climate Change, 2(10), 732-735.

6 | P a g e

Based on responses to these questions, we developed a combined index giving a point for each “yes” response, and no

points for a “no” response. Out of a possible maximum of seven points, phone survey respondents averaged 2.9 on this

index, with a standard deviation of 1.9, and a median of 3. Most respondents (62%) answered “Yes” to 3 or fewer of the

civic engagement questions. Only two of seven types of activities had over 50% “yes” response rate: discussing

community issues with friends or family (84%), and participating in community service (56%). All other responses had

less than a 50% “yes” response rate.

Demographics Summary

A higher proportion of rural residents responded to the telephone survey than in the Kansas population as a

whole, as intended so that the survey results would reflect the opinions of rural Kansas.

The survey represented an older population than the state as a whole, possibly due to both the older average

age of rural residents than urban ones as well as the likely bias towards older populations using landline

telephones.

Survey respondents were more highly educated than the overall average population of Kansas.

Respondents on the whole did not report extremely high levels of civic engagement; however, a large majority

was engaged at the level of discussing issues with others and/or engaging in community service.

7 | P a g e

Results of Key Questions from the Telephone Survey

Interests in climate change

The telephone survey included two series of questions to assess the level of interest in climate change by respondents

as well as how knowledgeable they perceived themselves to be. To assess their topical knowledge, questions were asked

about how knowledgeable they felt regarding: (1) how climate works, (2) factors that affect the Earth’s climate, (3) tools

that are available for looking at climate over time, and (4) climate in our region and how changes in our climate might

impact you. Participants were asked to indicate their level of knowledge for each area using the responses “not at all”,

“not very”, “fairly”, “very”, to “extremely.”

They were also asked questions about how interested they are in additional information related to the following

climate-related topics: (1) climate science, (2) climate change, (3) societal responses to climate change, (4) climate policy,

(5) options for adapting to climate change, (6) reducing/reversing climate change. Respondents could answer “no

additional information”, “a little”, “some”, “quite a bit”, or “a lot of additional information”.

Taken together, these groups of questions reflect both self-perceived “knowledge” and the “interest” of respondents in

climate change as a broad topic area. Researchers created indexes for “knowledge” and “interest” by associating a

score of 0-4 for each question depending on the level of response, then adding all of the responses together in each of

the two categories for each respondent. This resulted in a total possible score of 16 for knowledge questions, and 24 for

interest questions.

For knowledge questions, respondents had an average score of 7.3 out of 16, with a standard deviation of 3.15 and a

modal response of “fairly”. This indicates the majority of respondents considered themselves to be fairly knowledgeable

about climate change on the whole. They were not, however, necessarily confident in their knowledge related to each of

the topic areas. 63% of respondents answered “not at all” or “not very” to at least one of the knowledge questions.

8 | P a g e

9 | P a g e

For Interest questions, telephone respondents had an average of 9.7 out of 24, with a standard deviation of 7.17.

Digging a bit deeper, respondents appear to fall into three types in regards to their interest in additional information

about climate change: (1) those who are not interested in information of any kind, (2) those who are very interested in

all kinds of information, and (3) those who are interested in specific topic areas, but not necessarily in climate change as

a whole. While 52% of respondents answered “None” to at least one of the questions, only 17% responded “None” to all

six interest questions. In contrast only 9% of respondents to the phone survey answered “a lot” or “quite a bit” to each

of the interest questions. The vast majority (74%) fell somewhere in the middle including 14% answering “quite a bit” or

“a lot” on some topics and “None” on others, and 51% who responded “a lot” or “quite a bit” in response to at least one

question. On the whole, responses tended to have lower levels of interest on average, but a majority had high levels of

interest in at least one particular topic and significant numbers had high interest in many climate change topics.

Level/scale of societal/governmental response

The telephone survey contained two questions intended to gauge who should have the greatest responsibility when

responding to or acting on climate change.

In response to the question, “Who do you feel should have the greatest responsibility for adapting to changes in our

climate such as increases in drought, heat waves, and other extreme events?”, most respondents either answered

“government” (28.5%) or “individuals” (27.8%), while “corporations”, “no one”, and “I don’t know” each received just

over 14%.

Follow this link to see a chart of responses to the question about responsibility for adaptation for the telephone survey.

Asking those who responded “government” to the question above, “What level of government you think should have

the greatest role in adapting to changes in our climate?” also garnered interesting responses. The majority of

respondents favored “federal” government (52.9%), while “state” was endorsed by 25.3%, and “local” endorsed by

14.9%. “I don’t know” was the choice of 5.7%.

Follow this link to see a chart of responses to the question about which level of government is most appropriate for the

telephone survey respondents.

Looking at responses to these two questions together, while responses overall emphasized governmental and individual

responses more than corporate and “no one” responses, responses indicating responsibility of the federal government

(15%) were roughly equal to those for corporations (15%) and “no one” (14%). Looking at it another way, the responses

could be interpreted as somewhat divided between top-down federal and state governmental approaches (22%) and

bottom-up approaches from individual and local government levels (32%).

10 | P a g e

Telephone Survey Summary: A higher proportion of respondents to the telephone survey were rural residents than in the Kansas population

as a whole, as intended so that the survey results would reflect the opinions of rural Kansans.

The survey also represented an older population than the state as a whole, possibly due to both the older

average age of rural residents than urban ones as well as the likely bias towards older landline telephone users.

The survey respondents were more highly educated than the population of Kansas comparing to Census

statistics.

Respondents on the whole did not report extremely high levels of civic engagement; however, a large majority

was engaged at the level of discussing issues with others and/or engaging in community service.

From survey responses relating to knowledge and interest, respondents were generally not knowledgeable or

interested in all aspects of climate change, nor were they completely disinterested. While there were some who

reported they were not knowledgeable at all and who reported little to no interest in any topics, most people

felt fairly knowledgeable about at least some aspects of climate change and also strongly interested in knowing

more about at least one or two aspects about climate change.

From survey responses to questions asking about who is responsible for responding to climate change and what

level of government response would be appropriate, the strongest support was for governmental and individual-

level responses, with the federal government receiving the bulk of the governmental responses (roughly

equivalent to the amount of support for corporations or no response).

11 | P a g e

Deliberative Discussion and Climate Change On June 1, 2013, 67 people gathered at Kansas State University’s Manhattan campus to engage in a deliberative

discussion about climate change, its potential impacts on their lives and communities, and how society should respond.

The participants were Kansas residents selected from the aforementioned random sampled telephone survey about

climate change as well as from networking through various civic organizations throughout Kansas7. The discussion

served an important role in the research project as a venue for learning more about citizen attitudes and understanding

of climate issues, but also allowed the researchers to assess the dialogue process to see if the process itself resulted in

learning or any change in participant attitude and knowledge on the topic.

The deliberative discussion was based upon the tested Deliberative Poll format developed by James Fishkin of Stanford

University’s Center for Deliberative Democracy8. Instead of conducting a public opinion poll that asks people their

opinions on complex topics, a deliberative discussion engages people to make choices about a complex issue through a

process of small group discussion and information sharing. This deliberative format offers an alternative methodology

for sampling public opinion on complex public issues. Often for such issues, the general public does not have adequate

opportunity to research all the relevant dimensions of the issues before developing their opinions, especially for issues

that have been politicized or are generally controversial. Moreover, the media rarely evaluates the relative validity of

different claims regarding controversial issues, and as a result the public often does not know what information or

sources of information to trust. Climate change is certainly a topic in Kansas that qualifies as controversial and where the

public has difficulty discerning trustworthy sources of information. Earlier research of the Central Great Plains Climate

Education Partnership has identified trust as one of four key challenges for climate education in the region.9 Thus,

deliberative poll methodology was a good fit for this study.

Format: A deliberative discussion offers a space for participants to deliberate with other citizens on a complex topic, interpret

information from various sources together with these peers and further develop their opinions on the topic in a

deliberative environment. Participants are evaluated both pre- and post-event by a survey designed to measure their

understanding of the topic as well as interest in it and society’s responses to it. This enables analysis of how opinions of

participants shift when they have an opportunity to engage more deeply with complex, controversial topics.

In preparation for the event, participants were sent a packet of reading materials on climate change. The materials

included customized research on climate issues in Kansas. Moreover, the materials provided examples of responses to

climate change at various levels of influence (e.g. city, state, federal). See Appendix III for a copy of these pre-reading

materials.

II.Upon arriving to the deliberative discussion on June 1, participants were given a pre survey with four types of

questions: 1) levels of community involvement, 2) knowledge of climate change and interest in climate information, 3)

opinions about the scale of society’s response and types of institutions that should respond, and 4) questions

benchmarking participants to national opinion polling regarding climate change. The questions in the first three

categories also were present in the statewide random sample telephone survey, allowing comparisons between the

7 The 65 Deliberative discussion participants were recruited from a combination of telephone poll respondents, associations of

Kansas educators, student organizations at Kansas State University, and a statewide association of young Kansas rural leaders called “Power-Ups”. Prospective participants were offered $100 stipends as well as reimbursement for travel and hotel costs to attend the event. The telephone poll produced 12 participants, with the remainder coming from the other networks recruited. 8 Fishkin J. 1995. The Voice of the People. New Haven, CT: Yale Univ. Press, (accessed 9/22/2013) also

http://cdd.stanford.edu/research/ (accessed 9/22/2013) 9 PytlikZillig, et al. (2013) Fostering Climate Change Education in the Central Great Plains: A Public Engagement Approach.

International Journal of Sustainability Education. Vol 8: 1. 161-177

12 | P a g e

telephone survey and the deliberative discussion responses. The last category of questions from national opinion polling

about climate change was only present in the deliberative discussion pre-event surveys.

III. The agenda for the event featured three one-hour periods of small group discussion among participants. Each small

group of 10-12 participants was facilitated by a trained moderator. Between periods of small group deliberation,

participants asked questions among the full group of the “resource panel” of subject matter experts. This resource

panel featured a climate scientist, a state official from the Kansas Water Office and a community development specialist.

The three topic areas about which participants were asked to deliberate in the three group discussion periods were:

1. Should something be done about climate change, and if so, who should do it? (either locally or globally or at any

level)

2. Here are summaries of six case-studies of different societal responses to climate change at six different scales of

governance. You also may know something about other actions that have been taken.

a. Which actions do you find the most interesting?

b. How do you go about deciding whether a climate policy is good or bad?

3. What strategies would you suggest to address climate change (what, who, how)

a. What characteristics should guide effective policy on climate change? What sorts of things should policy

makers take into consideration?

IV. Participants completed a post-survey at the completion of the event. The post-survey asked identical questions to

the pre-survey administered six hours earlier in the day.

The following sections of this report summarize the results of participant surveys both before and after the event,

gauging the level and nature of concern about climate change by the rural citizens of Kansas as well as how these views

changed as a result of the event. Where relevant, comparisons are made with the telephone survey results above so

that comparisons can be made between the opinions, thoughts, and ideas of the smaller group of Deliberative

Discussion participants and those of the broader population of Kansas.

Participant Demographics – Comparing Deliberative Discussion Participants to Telephone

Survey Respondents

Rural/Urban Mix

The Deliberative Discussion featured a balanced mix of participants from rural and urban locations, with 53% from non-

MSA (i.e., rural) zip codes and 47% from metropolitan addresses.

Deliberative Discussion survey responses did not reflect rural opinions as strongly as the telephone survey results, which

had 69% of responses from non-MSA phone numbers.

13 | P a g e

Age

The discussion participant average age was 41, with a median of 34. In addition, the discussion participant median age

was only 34, meaning 50% of participants were 34 years old or younger, and the lower quartile (25%) of participants

were 26 years old or younger. The top quartile of participants were 56 years old or older.

Deliberative Discussion participants, on average, were quite a bit younger than telephone survey respondents. The

telephone survey average age was 58, significantly older than 41 for the deliberative discussion. In addition, the

telephone survey median age was 60, compared with 34 for the deliberative discussion.

Follow this link to see a chart of the age distribution of deliberative discussion participants compared with telephone

survey respondents.

The participant age differences between the discussion and the telephone survey were quite substantial. The age

demographics for the deliberative discussion participants are statistically closer to the demographics of Kansas as a

whole than the responses to the telephone survey. However, discussion participant ages did have a bi-modal

distribution with large numbers of individuals in their 20’s and 30’s, as well as in their 50’s and 60’s, but nearly zero in

their 40’s. It could be that those in their 40’s are typically in a stage of life with little flexibility to take part in a daylong

weekend activity involving travel.

14 | P a g e

Education

Participant levels of bachelor’s and graduate degrees were 35% and 17%, respectively, and levels of associates/technical

degrees and high school/GED diplomas were 18% and 26%, respectively.

Level of education was another area where the deliberative discussion population was different from the telephone

survey respondents, although not as substantially as in the age category above. Numbers of bachelors and graduate

degrees for the telephone survey were lower at 27% and 16%, respectively, while numbers of associates and high

school/GED diplomas were higher at 20% and 31% , respectively.

Deliberative Discussion participants were therefore more highly educated, with more bachelors and graduate degrees

and less associates degrees and high school equivalency.

Civic Engagement

Deliberative Discussion participants were also significantly more civically engaged than those who responded to the

telephone survey. The average for the civic engagement index was 4.4 for those attending the deliberation and 2.9 for

the telephone survey, with an upper quartile of 6 and a lower quartile of 3. This means 75% of deliberative discussion

participants answered “yes” to three or more of seven questions about civic engagement activities in which they

participate, whereas only 50% of telephone survey respondents answered “yes” to three or more of these questions.

15 | P a g e

Summary

In general participants in the Deliberative Discussion were younger, more highly educated, and more civically engaged

than the respondents to the telephone survey.

The Deliberative Discussion therefore did not have a completely representative group of rural Kansans in attendance,

but instead featured a more youthful, civically engaged, and highly educated subset of Kansans, while still maintaining a

mostly rural demographic.

16 | P a g e

Initial Opinions and Interests of Participants – Comparing Deliberative Discussion

Opinions to Telephone Survey Responses

The following sections report the results of questions from the pre-event survey completed by all Deliberative

Discussion participants. Where relevant, comparisons are made between their responses and those of the statewide

telephone survey reported in earlier sections of this report. Questions in the sections titled “interest in climate change”

and “scale of societal response and government response” were common to both Deliberative Discussion and statewide

telephone surveys. However, the sections about “opinions of climate change” and “human ability to respond” report on

questions derived from national opinion polling about climate change that were only present on the Deliberative

Discussion surveys. No comparison to telephone survey responses can be made for these questions.

Knowledge and Interest in Climate Change

Deliberative Discussion participants were asked the same two sets of questions about their knowledge and interest in

climate change as were on the telephone survey. Knowledge assessment questions asked them how strongly they think

they understand the following topics: (1) how climate works, (2) factors that affect the Earth’s climate, (3) tools that are

available for looking at climate over time, and (4) climate in our region and how changes in our climate might impact

you. Response options included: “not at all”, “not very”, “fairly”, “very”, or “extremely” to their level of knowledge.

Participants were also asked questions about how interested they are in additional information related to the following

climate-related topics: (1) climate science, (2) climate change, (3) societal responses to climate change, (4) climate policy,

(5) options for adapting to climate change, (6) reducing/reversing climate change. Respondents could answer “no

additional information”, “a little”, “some”, “quite a bit”, or “a lot of additional information”.

Using the same method as for the telephone survey, these responses were analyzed by grouping the responses together

and summing responses for each individual, with a score of 0-4 for each question, for an aggregate possible score for

each person of 16 for knowledge questions, and 24 for interest questions.

Before the Deliberative Discussion, they averaged 7.98 out of 16 on the knowledge index, with a standard deviation of

3.12. This was not significantly higher than the average of 7.30 for telephone survey responses, and a standard

deviation of 3.16. The majority of respondents felt they were “fairly” knowledgeable about various climate-related

topics.

On the other hand, Deliberative Discussion participants deviated significantly from their telephone survey counterparts

in their levels of interest in additional information about climate topics. They averaged 14.76 out of 24 in the interest

index, with a standard deviation of 5.57. This is significantly higher than the telephone average of 9.68 (standard

deviation of 7.17). Approximately 80% of Deliberative Discussion participants responded “some”, “quite a bit”, or “a lot

of additional information” when asked about their interest in additional information about climate change. This is

nearly the reverse of the telephone survey responses.

This difference in levels of interest may be explainable. There was likely a significant level of self-selection among those

who would be willing to spend an entire Saturday of their personal time gathering to discuss climate change with a room

of strangers, despite offering $100 stipends to participants to enhance the diversity of participants. In addition, our data

show a significant negative correlation (-.206) between age and the interest index score with a high degree of

significance (.000). Given that the average age of participants in the deliberative discussion was much lower than that of

the telephone survey, this is likely an important factor in explaining the higher level of initial interest in climate change

among deliberative discussion participants.

17 | P a g e

Prior to the event, the deliberative discussion participants expressed similar levels of knowledge about climate change

compared with the telephone survey responses. However, they were quite a bit more interested in additional

information about climate change, with relative age of the participants playing a significant factor.

18 | P a g e

Opinions about climate change

One of the questions asked on the deliberative discussion pre/post surveys, but not on the statewide telephone survey,

was, “Do you think that climate change is happening?” The participants were generally confident that climate change is

occurring, with 77% of participants indicating they were either “very sure” or “extremely sure”. However, there was

diversity in responses about what they thought was causing climate change. Fifty one percent of respondents indicated

“humans”, while 18% indicated “natural causes”, and 29% indicated a “combination/other”.

Participants were also asked how much harm they thought climate change would cause them personally: 43% indicated

a “moderate amount”, while 29% thought they would experience a “great deal” of personal harm. There were 14% who

indicated “only a little”, and 9% who said they “don’t know”.

Follow this link to see a chart of responses to the question about how much harm would come from climate change by

deliberative discussion participants before the event.

In general, deliberative discussion participants came to the event confident that climate change is happening, but less

confident that humans activities were the main cause. They also were generally confident that climate change would

cause them at least moderate personal hardship.

There were significant differences in most of these responses after the deliberative discussion, and these shifts in

opinion will be discussed later in this report in the post-event section.

19 | P a g e

Scale of societal response and govt response

In response to the question, “Who do you feel should have the greatest responsibility for adapting to changes in our

climate such as increases in drought, heat waves, and other extreme events?”, participants before the deliberative

discussion primarily favored “government” (31.2%) and “individuals” (23.4%), with “corporations” (14.1%), “no one”

(1.6%), and “I don’t know” (10.1%) making up a minority, and 18.7% of people indicating a “combination”. This

distribution is quite similar to the distribution of responses in the statewide telephone survey.

Follow this link to see a chart of pre-event responses to whose responsibility it is to adapt to climate change, alongside

telephone survey responses to the same question.

The question, “What level of government do you think should have the greatest role in adapting to changes in our

climate?,” was administered differently on the telephone survey than it was in the Deliberative Discussion surveys, so

there are two sets of data to interpret for the deliberative discussion. The first shows the general patterns of response

for all participants in the deliberative discussion. The second explains the patterns of response for those who answered

“government” to the previous question about who is responsible for responding to climate change, an “apples to

apples” comparison to the telephone survey.10

For the pre-event Deliberative Discussion data as a whole on the question about level of government, federal and state

governments received the bulk of the support (66% together), with “none of the above” receiving 15% of responses.

Local government, combination, and I don’t know received relatively low levels of support.

Follow this link to see a chart of pre-event deliberative discussion responses to the question of the most appropriate

scale of government to respond to climate change.

For the apples to apples comparison between deliberative discussion and telephone survey, responses to the question,

“What level of government you think should have the greatest role in adapting to changes in our climate?” were similar

although deliberation results were skewed a little toward higher levels of government compared with the telephone

survey responses. For example, telephone and deliberation participants endorsed “Federal” the most, with

endorsements from 65.0% of the deliberation and 52.9% of the telephone survey respondents. “State” received 30.0%

compared with 25.3% over the phone. “Local” received 5.0% versus 14.9% over the phone. “I don’t know” received

1.8% compared with 5.7% by phone, and 7.3% indicated a “combination”, which was not an option in either survey but

possible for Deliberative Discussion participants to indicate by marking multiple selections on the paper survey.

Taken together, deliberative discussion participants thought government and individuals were more responsible for

acting to address climate change than corporations or no-one, and they generally favored federal and state-level

responses over local governmental responses. This is a similar pattern of responses as found in the statewide telephone

survey.

10

In the Deliberative Discussion, all participants were asked to answer the question “What level of government you think should have the greatest role in adapting to changes in our climate?” However, for the telephone survey, only those who had answered “government” on the previous question, “Who do you feel should have the greatest responsibility for adapting to changes in our climate such as increases in drought, heat waves, and other extreme events?,” were asked to complete this question. In order to compare “apples-to-apples” between the Deliberative Discussion and telephone survey data, we broke out the Deliberative Discussion data for this question for only those who answered “government” on the previous question so that we can make a responsible statistical comparison between data sets.

20 | P a g e

Human ability to respond

Another question that was only featured in the deliberative discussion surveys was one asking about participants’

confidence in the ability for humans to respond successfully to climate change. Specifically, they were asked with which

of a series of statements they most agreed. The largest response was one of uncertainty, 64% of respondents indicating

“humans could reduce climate change, but it’s unclear at this point whether we will do what’s needed.” There were

22% of respondents that chose the statement, “humans could reduce climate change, but people aren’t willing to

change their behavior so we’re not going to.” Small numbers of respondents responded to the other options, with 6%

each indicating alternative extremes, “humans can’t reduce climate change, even if it is happening” and “humans can

reduce climate change, and we are going to do so successfully.”

Follow this link to see a chart of pre-event responses to the question of confidence in human response to climate

change.

In a final question, participants were also asked whether citizens should be doing more to respond to climate change.

Participants were generally in favor of more activity by the citizenry, with a near consensus of 91% indicating either

“more” or “much more” should be done to address climate change, while only 7.8% indicated citizens are currently

responding the “right amount”.

21 | P a g e

In general, Deliberative Discussion participants nearly universally thought citizens should be doing more to respond to

climate change but were uncertain or outright skeptical that humanity will organize to address climate change.

Post-Event Participant Opinions and Interests and Comparisons to Pre-Event Responses –

Changes in Opinion Due to the Deliberative Discussion

The following sections discuss the responses of Deliberative Discussion participants to the post-event survey. This post-

survey was an exact duplicate of the survey they took before the event, and the following results include comparisons to

their responses before the event in order to understand how their opinions shifted in the course of the Deliberative

Discussion. This is useful for interpreting the value of these kinds of citizen discussions about controversial topics, and

climate change specifically.

Interest in climate change

Participants shifted significantly in both knowledge and interest indexes from before the Deliberative Discussion to after.

In the case of knowledge, the average moved from 7.98 to 9.72 after the event, with a standard deviation of 2.45. This

means that participants on average thought of themselves as more knowledgeable about climate change than before.

This is an interesting finding due to the fact that the program did not entail direct “educational” material. Rather, it

featured conversation between participants as well as question and answer periods with experts. The data indicate that

22 | P a g e

this kind of informal learning environment, featuring peer-to-peer discussion with access to expertise, was effective at

increasing participant subjective knowledge about climate change.

23 | P a g e

24 | P a g e

The difference in participants’ interest in additional information about climate change before and after the event is

more difficult to describe. There was no change in the average interest index value before and after the event, but

closer examination shows that those that responded initially with very low levels of interest increased their levels of

interest into the middle of the range. This was balanced by a decrease in interest of those beginning the event with mid-

level interest – evidently they heard all they wanted to hear! Examining these extremes of response can provide insights

into the dynamic ways that participants process new information and adjust their opinions. In this case, an information

and discussion-rich environment affected some individuals quite differently than others in terms of their additional

interest in the topic of climate change.

Overall, the Deliberative Discussion seems to have given participants greater confidence in their knowledge about

climate change, but it seems to have impacted participants in complex and diverse ways in terms of their interest in

additonal information about climate change. Once again, Deliberative Discussion participants started out with similar

levels of subjective knowledge about climate change compared with telephone survey respondents, but they started

out with significantly higher levels of interest.

Opinions about climate change

After the Deliberative Discussion, participants were even more confident that climate change is occurring, with 83% of

participants indicating they were either “very sure” or “extremely sure” after the event, as opposed to 77% before the

event. There was also an increase in confidence that humans are causing climate change, with 59% responding this way

after the event, as opposed to 51% before. “Natural” causes stayed about the same (increasing to 20% from 18%), while

“other/combination” decreased to 12% from 29%.

25 | P a g e

On the question of how much personal harm they thought climate change would cause in their lives, changes in opinion

were modest and tended toward more moderate opinions. Those who answered “a great deal” decreased to 23% from

29%, and “only a little” increased to 17% from 14%. A “moderate amount” saw the largest change to 53% from 43%.

Compared with the most recent national opinion polling from the Yale Project on Climate Change Communication in

September 2012 (pg. 41)11, the pre-event responses to this question were somewhat similar to the profile for the

“alarmed” category identified in their report, although our participants had more who answered a “moderate amount”

of personal harm and less who answered “a great deal”. The post-event results of 53% responding a “moderate

amount” exceeded any of the Six Americas categories in the Yale report. Indeed, it appears the deliberation moved

significant numbers of participants from a sense of a great deal of potential personal harm to more moderate concern

about personal harm coming from climate change.

Deliberative Discussion participants seem to have increased their confidence that climate change is happening and that

it is human-caused through the event, although they started with relatively high levels of confidence in this area to begin

with. There does seem to be evidence that those with a great deal of concern might have softened in their levels of

concern after the event.

11

Leiserowitz, A., Maiebach, E., Roser-Renouf, C., Feinberg, G. & Howe, P. (2013) Global Warming’s Six Americas, September 2012. Yale University and George Mason University. New Have, CT: Yale Project on Climate Change Communication. p.41. http://environment.yale.edu/climate-communication/files/Six-Americas-September-2012.pdf (accessed 9/22/2013)

26 | P a g e

Scale of societal response and government response

After the Deliberative Discussion, responses to “Who do you feel should have the greatest responsibility for adapting to

changes in our climate such as increases in drought, heat waves, and other extreme events?” changed quite a bit. Those

answering “individuals” increased by 6.3% to 29.7%. Those answering “corporations” increased by 3.1% to 17.2%. A

“combination” increased by 6.3% to 25%, while “no one” remained at 1.6%. Those indicating “government” decreased

by 4.7% to 26.6%, and no one indicated “I don’t know” after the event as opposed to 10.9% before the event.

Responses to “What level of government do you think should have the greatest role in adapting to changes in our

climate?” also shifted significantly toward smaller, more local scales. The response “local” dramatically increased to

46.9% from 10.8%, and this was the only category that increased. “State” decreased to 23.4% from 26.2%, and “federal”

decreased to 18.7% from 40.0%. “Combination” decreased to 1.6% from 6.1%, and “none” decreased to 9.4% from

15.4%.

27 | P a g e

Taken together, responses to these two questions about how society should respond to climate change represent

changed toward more individual and local levels of governance. These results should not be interpreted as indicating

that all groups of Kansans would have a similar response when engaged in a deliberative interaction on the topic, but

rather as an indication of how much citizens can change their thinking when given an opportunity to share ideas with

peers and ask questions of experts.

Regarding the substantial increase in support for local government solutions, content presentations by the expert panel

may have played a role in this specific outcome. Our expert panel spoke most extensively of concerns about water

availability due to climate change and of new approaches being developed for local decision-making about managing

water resources in western Kansas. This could have presented a content bias toward local solutions to climate

adaptation that could explain why support for local governmental solutions increased so substantially from before to

after the event. Post-event evaluation survey responses contain extensive comments by participants documenting the

high value they placed on information shared by the panel on water resource issues in Kansas and current state

government efforts to foster local leadership in managing water resources. The increased interest in local governmental

solutions in the post-survey may have been an informal learning outcome of the content presented, and likely does not

represent an ideological shift among discussion participants.

Instead of focusing on concern about bias, and noting that it is impossible to feature expertise on any panel that would

cover the entire range of climate science or options for societal response, the important conclusion is that citizens’

28 | P a g e

understanding and levels of interest substantially changed and became more nuanced based upon in-depth

conversation with their peers and with experts.

Human ability to respond

Opinions about the ability of humans to respond effectively to climate change tended to move toward greater

confidence that humans are capable. There was not much change in response levels to “humans could reduce climate

change, but it’s unclear at this point whether we will do what’s needed”, which increased only slightly to 67% from 64%

before the event. However, a relatively large shift occurred with the response “humans can reduce climate change, and

we are going to do so successfully”, which doubled to 12% from 6%. The response “humans could reduce climate

change, but people aren’t willing to change their behavior so we’re not going to” also shifted markedly to 11% compared

with 22% before the event.

Both of these shifts are quite significant in comparison with results of national opinion polling through the Yale Project

on Climate Change Communication and their “Six America’s” reports. The most recent of these national opinion polls

was reported in Sept. 201212. Comparing our pre-deliberation results for this question to the distribution of responses

12

Leiserowitz, A., Maiebach, E., Roser-Renouf, C., Feinberg, G. & Howe, P. (2013) Global Warming’s Six Americas, September 2012. Yale University and George Mason University. New Have, CT: Yale Project on Climate Change Communication. p.43. http://environment.yale.edu/climate-communication/files/Six-Americas-September-2012.pdf (accessed 9/22/2013)

29 | P a g e

for each of the six “Americas” in the 2012 Yale report for the same question (pg. 43) shows that our responses look

similar to the “Cautious” America, or perhaps something in between the “Cautious” and “Concerned” categories.

However, our post-deliberation results shift significantly enough that they no longer fit any of the national Six Americas

categories. This post-deliberation rate of 13% for the response “humans can reduce global warming, and we are going

to do so successfully” greatly exceeds the maximum of 8% found in any category of the national opinion data. In

addition, the shift to only 16% responding that “humans could reduce global warming, but we’re not going to” is not

only large, but only the “doubtful” and “dismissive” categories of national opinion polling numbers were less than this

level, and those cases due to the large numbers of responses that global warming isn’t happening and that there isn’t

anything to be done about it, or we couldn’t do anything about it if it was happening. The lowest response to this option

in the Six Americas poll, outside the highly skeptical “doubtful” and “dismissive” categories, is 20%. In summary, the

Kansas deliberative discussion participants were significantly more highly confident in society’s collective ability to

reduce climate change than most individuals surveyed in national opinion polls.

The key conclusion from this comparison with the Six Americas national opinion polling is that deliberation

among peers seems to greatly increase confidence that there are tangible things to be done and that humans as

a species and in society can choose to do them successfully. Our post-event results show lower levels of

skepticism about willingness to address climate change than any comparable category of responses to

traditional polling at the national level. The post-event results also show higher levels of confidence that we are

going to address climate change than any category of responses to traditional polling at the national level.

Finally, opinions about whether citizens should be doing more to respond to climate change shifted somewhat

dramatically in favor of greater action to address climate change. “Much more” received 59% after the event, compared

with 30% before the event. “More” decreased to 34% from 61% as participants shifted to the “much more” category.

The “right amount” decreased to 3.1% from 7.8%. The categories of “much more” and “more” therefore received a total

of 93% of responses after the event, similar to the level of 91% before the event, but with a major strengthening of

opinion toward “much more”.

30 | P a g e

Overall, participants shifted quite significantly toward greater levels of confidence in the ability of humans to respond

successfully to climate change. They also walked away from the Deliberative Discussion highly interested in citizens

doing “much more” to respond to climate change, greatly intensifying these feelings compared with their pre-event

responses.

Summary: Biggest Changes Before-to-After Deliberative Discussion

The Deliberative Discussion offered participants a safe space to discuss their interests and concerns about climate

change with others throughout Kansas. They were also allowed to ask questions of a resource panel with expertise in

aspects of climate change itself and ways that society might respond to changes in climate. In the course of this event,

many participants shifted their opinions on a range of topics surveyed both before and after the event. The largest

areas of change included:

Increased confidence that climate change is happening and it is human caused

Greatly increased interest in citizens increasing their actions to respond to climate change and increased

confidence in the ability of humans to respond successfully to climate change

Shifts in preference toward local governmental solutions and away from federal and state government solutions,

acknowledging a significant imbalance toward local governance examples cited by the resource panel during

Q&A periods.

31 | P a g e

Observations, Interpretations, and Conclusions

Results from the statewide telephone survey revealed some important information about what Kansans think about

climate and climate change.

Statewide Telephone Survey Results

When asked to rate their knowledge and interest in climate and climate change:

Most people felt fairly knowledgeable about at least some aspects of climate change and also expressed

strong interest in knowing more about at least one or two aspects about climate change. There were small

minorities who did not think they were knowledgeable at all about climate change, and who did not have

any significant interest in any aspects of climate change.

When asked about who should be responsible for responsive action to climate change:

Kansans are divided in opinions about who is responsible for responding to climate change, but the

strongest categories of support were for government action (29%) and individual-level actions (28%. Of

those who preferred government action, 53% favored federal government action over state (26%) or local

government (15%). Overall, support for federal government, corporate/industry, and individual-level action

responding to climate change received roughly equivalent levels of support.

Deliberative Discussion Results

Deliberative discussion participants expressed higher levels of interest in climate and climate change than

respondents to the statewide telephone survey, and expressed more interest in some kind of

action/response to climate change. Deliberative discussion participants were, however, also divided in

opinions about who should be most responsible for responsive action.

Participating in the deliberative discussion resulted in some substantial shifts in opinion by participants from

before the event to afterward, as well as indications of developing more nuanced opinions.

o Overall, deliberative discussion participants seem to have increased their confidence that climate

change is happening and that it is human-caused. While participants started with relatively high

levels of confidence on the topic, opinions about how much harm individuals would experience from

climate change did tend to moderate, with a reduction in those answering a “great deal” and an

increase in those who answered a “moderate amount” and “a little”. This may reflect development

of more nuanced opinions through the event.

o Deliberation among peers seems to greatly increase confidence that there are tangible things that

can be done to address climate change and that humans can choose to do them successfully. Post-

event survey results show the lowest level of skepticism about societal willingness to address

climate change of any comparable category of responses to traditional polling at the national level.

Post-event survey results also show higher levels of confidence that society is going to address

climate change than any category of responses to traditional polling at the national level. These are

32 | P a g e

in comparison with more cautious pre-event response rates in line with national opinion polling

data13.

o Opinions about who is responsible for responding to climate change shifted from emphasizing

government and individuals in the pre-assessment, toward a greater balance between government,

individual, and industry approaches and an increase in interest in combinations of organizational

responses. In addition, post-event evaluation data indicates a high valuation of examples from

event panelists about water issues in Kansas and local governmental approaches to responding to

climate change, which may explain the significant rise in interest in local governmental solutions.

o Confidence that society should be doing much more to respond to climate change increased

dramatically, despite the continued diversity of opinions about what specifically should be done.

Observations and Conclusions

Our observations from this deliberative discussion, and learning from similar events from around the world, suggests

that people can deepen their learning and change their opinions about climate change if given the space and structure

to talk about policy differently. In other words, by changing how we communicate about public policy, we can change

our opinions about complex topics and increase feelings of effectiveness in creating positive changes. Pre/post

responses to our deliberative discussion survey question about humans’ ability to respond to climate change clearly

showed this result from deliberation.

This is consistent with the growing scholarly literature base showing the importance of deliberation in enabling

education of the general public on complex and controversial topics14. In Kansas, there continue to be significant public

disputes and policy controversies surrounding climate change and energy issues. Both effective policy decision-making

and grassroots organizing require an informed and engaged citizenry to achieve solutions in the best long-term interests

of Kansas. The results of this research and educational initiative show that in addition to a diversity of opinions

throughout the population, individuals also often have conflicting personal opinions about different aspects of climate

change and how society might respond to climate change. This makes it very challenging for them to engage publicly

with the topic, because doing so may require ignoring or resolving significant personal uncertainties. However, the

results also show that deliberation can be a powerful method for helping resolve their uncertainties through self-guided

and social inquiry. Furthermore, it can be a very effective tool for fostering an informed and engaged citizenry.

There is nothing profound in calling for a more informed citizenry that has the capacity to develop nuanced

understandings on complex topics like climate change. The novelty in such an aspiration is in developing a new kind of

political communication that enables a wider range of people to learn deeply from one another. Traditional public

opinion polls, stump speeches, political advertisements, and polarized argumentative debates in the media are not

enough to help people weigh complex tradeoffs in the big political issues of the day.

Admittedly, deliberative discussions can be more costly than other forms of political communication; yet, the impact of

these discussions justifies more effort to expand the opportunities people have to make decisions on our most pressing

challenges. The results of this study show that after such deliberative discussion, the citizens of Kansas are concerned

13

Leiserowitz, A., Maiebach, E., Roser-Renouf, C., Feinberg, G. & Howe, P. (2013) Global Warming’s Six Americas, September 2012. Yale University and George Mason University. New Have, CT: Yale Project on Climate Change Communication. p.43. http://environment.yale.edu/climate-communication/files/Six-Americas-September-2012.pdf (accessed 9/22/2013) 14

Dietz, T. (2013) Bringing values and deliberation to science communication. Proceedings of the National Academies of Sciences. http://www.pnas.org/content/110/Supplement_3/14081.full (accessed 9/22/2013)

33 | P a g e

that we need decision-makers at various levels to respond to climate change, including actions at the local level

alongside efforts involving industry and the highest levels of government.

34 | P a g e

Appendix I: Telephone Survey Figures

Link to return to “geography” text

Link to return to “age” text

35 | P a g e

Link to return to “age” text

Link to return to “civic engagement” text

36 | P a g e

Link to return to telephone survey “knowledge” text

Link to return to telephone survey “interest” text

37 | P a g e

Link to return to telephone survey “responsibility” text

Link to return to telephone survey “government” text

38 | P a g e

Link to return to telephone survey “government” text

39 | P a g e

Appendix II: Deliberative Discussion Figures

Link to return to pre-deliberative discussion “geography” text

Link to return to pre-deliberative discussion “age” text

40 | P a g e

Link to return to pre-deliberative discussion “civic engagement” text

Link to return to pre-deliberative discussion “knowledge” text

41 | P a g e

Link to return to pre-deliberative discussion “interest” text

Link to return to pre-deliberative discussion “belief” text

42 | P a g e

Link to return to pre-deliberative discussion “harm” text

Link to return to pre-deliberative discussion “responsibility” text

43 | P a g e

Link to return to pre-deliberative discussion “government” text

Link to return to pre-deliberative discussion “government” text

44 | P a g e

Link to return to pre-deliberative discussion “confidence” text

Link to return to pre-deliberative discussion “citizen response” text

45 | P a g e

Link to return to post-deliberative discussion “knowledge” text

Link to return to post-deliberative discussion “interest” text

46 | P a g e

Link to return to post-deliberative discussion “belief” text

Link to return to post-deliberative discussion “harm” text

47 | P a g e

Link to return to post-deliberative discussion “responsibility” text

Link to return to post-deliberative discussion “government” text

48 | P a g e

Link to return to post-deliberative discussion “confidence” text

Link to return to post-deliberative discussion “citizen response” text

49 | P a g e

Appendix III: Deliberative Discussion Pre-Reading Document

The following pages are a reproduction of the pre-reading documents provided to deliberative

discussion participants in advance of the event. They were asked to read these documents in

advance, and some of the discussion prompts by facilitators asked respondents to discuss the

different options and scales of response represented in the these pre-reading materials.

Central Great Plains Climate Education Partnership

Deliberative Discussion Pre-reading Materials

Introduction Thank you for choosing to participate in a very important statewide conversation about climate change in Kansas. We are delighted you will be joining us and look forward to a very rich dialog about how the lives of you and your fellow Kansans will be impacted by climate change, as well as what society’s responses to climate change in Kansas and beyond could and should be.

Our discussion for this Deliberative Discussion will center on a series of conversations you will have with your fellow Kansans about a variety of topics. Ultimately, we are very interested in knowing how you think society could and should be responding to this challenge, as well as what you think the best types of leadership should be. The results of these discussions will be summarized in a report for policy-makers in Kansas. Your participation in this event will help Kansas leaders to hear from the citizens of Kansas outside of the polarized talking points so often discussed in the media.

In order to prepare for this conversation, our project team has developed a packet of material for you to review in advance of the Deliberative Discussion. As you peruse these materials, please consider how projected

2

changes in the Kansas climate will impact you, your family, your employment, and other organizations where you invest your time, energy, and resources. Also, please consider which of the scales of action seem most appropriate to you in responding to these changes, as well as whether actions should be taken to adapt to changes in climate, to try and reduce climate change, or both. Below are the different sections of material we have compiled for you to review.

Thanks so much once again for your willingness to dialog with other Kansans about this important topic!

Contents A Basic Guide to Climate Change in the High Plains Region.......................................................................................3

What Climate Change Might Mean for Kansas ..........................................................................................................8

Case Studies of Responses to Climate Change ....................................................................................................... 11

Kyoto Protocol: An International Response to Climate Change................................................................. 12

U.S. National Policy Approaches ................................................................................................................ 14

Statewide Planning: The Washington State Department of Transportation ............................................. 15

Regional Planning: Flint Hills Frontiers ....................................................................................................... 17

City/Community Leadership: The cases of ICLEI and Greensburg ............................................................. 19

Individual-Household Activities: The Take Charge Challenge .................................................................... 20

Why does the climate change?The Earth’s climate has changed throughout history and will continue to change in the future. Global climate change can be attributed to one of two causes, natural or anthropogenic (human-induced), and can occur on different time scales, both short-term and long-term.

A volcanic eruption is an example of natural short-term climate change. When ash is ejected high into the atmosphere, it temporarily blocks the sunlight and subsequently cools the Earth. El Niño is another example of natural short-term change. When the sea surface temperatures in the equatorial Pacific are warmer than normal, global wind patterns can change which affects temperature and precipitation patterns. Long-term climate change, on the order of thousands of years, are due to changes in solar radiation receipt, slight changes in the Earth’s orbit, continental drift, formation or loss of ice sheets, and changing ocean currents.

Human activities can also influence climate. The human influence that is most responsible for recent changes in global temperature is the burning of fossil fuels which increases the levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, such as carbon dioxide and methane. Increases in greenhouse gases contribute to a general warming of the Earth because as their concentrations increase so does the temperature.

As the Earth’s climate changes, many different sectors will be impacted. The impacts on Earth’s ecosystems are already apparent from the tundra to the tropical waters. For example, in the high northern latitudes,

permafrost is thawing which is increasing coastal erosion and damaging infrastructure of the towns which are built upon the permafrost. Rising sea temperatures already threaten the coral reefs of the world which is having an impact on tourism and fisheries.

What are the current trends and projections?Surface temperature measurements of both the land and the ocean indicate a warming trend since the early 20th century and especially in the last 50 years (see Figure 1).

According to the U.S. Global Change Research Program (USGCRP), models which incorporate different greenhouse gas emission scenarios project global temperatures to increase by 2°F-11.5°F by 2100. If the rate of greenhouse gas emissions is reduced, the temperature increase is projected to be on the lower end of the range and if emission rates continue at or near current rates the temperature increase is projected to be at the higher end of the range.

Global Climate Change

Climate Change on the Prairie: A Basic Guide to Climate Change in the High Plains Region

Figure 1: Departure from 1901-2000 average temperature. Figure courtesy National Climatic Data Center.

High Plains Regional Climate CenterCover photo courtesy Ken Dewey.

Historical trends and projections - temperatureOverall, temperatures across the United States have been warming over the past 100 years and the average temperature has increased by 2°F in the past 50 years (USGCRP). Areas of the southeast show a slight cooling over the past century, however, these areas have begun to show a warming trend over the past 30 years. The warming trend is occurring in both the daily maximum and minimum temperatures, however the minimum temperatures are increasing at a faster rate than maximum temperatures. Climate models are projecting that temperatures will continue to increase now through 2100. Because of the residence time of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, model projections of the near future temperature changes do not vary much. However, by 2100, in the lower emissions scenarios, the increase could range from 4°F-6.5°F and in the higher emissions scenarios the increase could range from 7°F-11°F (USGCRP).

Climate Change in the United StatesHistorical trends and projections - precipitationAccording to the USGCRP, shifts in global precipitation patterns are already occurring and has resulted in increases in precipitation in some areas and decresases in others. Here in the US, the total annual precipitation has increased by 5% over the past 50 years (USGCRP). This increase has occurred for the most part due to an increase in the frequency and intensity of heavy downpours. All areas of the US have shown to have an increase in heavy downpours over the last 50 years, but the areas with the highest increases are the Northeast and the Midwest. While precipitation changes are much more difficult to predict in the long term, climate models do show indications that northern areas of the US will become wetter, particularly in the winter and spring, and areas of the south and west will become drier. Models are also projecting an increase in heavy downpours and a decrease in light precipitation over the next 100 years.

Figure 2: Annual Temperature Trends 1901-2005. Figure courtesy United States Environmental Protection Agency.

Figure 3: Annual Precipitation Trends 1901-2005. Figure courtesy United States Environmental Protection Agency.

High Plains Regional Climate Center

Historical Climate Trends in the High Plains RegionTemperatureThere are more than 100 years of climate data for the High Plains states with records that date back to the 19th century. A look into the historical datasets reveals the variability and trends in climate over time.

The trend in average annual temperature for the six-state region shows a warming of 1.7°F over a 115 year period. Temperatures show cooler than normal conditions early in the record, followed by significant warmth during the 1930’s dust bowl era, and warmer than normal conditions since the 1970’s, especially over the last 10 years. The greatest amount of warming on an annual basis is found in North Dakota (2.9°F) and the least amount is in Colorado (0.9°F).

Overall, the annual warming trend is greater for nighttime low temperatures than for daytime high temperatures. This is the case for much of the globe with lows warming more than highs. One reason for this difference is thought to be an increase in the amount of moisture in the air, which affect minimum temperatures much more than maximum temperatures. If broken down by season, the warming is strongest in winter (2.5°F) and weakest in autumn (0.5°F) for the region. This seasonal variability is also reflected in the global trends, particularly for land masses in the Northern Hemisphere.

Figure 4: Average Annual Temperature Departure from Normal (˚F) in the High Plains Region. Data courtesy National Climatic Data Center.

Statewide Average Temperature Change by Season (1895-2009)Temperature in degrees F

State Spring Summer Autumn Winter

North Dakota 2.2 1.8 1.5 5.0

South Dakota 1.8 1.6 0.9 3.9

Nebraska 1.5 0.7 0.0 1.8

Kansas 1.2 0.6 -0.2 2.0

Wyoming 2.7 2.3 0.6 0.8

Colorado 1.4 0.6 0.1 1.5

Average 1.8 1.3 0.5 2.5

Global climate change quick facts:According to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) National Climatic Data Center’s 2009 State of the Climate Report:

the 2000-2009 decade was the warmest on record •

the average global surface temperature for 2009 was • 0.96˚F above the 20th century average

the years 2001-2009 each rank in the top ten warmest • years on record (period of record 1880-2009)

High Plains Regional Climate Center

Historical Climate Trends in the High Plains RegionPrecipitationPrecipitation shows a much weaker trend than temperature with essentially no change for the annual average in the High Plains Region. There is high year-to-year variability throughout the century long dataset, which is typical for the continental type climate of the region. The dry years of the 1930s and 1950s stand out in the record with periods of below normal rainfall. Over the last several decades the region has been overall in a wet period. There are, however, seasonal differences in the precipitation pattern with most states experiencing a drying for the winter (14% decrease on average) and wetter during autumn (16% increase). The overall trends for spring and summer are on average small.

Through the use of climate models, scientists have the ability to project future climate based on scenarios of anthropogenic and natural forcings. One of the primary forcings is enhanced greenhouse gas emissions, which alters the amount of radiation we receive and influences temperature. Several research groups across the globe run models using scenarios to simulate future climate, both at the global and regional scale. A composite of the various climate models projects a warming in the High Plains region of about 4°F by 2050 and 8°F or higher by 2090. The individual models show a range of temperature increases, although they all point to a warming. Model projections of changes in precipitation vary by season, showing a general drying in summer and autumn with wetter conditions in winter. Spring is projected to be wetter in the northern part of the region and drier in the south. The summer drying trend is compounded by increased evaporation rates due to the projected warming. With approximately 70% of the land in the High Plains Region being used for agricultural or rangeland purposes, this region is acutely sensitive to these types of changes.

Figure 5: Average Annual Precipitation Departure from Normal (%) in the High Plains Region. Data courtesy National Climatic Data Center.

Statewide Annual Climate Trends (1895-2009)Temperature in degrees F, Precipitation in percent

State Average Temperature Maximum Temperature Minimum Temperature Precipitation

North Dakota 2.9 2.4 3.2 4%

South Dakota 2.2 1.3 3.0 2%

Nebraska 1.2 0.3 1.8 3%

Kansas 1.1 0.6 1.5 7%

Wyoming 1.8 2.6 1.1 -14%

Colorado 0.9 0.9 0.9 1%

Average 1.7 1.4 1.9 0%

Climate Change Projections and Possible Impacts

High Plains Regional Climate Center

Climate Change Projections and Possible ImpactsKey climate change impacts in this region include the following:

Water Resources:• An increase in temperature, especially in the summer months, can lead to an increase in evapotranspiration and decrease in soil moisture. This can lead to an increase in irrigation demands, which is heavily relied upon to avoid plant water stress. Increased water use is already putting a strain on water resources in the region, such as the Ogallala Aquifer.

Extreme Events:• There are expected to be changes in the frequency and severity of extreme events in a warmer climate. This includes more days with heavy precipitation, extreme cold, and growing season frosts. These can affect urban and rural landscapes alike, and often the extreme events have a significant and immediate economic and social impact.

Ecosystems:• The likelihood of invasive species and pests is expected to increase in a warmer climate with associated shifts in temperature and precipitation patterns. Productivity and yields of agricultural land will be impacted by such a change. Adding in human-caused stress factors, such as fragmentation of habitat, native species will also become more vulnerable to climate change.

Demographics:• Current population trends in the region are toward the growth of urban areas and a depopulation of the rural areas. This demographic trend brings a corresponding shift in the needed services and economic base. As such, rural areas are expected to have an increase in vulnerability to climate change. In addition, Native Americans are particularly vulnerable to climate change stresses, such those on water resources, which is expected to increase further in a changing climate.

* Projections and impacts information courtesy of the U.S. Global Change Research Program

Warming of the climate system is unequivocal.Fourth Assessment of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

For more information, please contact the High Plains Regional Climate Center:

Providing Timely Climate Data and Information to the Public for Cost Effective Decision Making

High Plains Regional Climate Center

High Plains Regional Climate Center727 Hardin Hall3310 Holdrege StreetLincoln, NE 68583-0997

Phone: (402) 472-6706Fax: (402) 472-8763

http://www.hprcc.unl.edu

Nebraska Farmland. Picture courtesy Ken Dewey.

8

What Climate Change Might Mean for Kansas

Temperature Statewide, observations show that the Kansas climate is already warming slightly. Over the past century since records have been kept, the state has experienced average warming of approximately 1ºF. Summer and fall show the largest warming trends. (These increases are being observed despite the fact that irrigation – which has increased significantly in western Kansas – cools temperatures locally.)

Model projections indicate that during the 21st century, the current temperature rise will double. Temperatures will rise in all seasons, in all parts of the state, by an average of 2º-4ºF. Some regions could see much steeper warming - by 2100, southwest Kansas could warm by as much as 8ºF.

CHANGES IN THE SEASONS: • Temperatures in western Kansas will increase, especially in summer and fall. • Growing degree days will increase for longer growing seasons. There will be fewer freezing days in the winter. Around 2060, average winter temperatures will probably be above freezing. • Since frost days will decrease, heating degree days (the total number of days that temperatures fall below 65ºF, when people turn on their heaters) could decrease as much as 25% by 2100. • However, cooling degree days (days when people use air conditioning, when temperatures are above 65ºF) will increase by 50%.

WHAT THIS MEANS: • Air conditioning is less energy-efficient than heating, so more energy will be wasted. • Higher temperatures intensify human health problems – heart disease, respiratory diseases (like asthma), and the spread of epidemic disease. In urban areas, heat waves also lead to increased deaths especially among the elderly and other vulnerable populations. • The lack of hard freezes will mean more insects and diseases. Mosquitoes and ticks will thrive. More insects will lead to more pesticides, and thus more expenses for farmers. The increased run-off from agricultural chemicals will compromise water quality. • Higher summer nighttime temperatures are bad for crops – for example, wheat needs cold nighttime temperatures. Hot nights lead to plant stress, which leads to yield loss. Higher temperatures also stress livestock and alter the species composition of rangeland grasses. • Warming temperatures affect all cycles of plant growth and reproduction, and variability alters these patterns. Farmers and gardeners will have to consider planting different varieties. Wildlife and plant species will either migrate or die out. Some invasive species will expand their rangeMore extreme, less predictable weather

More extreme, less predictable weather

Climate change will alter Kansas temperatures. Will it also change rainfall patterns? Observational

9

trends show that currently, rainfall is increasing in winter and spring for south central and southeastern portions of the state. Results from climate models project two major trends. (1) Yearly precipitation totals will stay about the same, but precipitation patterns will shift, becoming unseasonal, less predictable, and less frequent. Precipitation events will be separated by longer periods of dry weather. (2) Rising temperatures will significantly alter the state’s water cycle.

VARIABILITY AND STORMS • Yearly precipitation is projected to stay about the same, but to come at different times of the year. Climate models project that across the state, precipitation will generally decrease in summer and fall. In eastern Kansas, winter and spring precipitation will increase. In western Kansas, spring precipitation will decrease. • Climate models also project more extreme weather patterns. Precipitation will concentrate in more severe events – less frequent but more intense storms, broken up by long dry spells. While storms do not increase in number overall, the frequency of intense storms does rise.

CHANGES IN AVAILABLE WATER • Increased temperatures create more evaporation, which will result in a decrease in soil moisture surplus during winter. This means reduced water flow into rivers and reservoirs. • Water deficit (a measure of water need that has to be made up by irrigation) will increase significantly during the summertime, to as much as eight inches in southwestern Kansas. Eastern Kansas will get hotter, and may or may not get wetter. With higher temperatures leading to increased evaporation, net drying may take place even with increased precipitation.

WHAT THIS MEANS: • Water availability will be key to how plants, animals, and even humans respond to climate change. Eastern and western Kansas will be affected very differently. • Due to temperature rises, there will be fewer snow events. Individual rainstorms will become more intense when they occur, likely leading to more flooding during the events. • The balance between water and temperature cycles will shift – for example, when plants and people need more moisture during higher summer temperatures, there will be less water available. • The need for water management strategies will increase. Reservoirs, the Ogallala Aquifer, river systems, and groundwater will experience additional stress. • Extreme weather events will cost local and state governments for preparedness, response, and recovery. Already stretched rural infrastructures will bear the burden of initial responses to these disasters. • Intense weather events damage crops, increase erosion and run-off, and keep farmers from getting into fields at crucial times in the growing season.

Drought The Great Plains have suffered major droughts in the past. Will climate change further affect existing drought cycles in Kansas? Climate models do not directly answer this question. However, a study of the Kansas River Basic drought records from 1900-2006 shows some interesting results (need citation)

10

The Kaw Basin lies across the upper two-thirds of most of Kansas. It is split in half by a significant precipitation gradient – more precipitation falls to the east, while much less falls to the west. The difference is as much as 31 inches per year, ranging from 9 inches at the driest point in the west, to 40 inches in the wettest part of the east.

Parts of the basin have the capacity to be extremely wet at the same time that others are extremely dry. When it comes to climate change, such a severe gradient means that even small local moisture shifts could have large effects.

DROUGHT PATTERNS TODAY: • Over the twentieth century, areas that received less than 20 inches of precipitation per year – the western side of the basin, which is heavily agricultural and already depends on irrigation from the Ogallala - got even drier. • The eastern basin is getting wetter – in the last century, precipitation has increased. However, it is also getting warmer, which could intensify drought in the area due to increased evaporation rates. The central part of the basin is getting wetter as well. • Seasonally, the greatest decrease is in winter moisture in western Kansas. The greatest increase is spring moisture in eastern Kansas.

• Streamflow data shows that record lows have recently been observed for many Kansas rivers, while demand for water is rising (in part due to human withdrawals). • Areas of Kansas that already receive the least moisture and rely most heavily on irrigation are the same areas that are the most vulnerable to drought.

WHAT THIS MEANS: • On the western side of the Kansas River Basin, the need for irrigation will increase even more, with higher economic costs to agriculture. • Drought causes crop yields to decrease, leading to increased food prices. • Wildlife and livestock suffer hardship. Many wildlife species will be forced to migrate into new areas. If they cannot adapt quickly enough, they will go extinct. Native plants also face this challenge. • Water shortages will force expensive water management programs by cities, towns, and large users like farmers and ranchers. Conflict over water rights will probably increase.

11

Case Studies of Responses to Climate Change

12

Kyoto Protocol: An International Response to Climate Change The international and national scales of response to climate change are two highly intertwined levels of potential response to climate change. At these scales, policies and programs have the potential to shape the direction of entire economies, as well as to facilitate planning and adaptation to climate change across regions.

The most developed international policy response to climate change has been the Kyoto Protocol.

http://unfccc.int/kyoto_protocol/items/2830.php

The Kyoto Protocol is a treaty negotiated in the late 1990’s to reduce global greenhouse gas emissions through three mechanisms:

1) International Emissions Trading Creation of a marketplace where organizations that are taking carbon out of the atmosphere or reducing emissions can sell these reductions as “carbon credits” to those who seek to reduce their carbon emissions by enabling projects elsewhere rather than by directly saving those emissions by changing their own activities.

2) Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) . This mechanism allows developed countries to meet their emissions reductions targets by investing in carbon-saving projects in the developing world. A CDM project activity might involve, for example, a rural electrification project using solar panels or the installation of more energy-efficient boilers. The mechanism stimulates sustainable development and emission reductions, while giving industrialized countries some flexibility in how they meet their emission reduction or limitation targets.

3) Joint implementation (JI) . This is a framework for encouraging partnerships between organizations in countries with emissions targets. In particular, it encourages investment from corporations in one country to fund a project in another country, a form of flexibility in meeting emissions reductions in one country while providing foreign investment in another country.

These three mechanisms have been active for a number of years now, with some significant scale of activity. The amounts of funding and projects from the Clean Development Mechanism are summarized in the graphic on the following page.

The development of the Kyoto Protocol involved diplomats representing countries in international negotiations about the terms of the agreement, goals for reducing carbon emissions, and what the trading scheme would look like. These negotiations were organized by the United Nations, and they resulted in a treaty that needed to be ratified by each of the participating countries. The United States declined to ratify the treaty, and in doing so did not establish national emissions reductions goals or commit to participating in the mechanisms above.

13

14

U.S. National Policy Approaches Much of the controversy about climate change in the U.S. has surrounded the question of whether the federal government should develop policies and mechanisms to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and, if so, how those policies should be structured. Two approaches that have been debated the most are a “carbon tax” system or a “cap-and-trade” system.

Carbon Tax Large portions of the U.S. general public and their legislators are firmly opposed to the creation of new taxes, so the carbon tax approach has not been considered seriously for potential federal legislation. However, the basic idea is that the U.S. government would impose a tax on fossil fuels at their source – the company that drills or mines them, or the company that imports them. This would force increases in production costs for fossil fuels, and products that utilize more fossil fuels would then become more expensive. Products that use less fossil fuels would not incur these increased costs and would therefore have an advantage in the marketplace. However, since almost all products utilize some level of fossil fuels in their production, costs for most products would increase.

There are different ways that revenues to the federal government from these taxes could be used. Some groups have recommended using the tax revenues to pay down the federal debt. Others have recommended giving the taxes back to the general public in the form of income tax credits or even a direct payment in the form of an equal “dividend” to every American citizen. The “tax and dividend” approach in particular would give citizens more money to help them afford cost increases that would come from the tax on fossil fuels, and give a cushion to consumers as they transition to new products and lifestyles that are less carbon intensive.

Cap and Trade The second major approach has been called a “cap and trade” approach. This approach uses market mechanisms to trade the ability to pollute (emit greenhouse gases), while capping the total amount of greenhouse gas emissions in the economy by only allowing a certain amount of “carbon credits” to be available in the marketplace. This approach has been more politically plausible, because it does not rely on creation of a new direct tax on products or activities. However, legislation that was developed in 2009 and 2010 in Congress was unsuccessful due to political disagreements about whether there should be U.S. policies to address climate change and also claims that a cap and trade system would amount to an indirect tax.

The cap and trade approach for greenhouse gas emissions is modeled on successful implementation in the 1990’s of similar markets to reduce sulphur emissions from coal power plants which were causing acid rain and severely damaging American forests and air quality. The sulphur trading system has dramatically reduced sulphur emissions from U.S. power plants by allowing utility companies to gauge their own costs and utilize the most efficient and cost-effective technologies for reducing emissions given the specific conditions at their power plants.

15

Statewide Planning: The Washington State Department of Transportation Some state governments are taking action in responding to climate change through pro-active planning and preparation. State governments provide extensive services to their citizenry in many areas from infrastructure to social services to education, and more. Each of these areas of services may be impacted by changes in climate. In some cases, the changes may cause infrastructure to be stressed in new or more intense ways. In other cases, mental and physical health services may see increases in demands or problems due to more frequent heat waves, changes in spread of diseases or pests, or other complex relationships between health and climatic conditions. In addition, the next generations will need to adapt to increasingly changing climate conditions, so education will be critical to having a population with high levels of education to create innovations to help our society adapt to these challenges. Science literacy and understanding climate change is but one small part of this overall educational challenge.

An example of one state agency taking a proactive approach to these issues is the State of Washington Department of Transportation.

http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/SustainableTransportation/adapting.htm

Adapting to a changing climate WSDOT is planning and preparing to protect and manage the state's vital roads, bridges, ferry terminals and other facilities that could be vulnerable to severe weather and future conditions.

PROTECTING INVESTMENTS

Maintenance crews work hard to keep roads open during storms, floods, mudslides and snowstorms. Engineering teams examine project sites for environmental conditions. Materials experts analyze pavement mixtures and materials to make roads stronger and more resilient to the forces of wind, water and temperature. Preserving the state's transportation system is critical to the safety of the people who use it and accountability to the taxpayers who pay for it.

Sudden flooding like this on US 101 near Lake Crescent in December 2007 often is expensive and difficult to control on vulnerable roadways.

16

As scientists project even harsher natural conditions ahead, climate change makes adaptation essential to WSDOT's ability to preserve.

CLIMATE-RISK ASSESSMENT - PHASE 2

To understand how well prepared the state's transportation infrastructure is to sustain the increasing effects of climate change, WSDOT is participating in a national pilot project to identify which roads, bridges and other facilities throughout the state are most vulnerable.

With a second federal grant in hand, WSDOT is in the second phase of this climate-risk reduction study -- Preparing Interstate and State Routes in the Skagit River Basin.

Phase 2 invests $267,600 federal highway dollars to focus on an area of the state identified in the Phase-1 study as highly vulnerable to extreme flooding -- sections of I-5, including a portion of Skagit County. The grant supports WSDOT planners and hydraulics experts in working with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and Skagit County to recommend solutions to corridor flooding and hazards throughout the basin.

In the first federal highway pilot project, WSDOT was funded to complete a statewide Climate Impacts Vulnerability Assessment in 2011. WSDOT’s input helped testing and improve FHWA's risk-assessment model.

Already the pilot project has provided WSDOT insight on efficient, effective adaptation methods, well as federal support and resources. In his June 2011 statement, U.S. Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood directed federal transportation agencies to consider climate change impacts on current systems and future investments and support state agencies as they do the same.

PHASE-1 STUDY

According to findings in WSDOT's Climate Impacts Vulnerability Assessment report, climate change will intensify the threats that extreme weather events already pose on certain roads, bridges and ferry terminals. WSDOT found that most of the newer roads and bridges appear resilient. WSDOT uses the results from the first pilot to examine potential risks and develop efficient, effective adaptation methods. WSDOT’s work is supported by state and federal policy directives. In his June 2011 statement, U.S. Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood directed federal transportation agencies to consider climate change impacts on current systems and future investments and support state transportation agencies as they do the same.

Skagit County climate-risk study results

17

Regional Planning: Flint Hills Frontiers Regional planning is another approach to responding to climate change. This type of approach engages many types of stakeholder groups throughout a region to develop a common vision and set of goals that with broad agreement. Such planning efforts set the stage for these stakeholder groups to work with each other over time to achieve the goals developed through the planning process. Examples of stakeholder groups include local governments in the region as well as organizations such as churches, non-profit groups, economic development staff and chambers of commerce, farmers and ranchers, important industries, schools and higher education, and interested citizens.

Kansas has a good example of this kind of planning process occurring right now, based in the Flint Hills region. It is called the Flint Hills Frontiers Project, and some information below comes from their website describing the project. As you read it, consider how this approach might work for planning for climate change at a regional level, and consider whether you think this is a better scale of responding to climate change than some of the other scales presented in this packet.

http://flinthillsfrontiers.org/about

About the Flint Hills Frontiers Project WHAT DOES THE FLINT HILLS FRONTIERS HOPE TO ACCOMPLISH? We hope to find new ways to make our communities more vibrant. To start this conversation, Flint Hills Frontiers will form collaborative connections between stakeholders, issue experts, and individuals around the three main topics described below.

1) Economic Vitality The Flint Hills is a unique asset to Kansas and northern Oklahoma which can be leveraged to help sustain the economic viability of its smaller towns and outlying agricultural lands, while also ensuring the continued vibrancy of its more urban areas.

2) National Defense Fort Riley is a critical asset to national defense. By avoiding habitat degradation elsewhere in the Flint Hills, encroachment into Fort Riley's training area can be avoided and its overall mission can be preserved.

3) Cultural & Natural Resource Preservation The Flint Hills contains history, heritage, cultures, and ecology found nowhere else in the world, and to sustain its people, economies, and ecosystems, careful and balanced stewardship of these resources is called for.

WHO IS WORKING ON THIS? A number of cities, counties and organizations have committed to working together on the Flint Hills Frontiers, including city and county governments, economic development organizations, civic organizations, and individual citizens. Consultants paid through the grant are leading the process.

18

HOW WILL WE GET THIS DONE? The priorities of the region come from the stakeholders and partnering organizations. A core planning team is facilitating and convening interest groups across the region to collect information and aspirations and study possible strategies to accomplish its goals. Options for accomplishing its goals are being assembled for consideration and decision. The new connections formed during this process will result in a greater capacity to achieve the results envisioned by the region. The path forward is paved by the commitment of all participants in programs, projects and policy-making identified through this process.

WHO IS PAYING FOR THIS? The Stakeholders won a competitive grant for nearly $2 million from the Office of Sustainable Housing & Communities of the U.S. Department of Housing & Urban Development. These resources have been made available to the Flint Hills to provide expertise and coordination that is not normally available to help advance local goals and address local priorities at no cost to the communities. There is no predetermined outcome specified for this funding – you determine what will strengthen your community!

19

City/Community Leadership: The cases of ICLEI and Greensburg A potentially powerful scale of action in response to climate change is the level of local government. Cities and counties throughout the United States have begun to develop citywide and county-wide climate action plans related to climate change. There are enough of these that there is even an international association of local governments making these efforts to share ideas, success stories, and to provide assistance in each other’s efforts. Below is a description of this association, ICLEI, and links to its website with more information.

ICLEI is an association of local governments trying to plan and take action regarding climate change and sustainability in their own communities. There are over 1,000 local governments – cities and counties – worldwide that are members of ICLEI. From ICLEI website:

• ICLEI USA members are small rural towns and bustling metropolises. • They represent coastal regions and inland areas, stretching from the Atlantic to the Pacific and everything in

between. • They drive progress and innovation in 49 states. • Their populations range in size from 832 people in Cimarron, New Mexico, to more than 8 million in New

York City. • They consistently top the rankings of the Greenest Cities. • They have led the effort in recent years to envision, accelerate and achieve strong climate protection goals,

creating cleaner, healthier, more economically viable communities.

Success Stories: http://www.icleiusa.org/blog/topics/success%20stories

News Feed (more updates/success stories): http://www.icleiusa.org/news/city-county-sustainability-news/

Within Kansas, there are several examples of this kind of local leadership. There is a city/county sustainability staff member shared between Lawrence and Douglas County, as well as city and county sustainability planning staff in Johnson County. One of the best examples, though, is the comprehensive approach Greensburg took in rebuilding after the famous tornado that destroyed nearly the entire town in 2007. They have made energy efficiency and renewable energy key features of all their public buildings and have encouraged residents to do the same. They have attempted to use their green building priorities as strengths and assets to try to attract new businesses and economic opportunities to their town as well as offer a high quality of life for residents. Improving in these areas was a high priority in order to reduce population decline they had been experiencing like many rural Kansas communities.

20

Individual-Household Activities: The Take Charge Challenge Individuals and households are another scale of potential response to climate change. At this scale, individuals or households might take stock of how a changing climate might affect their lives and make personal decisions to adapt to these changes. This might mean efforts to adapt to a changing climate through preparing for more extreme weather or drought through weatherizing or insulating the home, planting different grasses or landscaping, considering how these changes will impact investments in air conditioning, etc. It might also mean thinking through organizations and activities in which the individual or household participates. If those organizations have outdoor activities or activities highly depending on particular weather conditions or climate patterns (such as ski trips, camping, lake activities, or the like), these activities may need to adjust over time.

Other individual and household-level responses could involve decisions to reduce contributions to climate change (mitigation) through trying to reduce personal greenhouse gas emissions. This could involve investing in more energy efficiency in the home or more efficient transportation options such as hybrid cars, carpooling, or biking/walking more often instead of driving. It could mean paying attention to household purchases and trying to purchase products with less energy or other materials requirements to produce. It could mean recycling and/or composting. It could mean planting trees or other kinds of plants that sequester a lot of carbon dioxide. It could mean investing in solar panels or wind turbines for producing their own energy, or even purchasing carbon offsets in voluntary carbon markets to offset emissions from travel, the home, or other lifestyle choices.

A good example of a program sponsored by the State of Kansas Energy Office in the past few years to make it easier for individuals and households to take these kinds of actions is the Take Charge Challenge. Below is a brief description of the Take Charge Challenge and some of the benefits among those who participated, including a couple links to websites with more information.

http://www.kcc.state.ks.us/energy/arra/challenge.htm

Take Charge! Challenge Using Recovery Act funding from the Department of Energy, the KCC's Energy Division contracted with the Climate and Energy Project (CEP) to implement an expanded version of the Take Charge! Challenge, which CEP had previously piloted in 6 communities. The 2011 Take Charge! Challenge engaged 16 cities in a friendly competition to save energy in 4 different regions of the state.

• University Region: Lawrence, Manhattan • Northeast Region: Baldwin City, Gardner, Ottawa, Paola • Southeast Region: Chanute, Fort Scott, Iola, Parsons, Pittsburg • Southwest Region: Colby, Goodland, Hoxie, Oakley, Wakeeney

21

The Challenge ran from January 1 to September 30, 2011. City leadership teams hosted a total of 1,093 events and presentations in an effort to save the most energy per capita within their region. The 4 regional winners - Baldwin City, Colby, Fort Scott, and Manhattan - received a $100,000 grant from the KCC Energy Division to implement renewable energy or energy efficiency projects in public buildings or public works.

The results of the competition included:

http://www.takechargechallenge.com/indexhide.php