‘Present the science in a helpful way’: Jeff Dukes tackles climate change in conservative states

Jeff Dukes, a senior staff scientist in the Stanford Carnegie Institution for Science, brings attention to climate change in historically conservative states. From rates of carbon sequestration to prevalence of invasive species, Dukes’ research “[helps] people better understand how particular actions and choices are likely to influence the environment,” according to his lab’s website.

From 2014 to 2021 Dukes directed the Purdue Climate Change Research Center in Indiana, a state where Republicans hold a veto-proof supermajority in both houses of the legislature. 

During this time, Dukes led the creation of the Indiana Climate Change Impacts Assessment, an annual report which outlined how climate change was projected to specifically impact Indiana residents in the following areas: climate, health, forest ecosystems, urban green space, agriculture, aquatic ecosystems, tourism & recreation and energy.

During his time at Stanford, Dukes also contributed to a nation-wide climate assessment in 2023, similar to Dukes’ work in Indiana. However, the 2023 assessment appealed to a broader audience, bringing attention to climate change across the nation. 

Incremental change is crawling through the state legislature, as Indiana created its first climate action plan in 2024. The plan directly cites a Indiana Climate Change Impacts Assessment 16 times. 

According to Dukes, the annual Indiana reports were successful at sparking conversations where previously there had been few climate resources. 

Indiana policymakers “didn’t want to have to think about [climate change] early on, and they were actually interested later,” Dukes said.

Sarah Pittock, an advanced lecturer in the Program in Writing and Rhetoric (PWR), who taught PWR 91NSC: “Intermediate Writing: Introduction to Science Communication” last quarter, said a unique challenge of science writing is “you have to distill [the science], not just translate it.”

According to Pittock, one main way to effectively distill is to appeal to “application,” making clear to the reader how this specifically applies to their life.

In line with this advice, the team devised the reports by asking Indiana residents what questions they had about climate change, and providing answers to those questions. The goal, according to Dukes, was that, “we [wouldn’t] be handing out a report that nobody asked for.”

“I tried to just present the science in a helpful way,” Dukes said. The reports get granular, presenting not just temperatures and precipitation trends — but how many snow days are expected, a projection of the number of mosquitos and predictions for how poultry and corn yields will fare.

After the reports’ release, Dukes embarked on an extensive press campaign. Climate change was “not a big topic of discussion in that state at that point,” Dukes said. “And a big goal of ours was to change that.”

How did Indiana — the second largest coal consumer in the nation after Texas — receive these climate science reports? 

“If you turned on the news, or you opened a paper [or] went to a local news site — you would see something on climate change more often,” said Melissa Widhalm, who was operations manager for the team. Publications would often cite the reports in their coverage, Widhalm added. 

“Our reports certainly helped other institutions within Indiana to work on climate change, because they could then cite our reports as a backdrop for the things that they were trying to do,” Widhalm said.

Both Widhalm and Dukes emphasized that Indiana residents understood climate change was a threat. The reports merely provided a credible place to turn to for answers. “Most people in the Midwest understand that climate change is happening and are reasonably sure that fossil fuel use has something to do with it,” Widhalm said.

According to Pittock, when communicating to those who distrust science, it’s essential to be respectful of their identities and make it clear they’re being supported, not shunned by science. 

The report authors echoed this humility in communication. According to Rose Filley, former managing director of the Purdue Climate Change Research Center, the team made an effort to know its audience and employ clear language to convey its message.

“Talk to them in a clear way that’s not going to include scientific jargon, that’s not going to make them feel excluded just by your language,” Widhalm said. “Be warm and clear about why they should care about your information and speak with them in a way that is bringing them into the fold — not talking at them — showing that you’re interested in what they think.”

Widhalm also outlined the challenges in communicating climate science to politicians and described getting invited to talk about their reports to the Indiana legislature. “There’s a full house. I don’t know if that was because of me or because of the lunch. Probably because of the lunch,” she said.

Widhalm said the Indiana legislature was “polite” when she spoke to them. “I didn’t get pushback on [the talk]. They seemed to absorb the information at the time.”

But only a year later, Widhalm recalls seeing the same legislators making “fairly dismissive comments” about climate change in the news. According to Widhalm, this was not an isolated phenomenon.

“The way it’s structured in most parts of the country makes politicians beholden to the most extreme elements of their own party to make it to the general election, and so you’re not going to end up having a politician who’s going to talk openly about wanting to address climate change,” Widhalm said.

The post ‘Present the science in a helpful way’: Jeff Dukes tackles climate change in conservative states appeared first on The Stanford Daily.