A seemingly symbolic action shifted the climate change debate

ANN ARBOR-On the face of it, environmentalist Bill McKibben's international climate campaign to have universities divest fossil fuel assets had limited success. Only a handful of institutions pledged to divest and it didn't affect the stocks of fossil fuel companies. But a new study by University of Michigan sustainable enterprise professor Andy Hoffman and Temple University's Todd Schifeling, a former postdoc with U-M's Erb and Graham institutes, shows McKibben's activism might have been successful in another way. Their analysis of media coverage of climate change during McKibben's 350.org effort shows that it influenced the public debate. Ideas that were once on the margins became more mainstream, due to what's known as the "radical flank effect." That is, when there are two entrenched sides on an issue, the appearance of a new idea perceived as more extreme can move previously marginalized ideas to the center. "A lot of people said that what McKibben did was a waste of time," said Hoffman, the Holcim (US) Inc. Professor of Sustainable Enterprise at the Ross School of Business and School of Environment and Sustainability.