Dragons and Denial
According to the Emissions Gap Report 2024 from the United Nations Environment Programme the world is on track for a global temperature rise of 2.6-2.8°C this century, and without improved policies “we are heading for a temperature rise of 3.1°C” (Andersen, 2024). Comment on the UNEP report referred to a ‘catastrophic’ rise in temperature, to greenhouse gas emissions which rose last year “by 1.3 percent over 2022 marks” and to the need for a “six-fold increase in mitigation investment” in order to achieve net zero (Musto, 2024).
Our failure
to take adequate action will be explored in this post using three sources. The
first is “The Dragons of Inaction: Psychological barriers that limit climate
change mitigation and adaptation” which is mainly concerned with the
different types of restraint on individual action (Gifford, 2011). The second
is the more recent paper “Understanding and Countering the Motivated Roots
of Climate Change Denial” which builds on Gifford’s psychology of inaction but
also surveys ways of supporting positive action, especially in the United
States (Wong-Parodi and Feygina, 2019). The third is Peter Stott’s book Hot Air: The Inside Story of the
Battle Against Climate Change Denial (Stott, 2021). Stott concentrates on
the motives and methods of organised climate change denial.
Seven
barriers to action were identified by Gifford: limited cognition, ideologies,
comparison with others, sunk costs, discredence, perceived risks, and limited
positive behaviour.
One: limited
cognition about the problem encompasses a range of factors. These include ignorance,
which at its simplest is not knowing that there is problem; or, if this is
accepted, not knowing what to do about it. Environmental numbness describes a
lack of awareness of one’s physical surroundings, particularly if they present
no immediate problem. Judgmental discounting is the undervaluing of distant or
future risks, while optimism bias, loosely, is the tendency to belief that “it
can’t happen to me”. The collective action problem stems from the false belief
that an individual can do nothing in face of a global problem.
Two: ideological
worldviews that work against pro-environmental attitudes and behaviour
include belief in free-enterprise capitalism; belief that Mother Nature or some
supernatural power will look after us, or that fate must simply be accepted;
and belief that technology can solve the problem alone. Perceived inequity may
lead to the view that “others won’t change, so why should I?”
Three: comparison
with others. Humans are social animals; comparing one’s situation with that of
others is normal. We routinely form our ideas of how to act by
observing the actions of others. While social norms and networks can be
potential forces for progress in environmental issues, they can also be forces
for regress. Perceived inequity can be a reason for inaction. If well-known
figures, other economic sectors, or other nations are seen as not cooperating,
this can serve as justification for nonaction.
Four: sunk
costs and behavioural momentum can refer to investments of time, money and
effort which would lose their value if we took pro-environmental action, and to
the difficulty of changing established habits or abandoning certain goals.
Five: discredance
(i.e. mistrust, disbelief) toward experts and authorities can result in
rejection of proposed climate mitigation programs, reaction to those elements
of plans that threaten one’s freedom, or denial that there is a problem to be
solved.
Six: perceived
risks include doubts over the effectiveness of a proposed measure, worries
over any dangers involved, and concerns about the cost in time and money.
Seven: limited
positive behaviour describes appropriate but inadequate changes; taking easy
but not very effective climate mitigation measures. It is associated with the risk
that old habits will return.
Wong-Parodia
and Feyginac (2020) review the psychology of climate denial, and survey ways of
supporting climate solutions. They draw mainly on research in the United States
“whose population is exceptionally high on climate denial and disengagement”. Recent
polls suggest that most Americans “think that climate change is happening, understand
its anthropogenic causes, and are worried about it”; however, “powerful voices
of denial” have meant that “vast scientific evidence for climate change has
failed to translate into concern or individual action.” There has been a “coordinated
effort by the fossil fuel industry to sow doubt on climate science and
undermine efforts to switch away from carbon polluting energy production”.
The authors build
on Gifford’s work to explore the psychology of climate change denial, and,
unsurprisingly, believe that at present “engaging people with climate change is
unlikely to succeed without awareness of underlying identity drivers of denial
and engagement.” Identities may be based on factors such as gender, race,
ethnicity, and social affiliations, and these identities “can also be powerful
drivers of connection, concern, and engagement.” They go on to describe ways of
engaging with climate deniers, including those who have the facts but still
deny them.
One cause of
climate denial is “the need to protect and uphold existing socioeconomic
systems and institutions”. This motive can provide a bridge to discussion,
since those who want action on climate change have a related motive, the need
to protect human and other life forms on earth and uphold civilisation in the
long term. These aims of the two groups differ however in scope, time scale and
geographical reach.
Other shared
aims can provide common ground in discussion; the authors suggest “health,
economic prosperity, social harmony and better relationships, and protection of
one’s home and community.” In view of the shared or similar aims found on
either side of climate debates, encouraging people to “voice their values and
beliefs explicitly prior to engaging with climate information can foster greater
openness and decrease disengagement.” Persuading a climate denier to take a
different view may be made easier by acknowledging the justifiable values that
can lead to climate denial, and willingness to engage in discussion can
sometimes be encouraged by showing that many other people are also concerned
about climate change.
The two
papers cited above are primarily concerned with the psychology of climate
denial and inaction, but Stott’s book Hot Air (2021) while part
autobiography and part history of climate science, focusses on organised climate change denial, perceived as aiming to protect
the interests of the fossil fuel and related industries, and to defend national
economies, jobs and social stability.
Stott describes
a variety of methods used by climate change deniers to undermine confidence in scientific
findings. Any degree of uncertainty associated with these findings can be
exploited, and action on them has been prevented by demanding absolute certainty
before accepting them. Climate scientists have been accused of corruption and
lying and delaying tactics have been used to prevent climate scientists from
getting a fair hearing in conferences. Techniques such as computer modelling of
the environment have been rejected as unscientific.
Climate
deniers have used gullible journalists to exploit the media and journalists may
sometimes be under pressure from their editors. Some popular media support climate
change denial, and some publications are funded by deniers. It is the policy of
organisations such as the Nongovernmental IPCC and the Global Warming Policy
Foundation to deny or minimise the dangers of climate change. Large sums have
been spent on lobbying by fossil fuel interests such as Exxon, Chevron,
ConocoPhillips and BP and Koch. Stott claims that the smallest of these, Koch
Industries, active in oil refineries, pipelines and fertilizers, spent over $12
million on lobbyists in 2009. Legal process has been used to block the
distribution of material on climate change, for example by means of the UK Education
Act which forbids partisan views. The BBC policy on balance of views in
reporting has also been used to the disadvantage of public understanding of
climate change. In 2020 Stott found himself on a list of seventeen climate
scientists at risk of referral to the US Justice Department, with the
possibility of extradition to the US from the UK. The list originated from the
suspicions of Senator Inhofe that “some of the world’s pre-eminent climate
scientists” were involved in “unethical and potentially illegal behaviour”.
At
government level, making token investments to the poorer countries has
sometimes been seen as a way of allowing richer countries to avoid more
effective action. National leaders have expressed views in line with climate
denial, for example Brazil’s President Bolsonaro “rejected the scientific
consensus on climate change, slashed funding for environmental research, and
favoured agribusiness over protection of the Amazon rainforest.” In 2019 President
Trump made the US the first nation to give notice of withdrawal from the Paris
agreement, which “he thought would decapitate his coal industry.” In 2020 he
replaced the chief scientist at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration with a critic of climate scientists.
Stott concludes
the epilogue to his book with the following warning: “To save the planet, we
have to defeat the lies told for power and for profit. For the safety of
humanity on earth, we can’t afford to have any more powerful leaders who
promote the false belief of climate change denial.”
References
Andersen,
I., 2024, Emissions Gap Report 2024 press statement, UNEP, 24 Oct 2024, online,
accessed 30 October 2024
https://www.unep.org/news-and-stories/statements/emissions-gap-report-2024-press-statement
Gifford.,
R., 2011, The Dragons of Inaction: Psychological barriers that limit climate
change mitigation and adaptation, American Psychologist 66 (4): 290–302,
online, accessed 26 October 2024
Musto, J.,
2024, World is on track for a ‘catastrophic’ rise in temperature, UN report
says, Independent, 24 October 2024, online, accessed 26 October 2024
https://www.independent.co.uk/climate-change/climate-change-un-world-temperature-rise-b2634957.html
Stott, P.,
2021, Hot Air: The Inside Story of the Battle Against Climate Change
Denial, London, Atlantic Books.
Wong-Parodia,
G., and Feyginac, I., 2020, Understanding and Countering the Motivated Roots of
Climate Change Denial, Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, online,
accessed 18 November 2024
Comments
Post a Comment