Climate change: a Psychological Phenomenon

By Michelle Doan

Climate change is urgent. According to the United Nations, we have until 2030 to slash CO2 emissions to half the 2010 levels to limit global warming to a 1.5-degree Celsius rise: the difference that would save 65 million people from exceptional heat waves, 61 million people from severe drought, and half of the Earth’s population from experience climate change-induced water stress. 

So, why are people still not taking action?

Indeed, to a certain extent, the response lag can be accounted for by climate change denial wars waged by coal and oil lobbies. Organized and well-funded denial campaigns since the 1970s have undeniably delayed the end of the fossil fuel age, profiting the likes of ExxonMobil, Royal Dutch Shell, Chevron, and BP. However, at an individual level, denial also appears to be a more comfortable state of existence. As of today, 8% of Australians continue to deny that climate change is happening at all. 

For many cognitive reasons, denial is easier than acceptance. It is easier to maintain the status quo than change our ways. Our desire for comfort is an emotional barrier to change, and as such, we are extremely susceptible to misinformation that appeals to our sense of comfort. Unsurprisingly, Swiss researchers, Stoll-Kleemann et al., found that most people are unwilling to sacrifice lifestyle and personal comfort for climate change.

Furthermore, conformational bias means that people find it easier to seek news that confirms their existing beliefs. In the US, highly polarised and insulated ideological communities have been created by those who seek information corresponding with their own factual universe. In Australia, 19% of news consumers seek news that confirms their point of view. Whether conscious or subconscious, climate change denial is an active process that people engage in.

Finally, our denial is surprisingly exacerbated by our “doom” campaigns that champion facts about ice caps melting X km away or overheating Y years away. These predictions not only make it difficult for people to engage but psychologically also engender fear and guilt which feed into resistance, rather than acceptance. 

Climate change is no longer just a technological, environmental, sociological, or political crisis. It is also a psychological crisis. When this individual desire for comfort and confirmation is propagated into communities and populations of climate deniers, we have a problem of collective complacency, inaction, and surrender against the impending 2030 deadline. 

As emotional beings, what can we do about this?

Firstly, we need to communicate with climate deniers through hope and empathy, rather than fear and guilt. One way to lead the discussion on climate change is to emphasize the potential benefits of action. Rather than leading with data and studies about our impending doom, which often causes people to “shut down”, appealing to economic and scientific gain can instead appeal to audiences otherwise divided by political ideology, age, and gender. Additionally, as much of climate change denial is driven by politics, another way to engage with opposing audiences is to lead with values rather than facts. According to Ashley Landrum, assistant professor of science communication at Texas Tech University, it can more effective if we appeal to compassion and fairness for liberal audiences and purity and loyalty for conservative audiences. It is also important to be aware of who the messenger is, as people are more likely to listen if the information comes from sources that they trust. 

Next, we need to advocate for change in the way climate change is represented in news outlets. Unfortunately, most of the sensationalism, conflict, and partisanship that drives news doesn’t highlight the fact that the scientific community has already obtained a 97% consensus that humans are the cause of climate change. As such, the seeming debate on the legitimacy of climate change draws attention away from more pressing debates about the actions required to tackle climate change. As they’ve done with COVID-19 coverage, news outlets should instead adopt a more constructive approach to journalism, examining responses to issues, presenting a range of solutions, and explaining their limitations in addition to just spotlighting the problems that exist.

Climate change is as much of a human issue as it is an environmental issue. Our fellow peers, voters, and decision makers are all human, and an issue governed by those with flaws, fears, and fallibilities first requires an understanding of us as emotional beings.