Shrinks analyse climate change - August 07, 2009
Denial, mistrust and uncertainty are among the key psychological reasons that the American public is still resistant to serious action on climate change, according to psychologists.
A task force set up by an American Psychyological Association has been looking at the ‘psychological barriers’ to action on climate change and has presented its findings at the APA’s annual meeting in Toronto.
“What is unique about current global climate change is the role of human behaviour,” says task force head Janet Swim, Pennsylvania State University (press release, report pdf). “We must look at the reasons people are not acting in order to understand how to get people to act.”
Barriers to action cited by the task force under the heading ‘general sequence of psychological barriers’ are (with Great Beyond explanations):
Ignorance – ‘what’s this here climate change you’re rabbiting about’
Uncertainty – ‘is climate change really happening?’
Mistrust and reactance – ‘scientists and government are lying to us’
Denial – ‘there is no climate change’
Judgmental discounting – ‘ah, it’s all so far away, why worry’
Place attachment – ‘don’t ruin my hill with your wind farm’
Habit – ‘but I’ve always driven cars with 6 litre engines’
Perceived behavioural control – ‘my actions won’t make a difference’
Perceived risks from behavioural change – ‘those electric cars look flaky’
Tokenism and the rebound effect – ‘I planted a tree in my garden so I’m allowed to fly my jet’
Social comparison, norms, conformity, and perceived equity – ‘well Al Gore’s got a huge house, why shouldn’t I have one?’
Conflicting goals and aspirations – ‘I love polar bears but I love flying to Hawaii too’
Belief in solutions outside of human control – ‘God will sort it out’
Andrew Revkin of the New York Times likens this list to “one of those biblical lists of deadly sins or plagues”.
Of course the climate change denier / skeptic outlets have come out to declare that the APA’s ‘barriers to action’ are ‘perfectly reasonable doubts precluding action’. How sad to see people so racked with ignorance, uncertainty, mistrust and reactance, denial, judgmental discounting, place attachment, habit, perceived behavioural control, perceived risks from behavioural change, tokenism and the rebound effect, social comparison, norms, conformity, and perceived equity, conflicting goals and aspirations and belief in solutions outside of human control.
On the plus side, if humanity does gets its act together, says the report, “there is reason to believe that positive consequences are also possible, as people take collective responsibility for a shared problem”.
I see though that the APA has failed to look at the possible influence of our mothers on our psychological attitudes to climate change…
Image: a polar bear, likely suffering from place attachment / Getty
Comments
I've heard people call those who diagree with them stupid or blind, but saying that those who disagree with you are mentally ill is taking ad-hominem to an entirely new level, and it is sad that a scientific discussion should come down to this.
The problem is that the impact of CO2 on climate in not only unknown, but demonstratively small due to climate cycles.
Doubt and skepticism are the hallmark of science. Why do you think that CO2 is responsible for climate change? Don't say climate models. Those models don't have enough accuracy to give a single significant figure worth of data, and even if they were, we don't have input data nearly accurate enough for that. Until you have a good answer for why you think CO2 is responsible for climate change that doesn't rely on argument to nature, argument to authority, or the post-hoc falacies, do not make such dismissive remarks.
Posted by: Ben | August 10, 2009 08:18 PM
Mine's chlorpromazine thanks - a double, cheers!
Posted by: jh | August 11, 2009 06:29 PM