The Psychology of CLimate Change

Walking to work today, I found myself reflecting on Dan Miller’s presentation, “A REALLY Inconvenient Truth.” (www.fora.tv) Mr. Miller’s presentation is an evolution of his training through The Climate Project (www.theclimateproject.org) - Al Gore’s organization for climate education – and uses “An Inconvenient Truth” as the starting point for his presentation. According to Mr. Miller, “An Inconvenient Truth” focuses on presenting the mechanisms of climate change influenced by human activity, such as increases in CO2 leading to increases in global temperature and consequently melting glaciers, particularly in the Arctic and Antarctic, but does not present many of the specific consequences of global temperature increases. Taking the next step forward, Mr. Miller presents some of the effects of global warming, such as raising sea levels and global environment changes as the temperature raises one or two or three degrees Celsius. While Mr. Miller discusses several “game over” scenarios should we collectively choose to ignore the science of global climate change, his discussion of the psychology of climate change was simultaneously enlightening and disheartening.
To begin with, there are four different stances we can take regarding global warming. We can choose to act or not to act based on whether or not we believe global warming is a real and human influenced reality. If we choose to act but climate change proves to be nonexistent, we will have wasted some money, but developed some new technologies and reduced our dependence on the finite resources of fossil fuels. If we choose not to act and climate change turns out to be pseudoscience, life goes on and nothing happens. However, if climate change IS real and we DO act, we will spend money on developing new resources and technologies, save over 1 billion lives, and reduce our dependence on fossil fuels while potentially experiencing one of the strongest periods of economic prosperity in human history as we switch to a green economy. Conversely, if we choose not to act and we continue to pollute the environment at our current rates, we will most certainly encounter one of Mr. Miller’s “game over” scenarios. Mr. Miller ends this portion of the presentation by stating that scientists conclusively state global warming is real. “The science is not a secret” but still most people choose not to act or even worse, continuing on without making any significant changes to their behavior.
Why do we choose not to act? Climate change is a global social issue, but the same mentality can been seen in individuals and societies alike. There is not a single pack of cigarettes in this country that does not bear a health warning, yet according to the Center for Disease Control December, 2008 report, “Current Smoking” , more than 20% of Americans smoke every day. The logical reasons for not smoking are numerous, well documented, and the populace has been well educated over the last 25 years or more and yet more than 1 in 5 Americans smoke every single day. Although Mr. Miller does not share the specific sources he draws his information from, he shares six (6) strategies of threat response within the body of psychological literature he reviewed as methods for assessing and responding to threats:
1. Visible – The threat must be visible and direct, for example, a person pointing a gun at you.
Global warming is not immediately visible as it takes a long time to occur.
2. Historical precedence – In your direct memory, or perhaps a recent collective memory, the threat has resulted in a dire consequence; the person shot the person standing next to you.
Even though the planet has experienced the effects of global warming, we are currently experiencing the effects for the first time in our collective memory
3. Immediate – The person fired a shot and nearly hit you.
Typically, changes to the global climate take tens of thousands of years to occur. However, current data sets show significant global warming during the last 150 years. Unfortunately, the accelerated time scales are still outside of normal human time scales. Conversely, current data also seems to indicate the time frames have gotten much smaller during the last decade. Mr. Miller cites several examples that may occur within the next two to twenty years.
4. Simple Causality – Bullets cause severe damage when they hit a person.
This is fairly easy for most people to understand. The cause and the effect are directly related. Climate science is rarely direct and our understanding of the complexities of the planetary climate engine is limited and obfuscated.
5. Caused by another – The person pointing the gun.
There isn’t one single cause or culprit that we can blame global warming on. It’s not just cows, or just fossil fuels, or just the United States, but a combination of many different factors caused by both natural processes and human activities.
6. Direct personal impact – Getting hit by the bullet.
Few people in America have been directly affected by global warming. Although we have experienced stronger hurricanes and longer draughts and more rain or snow in many areas of the United States, these events have not be recognized as the direct effects of global warming.
These strategies are not mutually exclusive or all-inclusive, but form part of a complex mental system as individual as the person who is reacting to the threatening stimuli. Throughout human evolution, we evolved to deal with threats that were immediate and/or life-threatening intrusions into our surroundings such as predators and poisonous plants. Until recently, when we were forced to adapt to changes of climate, we did so over a significantly long time frame, which allowed for migration or adaptation to longer periods of cold or extended draughts. Today, as the entire planet warms - which may cause sea levels to rise up to six (6) meters by the end of the century - there is nowhere to migrate to and significantly less time to adapt. There is no shortage of scientific evidence or speakers evangelizing the science of global warming available to the lay public in the United States. However, Gallup surveys conducted between 2007 and 2009 show 36% of Americans do not consider global warming a threat to their family . Another Gallup poll from March 2009, found 40% of Americans personally worry “only a little or not at all” about global warming or the “greenhouse effect”. In the face of the accumulating mountains of scientific data and subsequent reports of global climate changes during the last 150 years, Mr. Miller notes some successful denial strategies used to justify inaction by individuals and societies world-wide:
1. Displaced commitment – “I protect the environment in other ways.”
2. Condemn the accuser – “You have no right to challenge me.”
3. Denial of responsibility – “I am not the main cause of this problem.”
4. Ignorance – “I didn’t know.”
5. Powerlessness – “I can’t make a difference.”
6. Fabricated constraints – “There are too many impediments.”
7. After the flood – “Society is corrupt.”
8. Comfort – “It’s too hard for me to change my behavior.”
These are not rational arguments or legitimate justification for destructive behavior that harms society at large. Rational thought is a learned behavior expressed through both logical and creative thinking. Understanding that even though a specific action may not have an immediate effect, like throwing a cigarette butt on the ground, for example. The effect of the action is not always limited to the physical completion of the action. As the product of personal experience, education, environment, social groups, and biology, individuals and societies do not easily overcome these strategies of denial and threat assessment. Many people find it easy to point fingers at educational systems or governments for not addressing or correcting these issues, but the bottom line rests on each individual, especially in the United States. As a member of a representative republic, each individual has the responsibility to be involved in the process of government and to be responsible for his or her own education and actions; particularly if those actions affect the health and well being of every other living organism on the planet.
The predications for the effects of climate change over the next century run the gamut between catastrophe and nay saying from people with motives ranging from philanthropic to personal and corporate greed. There is no doubt within the scientific community that the climate of this planet is changing at a more rapid rate than has been previously experienced during the last one hundred thousand years or more. Whether the time frame is in the most conservative estimates or the direst estimates prove to be true, the consequences of failing to act are nothing less than the end of life on this planet.



Dan Miller is the Managing Director of The Roda Croup, a venture capital group focused on clean technology as well as information and communication services. He is also a member of The Climate Project and the Climate Communication’s Council, which is part of the Copenhagen Climate Council. For the more information and his full bio, please visit http://www.climateplace.org.
Mr. Miller recommends “Six Degrees: Our Future on a Hotter Planet” by Mark Lynas for more specific impacts of increasing temperatures. http://www.climateplace.org
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nhis/earlyrelease/200812_08.pdf
Dan Miller cites statements made by scientist Jim Hanson.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/121526/Major-Economies-Threat-Climate-Change.aspx
Quote are from Dan Miller’s presentation slides. Http://www.climateplace.org