One would be hard pressed to find a topic that creates more divisiveness in our country than climate change. We are presented with a continual feed of stories on hurricanes, heat waves, wildfires, floods, and other disasters that should cause everyone to consider, “what is happening to our planet.” In academia, the facts regarding the negative effects of climate change on the planet are presented as a starting point from which all future research must be conducted. In the textbook for PSYCH 105 How to Think Straight About Psychology author Keith Stanovich bravely discusses the biases found on both sides of popular scientific debate. (Stanovich, 2019) Stanovich highlights mistakes made by both Democrats (Liberals) and Republicans (Conservatives) in their conclusions regarding social, environmental, and biological science. Though he proceeds to outline specific areas of error found with both sides, in climate change he boldly states, “The role of human activity in climate change is established science…” While willing to find scientific holes in many topics considered settled, he puts a period on the climate change debate. I would suspect the reader of this blog is predicting that I am going to refute this statement with the usual ‘climate change denier’ talking points. That person did not carefully read the title of this blog.
I consider myself one who cares deeply about the health of our planet. My area of focus seems to be directed to causes the benefit the health of our oceans. I am a monthly supporter of 4 Ocean, an organization that is dedicated to the full-time removal of plastics from our oceans, and I ran the Twin Cities Marathon while raising money for The Ocean Conservatory in Washington DC. My lifestyle has evolved into a more minimalist approach, and I am a conscientious caretaker of the environment at a level that most of us likely live (though (confession time) I am a cigar smoker!). As I will touch on later, I despise the laziness and oftentimes disingenuousness of labels, but if asked, I am likely a ‘moderate environmentalist’. I am far from a climate change denier, but I confidently stand as a climate change movement denier.
I will give you the respect by not burying the lead or my argument- If one believes that climate change is the number one threat affecting every human on this planet, they will act and speak in ways quite different than what we are presented by those passionately representing the movement. Outage and confrontation would be replaced by calmness and active listening. Talking points would be replaced be specific articulation. Hypocritical lifestyles would be replaced with authenticity. Labeling would be replaced by attempts to understand. Confirmation bias would be replaced by a sincere presentation of the supportive findings as well as a willingness to address findings that may appear contradictory to climate change science. These are the characteristics of one who is sincerely motivated. I try to instill in my niece and nephew that if you are grounded in the truth and pure motives, there is never a reason to get angry. Anger in a conversation will not usually arise from a foundation of frustration, but fear. Confidence and authenticity in one’s viewpoint removes the propensity for anger. An effective advocate for any cause will be grounded in familiarity, a combination of compassion and passion, and lives out their life in a manner that matches their words. We see very little manifestation of these characteristics in our public advocates today. We simply can’t predict the doom of the world by climate change and expect agreement if we are flying to our conferences in private jets (No. You don’t have to.) Living in 30,000 sq ft mansions, buying ocean front property, labeling everyone who has a question a ‘denier’, and not even possessing a simple elevator pitch on exactly what the climate change threat is to our planet and livelihood.
In the textbook Applied Social Psychology: Understanding and Addressing Social and Practical Problems, the chapter entitled Applying Social Psychology to the Environment we find a section discussing the Strategies for Inducing Pro-Environment Behavior. (Gruman, 2017) The text takes us through three categories of pro-environment behavior that inarguably will benefit the climate- 1) increased recycling 2) reduced driving and 3) reduced home energy use. I will save you the effort of reading the text by assuring you that none of the interventions applied included labeling those who refuse to participate, defacing vehicles with poor fuel consumption, or presenting hyperbole and generalizations with no ability to provide supporting specifics. It was quite refreshing to read a calm and specific presentation of the dilemmas, consequences, and possible solutions found in climate change science. Most importantly I found it persuasive and empowering. Is climate change science any different than other issues of our time? Though one could boldly argue that the costs are much greater, it would be difficult to justify that the handling of the science should subsequently be different.
I believe most individuals that support climate change science are authentically concerned about the future of our planet. I have much less confidence that those people are holding the microphone. To win the war, leaders must step up to the forefront of the movement and behave and speak like a true leader. The message of us versus them is results in ‘them’ building stronger resistance, and that should be the expected behavioral outcome when one is demonized for a different opinion. That is why the climate change movement is hurting the health of our natural environment. If the future livability of our planet is the stakes in the war, then the movement must reevaluate how they go to battle.
Gruman, J. A. (2017). Applied Social Psychology: Understanding and Addressing Social and Practical Problems. Thousand Oaks: SAGE.
Stanovich, K. E. (2019). How to Think Straight About Psychology. Hoboken: Pearson.
I did enjoy reading your blog post which had a very different point of view than my personal take on global warming. It is always interesting to read altering points of view on the subject of climate change. While I do agree with you that it is a polarizing topic, there are countless journal articles on scientific studies conducted to statistically quantify the role of human activity in climate change, and this can be easily searched. I was a bit unclear as to the political reference in your post, as global warming and increased temperatures affect everyone, without political boundaries. Gruman et al. mention a quote from Gifford in 2011 in regards to identifying “dragons of inaction” where all those in power use “many tendencies to not take appropriate action” citing that perhaps “—limited cognition, certain ideologies, social norms and comparison, discredence (mistrust of experts), perceived risks (of changing one’s behavior), sunk costs (e.g., investments in resource extraction), and limited behavior” are some factors that create deterrents in pro-environment behavior (Gruman et al., 2016). In other words, I don’t believe that global warming and climate change are partisan issues, it is an issue that will affect everyone including climate change deniers. If you have time, I hope you’ll read my blog post for this lesson which discusses the World Food Energy Nexus (https://sites.psu.edu/aspsy/2021/09/20/world-food-energy-nexus-examining-the-food-sustainability-resource-dilemma/), that threatens global food security and sustainability. I lived in the Southwest for nearly a decade, and weather patterns changed dramatically in the time I lived there due to the severe and extreme drought conditions. Some of the factors that influence the World Food Energy Nexus dilemma are the everpresent statistics of the lack of water out West which accounts for a vast majority of food exports in the U.S., aquifers running dry and homeowners having to abandon their homesteads, and farmers having to grind up trees from dry orchards they cannot water. The unfortunate thing in these divisive times is that social issues are politicized by opinion news shows to become “movements” that people can identify with. Not having access to water or rain isn’t a movement, it’s a resource dilemma that simply needs to be planned for, regardless of what side of the debate you are on.
References
Gruman, J. A., Schneider, F. W., & Coutts, L. M. (2016). Applied Social Psychology: Understanding and Addressing Social and Practical Problems (3rd ed.). SAGE Publications, Inc.
I agree with you wholeheartedly; climate change has sadly been politicized and, in a country where political polarization is at its highest levels since the Civil War (Pew Research, 2017), that will never lead to consensus on how to handle it. As you say, this causes a dangerous “us versus them” mentality which is causing damaging division and distrust in America and crippling the country by making it increasingly difficult for both parties to agree upon and approve legislation. According to Haidt (2018), the amount each side dislikes the other party has dropped dramatically from just below 50% in the 70s to just above 15% today. The parties have gone from being opponents to being enemies. This political motive asymmetry, where people assume their ideology is based in love but their opponents’ is based in hate is usually seen in world conflict – for instance in the Palestine-Israeli conflict – not within a country. But, today, individuals in each party sees the other as a threat to the country, and a threat to ‘my’ way of life, making the stakes much higher (Haidt, 2018).
Haidt believes this asymmetry has turned US politics into a negative-sum game; where each party believes that, so long as they can hurt the other side more than the other side hurts them, it doesn’t matter if we hurt the country…climate change is definitely one of the losers in this game. I don’t know how we get people and parties to look beyond the “us versus them” and put the good of the country – and the planet – ahead of personal agendas. However, stopping public figures like Prince Harry from appealing to us all to care for the environment…before hopping on a private plane to go to a polo match would definitely be a great start!
References:
Haidt, J. (2018). The Forum: The Moral Psychology of Political Polarization. Retrieved from https://righteousmind.com/the-causes-of-political-dysfunction/
Pew Research Center (2017). “The Partisan Divide on Political Values Grows Even Wider.” Pew Research Center, Washington, D.C. Retrieved from https://www.people-press.org/2017/10/05/the-partisan-divide-on-political-values-grows-even-wider/