How do our brains deal with climate change?
The psychology around the climate crisis is complex and ever changing.
Some people engage with it as their primary purpose in life, some believe its a conspiracy theory created by the Chinese, and for most people its something that lurks in the background of daily life, rearing its ugly head whenever there is yet another record breaking heatwave, killer storm, or major drought.
Despite this variety of engagement, there can be no denying that, overall the topic of climate change is gaining significantly more coverage now than it did this time a year ago.
This is, of course, due in no small part to the fantastic work being done by Extinction Rebellion, the Youth 4 Climate strikes, and David Attenborough’s BBC documentaries.
But still, for a great many people around the world, climate change and the messaging around flying less, eating less meat, and generally consuming less stuff, is received with the same accepted wisdom as that of the habitual smoker; we know that what we’re doing is harmful, but we carry on doing it anyway, because its what we’re used to, and because the damaging effects are not immediately evident.
In an attempt to better understand this phenomenon, we turned to George Marshall’s book ‘Don’t Even Think About It’, which examines the various societal and cultural influences that impact our engagement (or disengagement) with the climate crisis.
The influence of our immediate environment and the 'importance of now'
In his book, Marshall explains how our human brains typically prioritise short term, immediate concerns (food, safety, warmth) over those that may have longer consequences such as smoking or heart disease (or climate change). All of these things pose a similar danger to our well-being, it is just how we perceive and approach them that differs.
Similarly, what is considered to be a ‘risk’ will vary depending on different cultures and social conditioning. Strange though it sounds, what we fear is actually a choice.
For example, for some people flying in a plane is a terrifying experience. For others it may be sailing, or driving, or even cycling on busy roads. Others again may believe that mobile phones emit harmful levels of radiation, or that a terrorist threat is ever-present.
With this in mind, it is a little easier to understand why fears about climate change can vary from person to person.
The influence of 'tribalism' and the 'jury of our peers'
Another important psychological factor highlighted by Marshall is what he calls the ‘jury of our peers’, whereby people tend to be more likely to believe things told to them by their friends and family than by politicians or so-called ‘experts’.
This is reinforced by what Marshall calls the ‘tribalism effect’, in which a person may feel fearful of standing out from the crowd and becoming rejected by their community as a result of having opposing views. If the prevailing consensus in the community is climate change denial, it can be safer to keep quiet rather than provoke an argument.
However, Marshall suggests that our assumptions about what our neighbours think on a subject can often be wrong. This is what he calls the ‘Bystander Effect’ where everybody is playing it safe and waiting for somebody else to take the initiative. It can therefore make a huge difference for someone to bear witness to others taking action, as this can provide a vital sense of reassurance and confidence to those who are feeling the same way.
Photo: Alexander Popov via UnSplash
Climate change is a 'wicked problem'
Building on his explanations of the complexities of the human response to the problem of climate change, Marshall goes on to make clear that the phenomenon of climate change itself can often feel abstract and complex and distant, making it a difficult challenge to tackle.
He explains that what is being asked of us by politicians is a series of short-term sacrifices that are required in order to secure a very long term goal, which in some cases we may not even be around to enjoy. So much of the messaging around climate change abatement focuses on the need for people to do less of something… to fly less, drive less, buy less, eat less meat. This can make people question what there is to actually gain.
Even where action on climate change could facilitate an improvement of a person’s living standards, (such as making energy efficiency improvements) the implied benefits are often so long-term that they cannot overcome the barrier of the short-term loss (i.e. cost).
Another aspect of climate change that makes it such a ‘wicked problem’ according to Marshall is the sheer enormity of it. The fact that it is global in nature means that individuals can often feel powerless to make any meaningful difference. Similarly, weather patterns are so unreliable and complex that attributing any one event to climate change can be a difficult case to prove.
When politics and profits get in the way
Our long held political views can be a powerful determinant of our ability to accept the things we read and hear.
It is common for individuals to ‘cherry pick’ the science that supports their view, and to dismiss anything to the contrary as ‘fake news’ or a hoax. For example, it is not uncommon for opponents of state intervention to claim that climate change is simply an excuse to justify the expanded powers of the state.
This means that only a tiny shadow of doubt is required for individuals to enthusiastically dismiss the overwhelming consensus on climate science, if the consequences of climate action challenge their world view or threaten their way of life.
Indeed, many public relations campaigns from the fossil fuel majors aim to do exactly that – to sow a small seed of doubt in the certainty of the climate science, just enough to maintain inertia and the status quo of the general population.
This notion is explored in depth in the film Merchants of Doubt which presents a convincing comparison between the media campaigns of the cigarette industry during the fifties, which attempted to discredit the evidence that smoking caused lung cancer, and the fossil fuel industry today, which seeks to discredit the evidence that the combustion of coal, oil and gas causes climate heating.
Very often, just challenging the science on climate change, and creating an alternative narrative to the scientific consensus, can be enough to dissuade people from taking urgent action.
Conclusion
Whilst climate change may be a wicked problem that requires united action on a global scale, it is also a problem that presents an abundance of opportunities for individuals to take direct actions that will make an impact.
Unlike other global problems like poverty or terrorism, we can measure our personal contribution to the climate crisis with a reasonably high degree of accuracy.
Marshall writes:
“People often feel powerless in the face of climate change, when in fact, there is no other issue over which they have more personal control”
Unfortunately, it is very often tempting for people to focus on a single token gesture to demonstrate their concern and sacrifice for the climate crisis, as opposed to adopting or supporting initiatives that will enable the wholesale re-design of society that is really needed.
For example, ‘Meat Free Mondays’ is a good start, but on its own this will not deliver the significant changes that are required to address the worst case scenarios of climate change.
Instead, people should look to make more radical changes to their lifestyle, such as switching to a meatless diet, reducing the number of flights taken, and voting for politicians who promise bold action on climate change.
So what can you do?
- Do your research. Spread the word. Convince others of the need for urgent action
- Switch your home or business energy supply to one that delivers 100% clean renewable energy
- Reduce energy use in your home by installing energy efficiency measures
- Pressure your local council and Members of Parliament to deliver bold environmental policies
- Support campaigns on local issues (e.g. against fracking in Balcombe or the Weald)
- Support businesses in your community that are working to create a fairer and more sustainable economy. Examples in Brighton include the Big Lemon Bus Company, HISBe Foods, and of course, BHESCo.
- Focus your communication to others on the things we have to gain from taking action on climate change, such as a better life for our children, our health, our security, our communities
- Acknowledge that life may not be as convenient as it has been during the age of fossil fuels, which enabled cheap and easy travel and household comfort, but has slowly been destroying our planet for the past 150 years.
0 Comments