NOTES: ALL RESOURCES – Psychology and Climate Change

Below are my notes on the resources I have explored. I’ll keep updating this page every few weeks to include more ideas!

1: Facing Climate Change: An Integrated Path to the Future, Kiehl, Columbia University Press, 2016

5 fundamental facts that prove humans are causing climate change:

CO₂ concentration increasing
- Began during industrial revolution
Fossil fuels are releasing the CO₂
- The lighter isotopes of carbon are being released
  - These are the isotopes found in fossil fuels
CO₂ gas traps a lot of heat – infrared
Greenhouse gases in the atmosphere cause warming
- Energy in the atmosphere has increased consistently for 50 years
Increasing CO₂ concentration significantly increases the temperature of the earth
- If we continue at current levels, the year 2100 will see the highest temperatures since 40 million years ago!

Psychological Factors that Cause Inaction

Fear
- Fear of change – adapting requires CHANGE in our lifestyles
- Archetypes:
  - Senex = old person
    - Wise
    - Rigidity
      - Comfortable with set routine, wants predictability
  - inner young person = puer
    - Loves excitement
    - Doesn’t want commitment
  - Security seekers
    - Afraid of change
    - SELF protection
  - Harmony seekers
    - Like change if helps society
    - harmony with WORLD
  - Utilitarian view: nature is there to supply humans
  - Intrinsic view: nature has value regardless of human presence
- People afraid of climate change action: senex, security seekers, utilitarian
National philosophies
- Individualism: US
  - Individual > society
- Europe, Asia: collectivism
- Collectivism = more climate change action bc regulation hurts individual but helps long term society
Helplessness
- Emotional complex = prevents progress
- Anticipatory loss = fear of losing in future
  - Financial loss = Losing money for fossil fuel companies
  - Loss of faith = ignoring climate change for religious reasons (only God can be in control)
  - Fear of individual autonomy
Types of defenses: denial, rationalization, compartmentalization, distortion, dissociation, projection
- Denial: “I can’t believe it”
- Rationalization:
  - “We can’t do anything about it”
  - “It’s caused by natural cycles”
- Compartmentalize: keeping separate from other beliefs to avoid confrontation
- Distortion: rose colored glasses
  - “It’s not that bad”
- Projection: shift blame
  - Electric company says they’re providing for the customer
- Dissociation: ignore the problem

Interesting Ideas for solutions

Sense of security early on in childhood = more security in adulthood = less fear of change
Acceptance of who you are (no denial) = possibility of change
- Self reflection
Willingness to accept change
- Slow down
- Talk to others
- Absolve fear of being wrong
Being willing to experience feeling (sense of loss)
- Find meaning
Sharing experiences with others = relief
Increasing self awareness of what you’re feeling
- What does this remind me of?
- Which emotional complexes am I experiencing?
Develop increased emotional connection with natural world
- Importance of images
  - No image showing how humans cause climate change
- Create stories that demonstrate how important nature is
  - Lord of the rings
  - Archetypal “hero” going on journey
Allowing self to imagine a different world

Climate Debate

Not science based, largely personal issues
- Scientists arguing based on laws of nature, people argue based on emotional value
“Gut feelings”/intuition drive decisions

2: Psychology and Global Climate Change: Addressing a Multi-faceted Phenomenon and Set of Challenges, American Psychological Association, 2009

People’s response to risks?

People base decisions on personal experience
- Underestimate effects of occurrences such as floods, hurricanes
See as an issue of the future, not now — while solving the problem will cost them now
See nature as “out of control” of humans

What drives ignorance and inaction?

Unaware
Don’t know what to do
Lack of trust in science
Believe they’re not personally responsible
Have other, more “important” things to do
Believe others or a non human solution will solve problem

How do humans affect the environment?

Population growth and its effects
- Actions taken to account for this (increased food production and farmland, etc)

How to help psychologically?

Analyze behavior
- Individual: ability (income/skill), motivation (connection to nature, understanding of what’s truly needed)
- Contextual: limits to opportunity for action (infrastructure, environment in area), contextual motivation (societal norms, consumerism)

Psychological effects of climate change?

Tangible effects = Increased anxiety
Fear = worsening mental health
Decrease in resources = inter group tension
Possible motivation for change?

How do people respond psychologically?

Try to understand and make sense of whats going on
Blame game
Seek security

Recommended action for psychologists:

Use the shared language and concepts of the climate research

community where possible and explain differences in use of language

between this community and psychology;

Make connections to research and concepts from other social,

engineering, and natural science fields;

Present psychological insights in terms of missing pieces in climate

change analyses;

Present the contributions of psychology in relation to important

challenges to climate change and climate response;

Prioritize issues and behaviors recognized as important climate

change causes, consequences, or responses. Be cognizant of the

possibility that psychological phenomena are context dependent;

Be explicit about whether psychological principles and best practices

have been established in climate-relevant contexts;

Be explicit about whether psychological principles and best practices

have been established in climate-relevant contexts; and

Be mindful of social disparities and ethical and justice issues that

interface with climate change.

Policy recommendations: http://www.apa.org/science/climate-change/policy-recommendations.pdf

3: Hidden Brain Podcasts

June 1 episode: Justifying The Means: What It Means To Treat All Suffering Equally

Philosopher Peter Singer’s morals:

Obligation to give to others, no matter where they are
- “Person behind the curtain idea” – if you would save a person near you, you should have the same commitment to saving someone elsewhere
Sense of personal responsibility
- Singer believes that it’s morally wrong not to give to others when you are able
  - Idea that if it’s morally wrong to walk by a drowning child and not save them, the same applies to children suffering from malaria in another country

Application to climate change: ability to empathize with others – recognizing that climate change is causing problems for others, even if you can’t feel the risks

Personal responsibility
obligation

June 8 episode: Playing Favorites: When Kindness Toward Some Means Callousness Toward Others

2 moral compasses: emotional connection to suffering of those you love VS all people’s suffering counts for the same
- Train moral dilemma: sacrifice 5 people or 1 person you love
  - Dylan Matthews: same philosophy as Singer ^^, would sacrifice 5
  - Hannah Groch-Begley: would sacrifice 5 people she didn’t know over someone she loves
People who feel an emotional connection – have been taught to care more about and protect the people they love
Saving someone from a burning building would be a defining moment in our lives, but we have the same power to save people monetarily every day
- Can’t see it – optics, so it’s not as powerful

Application to climate change:

People don’t have the motivation to care about things they can’t see
Emotional connection causes people to value the lives of those close to them over the lives of others affected by climate change
- Can this be leveraged to influence change?

April 19, 2016 episode: Why Our Brains Weren’t Made To Deal With Climate Change

Alaska’s Mendenhall Glacier: when people see the ice melting, they care much more — tangible effects
- Visitors who come back after years notice that it has visibly receded
  - Usually abstract issue, but now it’s much more palpable
- Some admit climate change is happening but don’t believe humans are causing it
  - Don’t think humans have power over earth

July 22, 2019 episode: Why Facts Aren’t Enough: The Psychology Of False Beliefs

Confirmation bias: tendency to only pay attention to info that confirms your previous beliefs
- presenting facts doesn’t change people’s minds about climate change
Conforming bias: wanting to conform to others beliefs
- This is why if many people in a town ignore climate change, others will as well
Presentation vs fact: people are more likely to believe someone who is kind to them, welcomes them in

Psychology:

Fear = primitive part of brain
- Lack of action, more panic
Humans are cost averse — seek rewards but don’t avoid costs as intentionally
When there’s a clear enemy, it’s easier to fight
- Cellphone tower example = everyone mobilized
- Climate change = who are you “fighting” against?
No incentive to help others in the future if it doesn’t help you in the present
- Mattress example – people driving around it on the highway
Tragedy of the commons:
- Religion – yearning to be part of something: tribe, movement, group
- Need to focus on creating this welcoming social environment for people, not just throwing facts out

4: Interviews (on “Interviews” page)

5: Conversation with Global Warming Skeptic

Notes on Interview

METEOROLOGIST!
- He used to believe the science
Doesn’t think policy is exact solution
Argues using science
- Data centers close to urban areas where heat radiates
Also argues using economic arguments – says economic incentive to support climate change
- Often the argument is made on the other side
Nuance – says global warming exists but causation by humans isn’t clear
Mentions al gore movie and climate gate
Says people are believing LESS now than before
Mentions people not responding well to scare tactics
Does mention he wants change, but just more slow and over time
- This makes me confused – if he still wants change over time, why is he arguing that the issue is “oversold”? Doesn’t that do the opposite of driving change?
- Calls self “pragmatic skeptic”
  - He has solar power on his home and has reduced energy
  - It seems like he wants action but doesn’t like regulation?

My Thoughts on Psychology

Very calm – interviewer is a bit aggressive at times, yet he isn’t being defensive
He uses psychological evidence against climate change: noble cause corruption
He gives a lot of examples of why current initiatives to drive action might not be working?

6: Poll: Public Priorities: Environment vs. Economic Growth, Gallup, 2005

“According to Gallup’s March 2005 environment poll*:

→ slightly more than half of Americans (53%) say protecting the

environment should be given priority “even at the risk of curbing economic growth,”

→ a third (36%) prioritize economic growth “even if the environment suffers to some extent.”

→ Eleven percent say both should be given equal priority or have no opinion.”

Shows that contrary to our beliefs, people have been prioritizing the environment for a long time, even since 2005
However, this poll also shows that ratings fluctuate
- When the economy is good, people prioritize environment
  - Environment always “second” issue — when something else isn’t more pressing/drastic, it gets attention
  - Never can share spotlight with other issues (ex: social justice, economy, etc > environment, not both given attention at once)
  - While this is excusable, at some point, it can’t continue if we want to truly change the environment for good

7: “The Perils of Explaining Climate Inaction in Terms of Psychological Barriers”, March 2020

Psychologists focus too much on individual attitudes and not broader social context
- Perpetuates helplessness bc it seems like inaction is rooted in psychology and unchangeable
- Treating social surroundings as “normal” and not incredibly relevant to attitudes towards climate change while often, they are the driving factors
Upper class has more power for activism
- Psychologists often miss these influences bc they’re so ingrained in society
- Fossil fuel barons = more power
- institutions/government fails to act
  - But psychology focuses instead of the attitudes of individuals, not these institutions
Focusing on shifting individual attitudes within social structure instead of shifting social structure!
- Instead, psychologists should study what societal conditions drive protest movements, etc
Focusing too much on psychological barriers & WITHIN brain = people think problem is unchangeable

8: Don’t Even Think About It: Why Our Brains Are Wired To Ignore Climate Change by George Marshall, 2014

(summary by Jock Gilchrist)

Factors that drive denial

stress/disaster
- disastervictims: avoid talking about climate change in an effort to cope
  - Need hope for future in rebuilding – climate change instead paints a picture of future doom
Confirmation bias
- Extreme weather = confirmation bias
  - If you believe climate change exists, you see it as proven effects
  - If you don’t believe in climate change, you see it as proof that weather is just naturally crazy
- Climate deniers also use the same evidence against climate activists
Context
- Hatred of the people who tell you about climate change
  - Ex: anti government, anti rich, etc
  - Solution: bring more “everyday citizens” out to talk about climate change
    - Also, people who switched from denier to advocate
- Rhetoric: often talked about too much in an “environmental” lens
Social groups
- “Tribalism” vs science: data is ignored when it conflicts with our innate desires to be accepted by a group (ex: climate change deniers)
- Bystander effect: would rather stay safe in social group and live with a lie than potentially have to play devil’s advocate
- Us vs them mentality: abusing opponents (climate scientist stephen schneider)
- Searching for enemies: both activists and deniers looking for scapegoat instead of coming together against climate change
- Social silence: considered taboo to talk about
  - If nobody talks about it, people dont’ actively think about it
Comfort
- Climate change doesn’t feel like a threat because the things causing it are regarded as a normal part of human life
  - Ex: poaching – a person robbing an animal of its tusks doesn’t seem like a normal, acceptable thing, while driving cars is something we all consider routine!
    - “…climate change does not feel frightening unless you actively choose to see it that way.”
“Future” problem
- No gains, only losses in the present (must sacrifice)
- Uncertainty
  - Used to justify inaction
  - Makes it difficult to tackle it with a problem solving mindset
- “When a frog is placed into warm water that slowly rises to a boil, and the frog boils alive. When a frog is tossed into boiling water, it is shocked enough to hop out alive. Climate change is like the first scenario.”
- 2050 seems very far off
  - This is probably why teens/kids care more, bc 2050 is going to be a part of their lifetimes
Emotion
- Amygdala = emotional part of the brain
  - Climate deniers: use amygdala first, then move to rational part of brain (using data to justify emotions) instead of the other way around
    - However, they believe they have begun with the rational part, which makes beliefs seem scientifically grounded
- Emotional numbing (tired of being worried)
- People prefer stories (more engaging, link facts with emotion) over facts
Lack of responsibility
- Would rather deny something exists than have to take action
- Also, people who want to see the world as “fair” are upset that they have to pay the price for something they didn’t do
“Selling” it correctly: “Republicans were five times more willing to pay a 2% climate change surcharge on an airline ticket when it was described as a ‘carbon offset’ than when it was called a ‘carbon tax.’”
- Words like “clean energy” bring positivity to all people
Science is not convincing
- Personal stories are more compelling\

Stories of Attitudes towards Climate Change

Naifah Uzlah, Indonesia:

Comparison to other concepts (physics class)
Presence in poetry/art
Hope – something many lack in the face of climate change

Minh Nguyen, Singapore

Culture of not protesting – very different from US
- Associate with instability (ex hong kong)
Not enough climate activists were willing to be helpful/aware
- Many times, people don’t realize that they’re not giving others the access to resources they need
1 person inspired others
- Often, climate change is seen as an issue where a single person cannot make a difference
Focus on FUTURE
- Human caring for people in the future
- “That when I was sixty years old and watching the news about the latest wildfire, flood or typhoon, a child would ask me what climate change is. And then they’d ask me why no one did anything. I couldn’t look them in the eye and tell them, as adults tell me now, that we couldn’t. I’d know what a lie that is. So I did what I could, even if I didn’t know what that was.”
- Acknowledges uncertainty: “There will be a lot of uncertainty. But if you care, it’s certainly worth trying.”

Anna Siegel, USA

Highlights how crises like pandemic can lead to increased awareness for environment
- Caring about future because of pandemic = caring about future beyond that = environmental awareness
Even just hearing about something briefly from a friend can spark awareness
Also shows how political and environmental beliefs are often shaped by parents and community

9: Discussion between activists and Skeptics

List of People

Activists:

Don: Professor of geology, climate scientist, author
Andrew: studied enviro science, consultant that specializes in eco tourism
Natalie: local govt consultant

Skeptics:

Michael: vP of nonprofit about threats to western civilization
James: physicist/epidemiologist, focuses on academic integrity
Keith: constitutional rights activists
- Concerned about future of next generations

Activists

Andrew looks verys surprised when he hears that james is a scientists
Believe global warming is NUMBER ONE concern
- Don’t prioritize other things over climate change
- Sees climate change as relating to EVERY issue
  - Mentions that homelessness, etc will get worse bc of climate change
  - Relates to public health
Look at big picture
- Andrew (activist) – also has connections
  - Talks about less soil erosion on his farm
  - Talks about long term and big picture
- Natalie: talks about regulation happening bc of long term trends
- Michael: brings up PAST
- Altruistic – focus on choices
Talks about control
- Natalie: You can control your costs
Don: has grandkids, cares about future generations
Andrew = hopeful
- Natalie = NOT IN FEAR!
Natalie – mentions responsiblity

Skeptics

Keith immediately starts out saying he’s concerned about future of next generations – wouldn’t this lead him to be an activist?
- Always stressed RIGHTS
  - Worried about future of RIGHTS of kids
  - Michael worries kids are gonna live in a socialist country
US centric view: says action puts US at econ disadvantage if china & others don’t follow
- Keith – doesn’t like that US blamed by everyone
- Says political agenda infringement on rights
Michael – doesn’t believe humans have caused
- Willing to trust only 1000 scientists who agree with her (and a few she knows) over the 99% that don mentions
  - What makes the scientists she’s talked to more correct than every other scientist?
    - Confirmation bias!!!!
Personal connections to being harmed by regulation
- Don – knows a trucker
- Keith – homeowners not allowed to water laws
- Andrew (activist) – also has connections
  - Talks about less soil erosion on his farm
  - Talks about long term and big picture
Focus on economy
- James – talks about manufacturing jobs in china being taken bc of regulation
- Stress that living eco-friendly expensive
  - Michael mentions high gas prices – how is this eco friendly solutions being expensive
Individualism
- US should focus on self
- Taking from me and giving to others
- Doesn’t like anyone CHOOSING for them – want freedom & constitutional rights
- More opposed to the idea of climate action than to the idea of climate change being real
  - So it’s not as much that they don’t think climate change is a problem, it’s that they don’t want the regulation that comes with action
James: likes idea of energy saving and recycling but NOT bc of climate change
- Likes it bc economy

General

Worry about future: activists focused on environment, skeptics focused on rights of future generations
Framing – how you look at things makes a big difference
- Ex: choice
  - Skeptics believe others are taking their control, activists focus on the choices YOU HAVE to stop climate change
- Funny youtube comment: “”But what about China?” Ah yes. I often teach my kids “Don’t do drugs. Unless the other kids are doing drugs, in which case there’s really no point in not doing drugs.”
  - When you think frame it like this & compare to something else, it seems much more ridiculous
“Socialism” = buzz word
- Immediately incites fear

Skeptics talk about how it affects themselves vs activists talking about how it affects world

Themes I’m seeing overall:

Optics: don’t care about what you can’t see
Emotional and personal connections
Personal responsibility
Individual vs society