Why won't people act on climate change?

In his essay “Why people don’t act on climate change” recently published in New Scientist (23 July 2009), George Marshall makes the observation that despite the vast amount of scientific evidence pointing towards human-induced climate change, a majority of people in the developed world refuse to believe that the world is in fact warming, or else are apathetic to the entire issue. “Opinion polls”, he writes, “have shown that 40 per cent of people in the UK and 50 per cent in the US resolutely refuse to accept that our emissions are changing the climate. Scarcely 10 per cent of Britons regard climate change as a major problem.” Marshall, a climate scientist, notes that even many of his colleagues, those that make a career of studying climate change and its effects, appear unwilling to alter their lifestyles. States Marshall of the matter:

“I do not accept that this continuing rejection of the science is a reflection of media distortion or scientific illiteracy. Rather, I see it as proof of our society’s failure to construct a shared belief in climate change.” (Marshall, 2009)

Marshall is claiming that people reject climate change not due to a misunderstanding of the science behind it, but because there is no solid collective agreement about the issue. He then suggests two ways to help develop a shared belief in climate change: by selecting more trustworthy science communicators and developing a “collective imagination” about global warming.

I find at least three problems with Marshall’s claim, his suggestions to bring about change, and the overall implications of his solutions. First, I find Marshall’s dismissal of misinformation and scientific illiteracy as factors affecting people’s attitudes towards climate change to be contrary to the evidence. Second, his suggestions to bring about a shared belief in climate change are vague and provide little evidence to support their effectiveness. Finally, I consider Marshall’s overall solution to the problem of climate apathy – the generation of a shared belief – to be unrealistic and inappropriate for an issue such as climate change.

Like most of the challenges currently facing humanity, climate change has become a political issue as well as a social and scientific one. Environmentalism and concern about global warming are often considered “liberal” traits, and thus the opinions of many regarding climate change – especially in the United States – are found to be oriented with political affiliation. A quick scan of the main page of Conservapedia , an online conservative encyclopedia , reveals the headline: “While liberals use deceit to promote global warming, hedge fund managers are betting on the coldest winter in a decade.” In statements such as this, scientific accuracy (the difference between weather and climate) is disregarded so that the political message can be made clear. Those who adhere to such political views then readily accept the misinformation. Another source of distortion is industry. Journalist Bill McKibben writes:

“The energy sector needed to stall for time, so its investments in oil fields and the like could keep on earning for their theoretical lifetimes. The strategy turned out to be simple: Cloud the issue as much as possible so that voters...would have no...reason to move climate change to the top of their agendas.” (McKibben, 2005)

The media itself, in the interest of gaining an audience, has also contributed to the problem by exaggerating disagreements among climate scientists and devoting a disproportionate amount of time to the views of climate change denialists. It by now be clear that, contrary to Marshall’s claim, the deliberate distortion of the scientific truth has contributed greatly to the public’s understanding of climate change.

George Marshall argues that the development of a shared belief is the best way to incite action on climate change, and suggests two ways to it: make communicators between the scientists and the public more trustworthy, and establish a “collective imagination” about climate change. Given Marshall’s claim, these are worthwhile suggestions, but unfortunately he does little to flesh them out. Trustworthiness is an obvious requirement for convincing others, and Marshall does of an admirable job of listing the qualities that make an individual trustworthy. He recommends that climate scientists be more willing to pass on their information to more talented promoters, and singles out the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) as an organization in need of charismatic representatives. However, no more specific ideas are put forth, leaving one wondering who exactly could fill the position (Al Gore comes to mind). Marshall’s second suggestion is that the public build a “collective imagination” and consider the future of a warmer world. This rather vague concept is not elaborated upon, and to describe how it may be brought about, Marshall only mentions collaboration between scientists and artists to appeal to peoples’ emotions. Neither preposition is supported by any examples of the methods succeeding in the past, nor do they contain any evidence suggesting whether or not they could be effective. After reading, one is left with the feeling that, while he has practical suggestions, Marshall has little idea as to how to carry them out, and as a result, his whole argument appears weak.

My final comment concerning Marshall’s essay is his overall assertion that a shared belief in climate change is necessary in order to bring about action. I consider this strategy to be unsuitable for the matter at hand. Marshall acknowledges that the term “belief” will not be liked by many scientists, but maintains that, despite scientific evidence, a person’s views will always be determined by their personal world view. Marshall’s world view, which he attempting to convert the general public to, is one that “respects scientists and empirical evidence”. It seems inappropriate then, that a thought structure based upon objectivity and rational inquiry should have to win converts through an appeal to emotions, as implied by Marshall. Science should not have to appeal to the emotions to make a convincing case, or it may run the risk of becoming less objective and more subject to personal opinions. In other words, science should exist independent of belief, and so a campaign of the kind proposed by Marshall, the development of a shared belief system, is inappropriate. The establishment of a shared belief system should also be considered an unrealistic expectation, for it contradicts natural human tendencies. Marshall’s vision is essentially a society dedicated to the common good, which is realistically unlikely. Climate change is a gradual process, and the full effects of global warming may take a lifetime to become fully pronounced. Why should people be expected to sacrifice their comfortable lifestyles, if there is any immediate danger to their well-being, or any immediate rewards for doing so? “If climate change does not affect me personally, materially, or directly, why should I care?” reads a letter published in a subsequent issue of New Scientist in response to Marshall’s essay, “For the record, I don’t.” With attitudes like this, often bolstered by a misunderstanding of climate change propagated by the media, it seems inconceivable that Marshall’s shared belief could actually be achieved.

George Marshall has accomplished a courageous task in explicitly addressing the prevailing attitudes of apathy and denial with regards to climate change, even amongst his own peers. However, Marshall’s solution to the problem lacks specificity, and it does not cite successful previous applications of the methods, nor does it address misinformation as a major contributor to public opinion. Were I a perplexed layperson reading this essay hoping to gain insight into the complex matter of climate change, I would likely be dismayed. I would note that even the experts seem unwilling to act on climate change and, although there is the framework of a solution, it has not been fully fleshed out. Upon further reflection, I may realize that Marshall’s proposal of a shared belief is both unscientific and not a realistically attainable goal. Marshall’s essay “Why people don’t act on climate change” has made a first step towards a solution for climate apathy and denialism, but until that solution is more fully developed, the current sad state will remain: that when it comes to climate change, people just don’t care.

References

Conservapedia: The Trustworthy Encyclopedia. http://www.conservapedia.com. Accessed 29 September 2009.

Dixon, Tom (2009). Climate of apathy. New Scientist, 13 August 2009. http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20327210.100-climate-of-apathy.html. Accessed 23 July 2009.

Marshall, George (2009). Why people don’t act on climate change. New Scientist, 23 July 2009. http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20327185.900-comment-why-dont-people-believe-in-climate-change.html. Accessed 29 September 2009.

MicKibben, Bill (2005). Climate of denial. Mother Jones, May/June 2005. http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2005/05/climate-denial. Accessed 29 September 2009.