While a recent survey showed that 3 quarters of Americans believe something should be done about climate change, getting them off their butts to do anything is entirely another story. Check out this interesting exploration of the psychology behind climate change on Solve Climate. The most interesting excerpt from the article that we found:
At the heart of the challenge is reframing the issue. Frames are “mental structures that shape the way we see the world,” explains George Lakoff, a professor of cognitive linguistics at the University of California-Berkeley.
Reframing an issue doesn’t just mean using a different set of terms, such as “deteriorating atmosphere” instead of “global warming” — it’s a much more comprehensive shift in perspective. When targeting a specific audience, climate change needs to be reframed according to the values and concerns of that particular group.
To reach the broader public, Lakoff stresses eight concepts that need to be repeated over and over until they are part of the public’s common understanding.
We are all part of nature — it is not outside of us, and the destructive exploitation of nature is evil. “Nature has been seen as a resource for people’s short term gain rather than as a nurturer for us and for future generations. But it is part of us … it is inside of us as we breathe the air, drink the water and eat our food,” Lakoff said.
The economic and ecological meltdowns have the same root — the idea that unregulated greed is good.
The ecological system is a global one that is affected by many different elements. Thus people need to realize that their actions might cause climate change effects in other parts of the world, and that what happens in other parts of the world can affect us as well.
The right wing’s argument that it will cost too much to save Earth is faulty; if Earth goes, business goes.
It is not just the polar bears that are endangered – all of human existence is threatened
We all own the air, and corporations are polluting our air; they need to be stopped.
Even the most effective emissions cap will not be sufficient; large corporations need to join the effort.
The cost-benefit analysis is the wrong paradigm for thinking about global warming because it is only accurate when calculating short-term gain for a given purpose. It cannot calculate the long-term value of sustainable measures.
And from Grist, Adam D. Sacks argues that the solution to climate change lies not with science or carbon targets, but with changing cultural attitudes and behaviour. We tend to agree with his line of thinking:
In the 20 years since we climate activists began our work in earnest, the state of the climate has become dramatically worse, and the change is accelerating—this despite all of our best efforts. Clearly something is deeply wrong with this picture. What is it that we do not yet know? What do we have to think and do differently to arrive at urgently different outcomes?[1]
The answers lie not with science, but with culture.
Climate activists are obsessed with greenhouse-gas emissions and concentrations. Since global climate disruption is an effect of greenhouse gases, and a disastrous one, this is understandable. But it is also a mistake.
Such is the fallacy of climate activism[2]: We insist that global warming is merely a consequence of greenhouse-gas emissions. Since it is not, we fail to tell the truth to the public.
I think that there are two serious errors in our perspectives on greenhouse gases:
The first error is our failure to understand that greenhouse gases are not a cause but a symptom, and addressing the symptom will do little but leave us with a devil’s sack full of many other symptoms, possibly somewhat less rapidly lethal but lethal nonetheless.
...
The second error is our stubborn unwillingness to understand that the battle against greenhouse-gas emissions, as we have currently framed it, is over.
From there Mr. Sacks starts getting quite contraversial. We'd highly recommend reading on.