The Climate Engagement Conundrum 2 – internal barriers to action

Appearances can be deceiving

If people are worried about climate change and want action, why is so little happening? The answer, it turns out, begins not with governments or corporations, but with something closer to home. We have seen how despite near universal awareness,  acceptance and desire for action on the climate change crisis, effective responses which actually make a difference are foundering or even going into reverse. Critical policies to support the uptake of electric vehicles, support for renewables and heat pumps to replace the carbon pollution from fossil fuels are stalling across the western world from UK to the EU to the US and beyond.

This might appear to be the case of living it up today and let tomorrow take care of itself mentality. But this would be a mistake and is in fact very far from the truth of the matter. There exists a large amount of climate anxiety, simply defined as people’s feelings of anxiety or worry related to climate change, suggesting the opposite to be the case; predominantly, unsurprisingly perhaps, for younger people.

 Almost 9 in 10 younger people surveyed reported being at least moderately worried about climate change and more than half were either very or extremely worried. And overall based on a 2022 UK Office of National Statistics survey, 62% of the total population were worried that rising temperatures will directly affect them by or before 2030.

It is important to try to understand the underlying causes for this mismatch to begin to deal with lack of commitment or engagement at the heart of the climate conundrum. This strange hesitancy or reluctance which is effectively stalling real climate action even as the impacts and risks posed by a heating world begin to significantly and visibly mount from extreme floods to devastating droughts already causing widespread damage.

Two pronged obstacles:

I believe that the answer to this is in fact two pronged: first, internal, personal values and  psychological obstacles within people which is  reinforced by second,  external deliberate obstacles devised by vested interests (chiefly oil majors and their lobbies) which are intended to sap people of their initiative to make the changes needed.

Both sets of factors separately and indeed mutually reinforcing each other to become an even more entrenched resistance, almost despite itself, to the general stated desire for climate action. This combination of internal and external factors have been very successful in dampening people’s commitment to take the steps necessary to resolve the climate problem.

 A problem that it is commonly acknowledged to be well within our technical and financial capabilities to resolve. But one that requires urgent radical transformation of the global economy away from fossil fuels which  gives us a clue to the real issues at hand.

For that transformation to take hold and carry through as a social tipping point requires the recognition and affirmative support from people, exactly what these obstacles displace and weaken.

In this article, I will consider the internal barriers to effective climate action and in the following article, I will look further at the external barriers and how they interconnect and are mutually reinforced. A clear understanding of these two factors is vital if the climate engagement conundrum is to be unravelled and in the case of our internal barriers effectively addressed and in the case of the external deliberate obstacles, neutered.

Personal Values:

People rightly value their autonomy and freedom to choose what to do or not to do. It is also probably fair to say that people tending to support more conservative, right wing policies tend to be more suspicious of or indeed outright reject what is perceived as Government control or interference with their choices.

 An article in the   American  Bulletin of Atomic Scientists puts it well  in presenting  the  attitude of  the ‘Uncle Pete’ at a family gathering  who brings up over dinner the familiar lines about climate change being totally natural and not connected to the burning of fossil fuels by humans at all. The article highlights that people’s views on climate science and policy is often driven more by their underlying values than intending to make a serious scientific point – in fact the article indicates that for many contrarians, like Pete, the climate change issue is not a scientific issue at all:

‘For Uncle Pete, attacking climate science and scientists is simply a disguise for what concerns him, which is the prospect of liberals and environmentalists dominating policy, and of a government spinning out of control, a government that in Pete’s view seizes power, limits freedoms, increases taxes, regulates markets, and diminishes prosperity.’

Perceptions and Priorities:

Costs –

Another perhaps obvious but important factor in people’s resistance to climate change action is the perception of its cost, convenience and overall fairness. These are of course legitimate and important concerns but are often exploited and distorted to present an incorrect or biased presentation of the actual facts.

 One common example is the cost of renewables, particularly when combined with an appeal to values.  The recent article from Net Zero Watch : ‘The Greenlash is here’ links renewable energy with higher costs and asserts that the issue of energy costs is  becoming a matter of democratic stability. The truth of the matter is a much more nuanced and itself an involved subject, but the article achieves its purpose by appealing to these important values of affordability and freedom (democracy) without explicitly making the argument at all.

The climate engagement analysis organisation, Climate Outreach, puts this perception problem very starkly talking about the ‘Net Zero’ climate framing:

‘…it is a term that is being effectively weaponised by an increasingly vocal opposition who are taking aim at net zero ambitions as part of an costly, ‘elitist’ agenda, a culture war wedge issue, “un-British,” which is disconnected from people’s daily lives, and a burden on households already struggling to cope.’

It advocates rowing back from ‘lofty targets’ and focusing more on what actually matters to people. This may well be right in terms of what is important to people but it implicitly concedes that climate change is not in fact a real priority for people or at least that there are more immediate and important ones that take priority.

Personally, I am not convinced that this softly, softly approach is the best way to go in terms of climate engagement at this critical juncture. But it highlights exactly the problem of climate action coming to the fore – people may believe in climate change and the need for action in isolation but that appears to be immediately relegated in importance compared to more immediate concerns.

Out of touch with everyday concerns?

The allegation of elitism is a stinging one where people who are concerned about climate are treated as wealthy and out of touch with real live issues. This is an allegation that Eamon Ryan experienced, the former Irish Green Party leader and minister for the Environment, before the party lost all but one of its seats  in the last general elections including his own.

Although rightly proud of his achievements by expanding the public transport network while cutting young people’s bus fares by 60%, resulting in rocketing user figures; expanding home solar power installations and driving forward the EU nature restoration laws. But opposition mounted; to cycle lanes for clogging the roads and the ban on peat cutting as an attack on tradition rather than being regarded as a positive step and  benefit in terms of clean air,  nature protection and reduction of GHG emissions.

The quote from Ryan in the Guardian article is interesting: Despite climate ranking low in every survey of voters’ priorities before the recent election, we now have detailed research that shows that the vast majority of Irish people want to be part of the climate solution. Less than 5% are what you might call climate sceptics.

That may very well be so, but it also looks very much like the climate engagement conundrum restated, particularly as the Irish electorate took the first opportunity to dump the Green party out of office for policies that were, from a climate and environmental perspective, excellent. An illustration if ever there was one of a broad but shallow commitment to climate action!

This is a sobering lesson for those committed to climate action, which is further brought home by surveys which suggest that people are willing to take action such as recycling or supporting cheaper public transport provided it does not impact on their lifestyles too much such as restrictions on flying, eating meat or driving which are much less popular.

Silos and Echo-chambers –

Uncle Pete in the example above wasn’t going to be convinced by scientists who as a profession he was distrustful of because the implications of what they were saying conflicted with his own views and values. Regularly on LinkedIn and the like, I have experienced people pushing back against the scientific basis for climate change by labelling it ‘the new religion’; ignoring that their fixed views without a good science basis and despite all the evidence to the contrary is more exactly that!

However more and more we live in the echo chambers of our own communities, reinforced by selective news feeds and only exchanging information with people of our own persuasions where the opinions are reinforced by comfortable repetition and  truth itself becomes almost irrelevant – what has come to be known as ‘the post truth age’.

One informative study teases out the dynamic at play and its implications – referring to trend in recent years where peoples connections  increase through social media but the diversity of views within the group actually diminishes; it comments:

“Polarization has always existed, but what is happening now goes far beyond historical patterns. Greater connectivity has led to the formation of fewer but more tightly-knit groups with strongly differing opinions, between which there is hardly any exchange.”

The article talks of the danger of this isolation of thinking and fragmentation and comments where there are few bridges between these bubbles and when they do exist, they are negative, even hostile and warns ominously ‘that when groups can no longer talk to each other these democratic processes break down’.

Internal Psychological Biases: 

Optimism bias –

Even if Uncle Pete didn’t have a strong anti-science frame of mind  he, in common with very many of us, is probably wary of change; especially transformational change with likely economic, social and political upheaval thrown in!

We tend to like things as they are and are inclined to believe that the world will continue very much as it always has, at least in our relatively peaceful lifetimes.

 It is called a  normalcy or optimism  bias, a frame of mind that minimises the danger of  serious harm  occurring whilst also overestimating the likelihood of positive outcomes.  This ‘laid-back’ attitude can result in a dangerously unwarranted perspective that things will always continue as they have done and turn out right in the end; resulting in denial, poor planning or lack of urgency. Exactly the things that the world needs now in terms of climate change!

An individual writer, Johnny Silverhands, has written a long, considered, and deeply disturbing article; Collapsing Now, Gone in 2030 where he examines the available scientific evidence relating to critical climate change factors and potential tipping points. The purpose of his article is to correct against this normalcy bias which he argues is not only present in the ordinary person on the street but also pervades the way scientific evidence itself is presented, for fear of being too alarming that people will simply not accept it.

The conclusions he draws are stark in terms of the risks of system breakdown and failures which he considers are consistently underestimated.   He states:

‘at the root to this entire document is a fear from the author that everyone else isn’t afraid enough. That the human race is so avoidant of fear (or perhaps attracted to safety) that we have pushed it away when it should be closer. That we’re refusing to admit our ignorance. So that’s a good place to start. It also happens to be the foundation of empirical science.’

Psychological distancing –

Psychological distancing is another type of bias in which people consider that they are separate in either time or distance or even protected by their wealth from the danger of climate change and so discount the risk and the need for concrete action.

This phenomenon is addressed directly in the article ‘Most people believe climate change primarily affects others’. It reports studies which consistently report that participants rate their own exposure to extreme weather and other risks as lower than the average risk. It reports that ‘even when people recognise the real risks posed by climate change, many seem to perceive these risks as primarily affecting others’.

As the article laconically concludes: ‘the perception may reduce individual’s willingness to act and slow down necessary climate measures’.

Indeed, which is the whole thrust and focus of this article how people seek to avoid what is uncomfortable, inconvenient and more costly at least in the short term.

Even more pointed, it appears that when exposed to extreme weather events, people are very slow to attribute the event to climate changes, at least publicly,  and disperse blame and responsibility to the people coordinating the recovery rather than stopping to consider the underlying causes of the event. 

But this it seems also has a lot to do with the media presents the climate issue which is itself heavily influenced by the fossil fuel industry to distort and distract. Something that we will return to look at in more depth in the next article on the Climate Engagement Conundrum!

Conclusion:

But it seems the case from the analysis in this article that any meaningful effort to engage people in order to take effective climate action,  action that can impact on people’s personal lifestyle choices and may be more inconvenient or even costly (at least in the short term), needs to deal directly with these internal factors.

What this article makes clear is that effective climate action must reckon honestly with real human concerns: the desire to resist government control; the weight of cost on people who are already stretched; the sting of being told what to do by those who seem out of touch with day to day realities; the echo chambers that reinforce doubt; and our deep-seated tendency to assume the future will look after itself. These are not excuses — they are the terrain that any serious climate movement must learn to navigate and engage directly on.

In the next article we will look at how this challenge, significant in itself is being made all the more difficult by the deliberate exploitation of these internal factors by a fossil fuel industry complex, determined to prevent its own apparent demise or pivot. A dual challenge that has stymied effective climate action but which now is critically urgent to break through.