Running head: THE CLIMATE GAME: WHY ARENT WE ACTING? LETS TALK PSYCHOLOGY.

The Climate Game: Why Arent We Acting? Lets Talk Psychology.

Anne E. Wade
UWRT 1103
12 December 9 November 2016

THE CLIMATE GAME: WHY ARENT WE ACTING? LETS TALK PSYCHOLOGY.

Imagine for a moment an average, middle-class American. This person lives in a nice
neighborhood in a nice suburb near a major city. He has 2.5 children, a white picket fence, and a
dog named Gerald who fetches the newspaper for him every morning. He lives a very happy
existence and very much enjoys his nearly perfect life. Theres only one problem; this poor soul
is worried about climate change. He hears about it on the news and occasionally thinks about the
implications of his gas-guzzling vehicle or his lack of willingness to recycle. He thinks about
climate change regularly, and he worries that it will affect his childrens lives after he is gone, yet
nothing in his nearly perfect life changes. If this story sounds at all familiar, its probably
because it is. Most Americans believe that climate change is happening, but few are acting on the
information that they are given. The question then remains, why? Why arent we acting on the
problem of climate change? Why is this problem, despite its dire repercussions, ignored by the
general public? Climate change is changing the world and has the potential to impact everyone
on Earth, from our hypothetical American and his dog to the poorest children in Africa. Inaction
is a problem; so how can it be explained? The solution might lie in the realm of psychology. In
fact, in todays modern and changing world, climate change inaction and psychology are, in
many ways, inexorably linked. Biases, biology, and a wisdom deficit might just explain
inaction, but cannot, under any circumstances, excuse it (Balukjian, 2014).
Humanity has a problem, a very serious problem concerning the planet on which they
reside. It is a problem that is currently wreaking havoc and will continue to cause problems for
future generations of people if it is ignored. This problem could cause widespread deaths and
could change the future into something that is unrecognizable to the people of todays world.
This problem is a direct result of careless actions taken by a careless society in which everything
(and everyone) is disposable. This problem has been studied for years by scientists across the

THE CLIMATE GAME: WHY ARENT WE ACTING? LETS TALK PSYCHOLOGY.

planet, and the majority of them agree that this problem needs a solution; it needs action and
awareness as soon as possible. Unfortunately, many people, in the United States and across the
world want to ignore this problem, push it to the side until it is far too late. The most important
question is perhaps how is the problem solved?, but the more interesting question is why?
Why is this problem, despite its dire repercussions, ignored by the general public? The problem
is climate change, but the solution is psychology. In fact, in todays modern and changing world
climate change inaction and psychology are inexorably linked. Biases, biology, and a wisdom
deficit might just explain inaction, but cannot, under any circumstances, excuse it (Balukjian,
2014).
First and foremost, biases, an inherent part of perception, must be understood in order to
tackle the issue of climate change inaction. In his article Why Do Many Reasonable People
Doubt Science? National Geographic writer Joel Achenbach investigates the psychological and
social reasons that the public rejects sound scientific discoveries. Achenbach cites confirmation
bias as one of the main contributors to climate change inaction (Achenbach, 2015).
Confirmation bias is a well-known psychological principle that which states that humans tend to
look only towards sources of information that provide evidence for their already established
systems of belief. Confirmation bias is the main contributor to everything from climate change
denial to the deluded beliefs of anti-vaxxers who attribute rising autism rates to routine
vaccinations. Confirmation bias is everywhere. From an evolutionary standpoint, confirmation
bias makes total and complete sense. Animals need to make quick judgments about the world
around them, and then need to be able to quickly sort information into categories of good and
bad, relative to their surroundings. This need to affirm what is already considered to be true is

THE CLIMATE GAME: WHY ARENT WE ACTING? LETS TALK PSYCHOLOGY.

inherent, and is a basic part of psychology that must be combatted as it relates to climate change
inaction.
Confirmation bias might be the driving force behind the general public clinging to
outdated studies that disprove climate change, but the concept of in-group/out-group bias is
likely to be one of the root causes of actual inaction. According to scientists Dominic Johnson
and Simon Levin, this stick with the status quo bias is what really encourages people to remain
inactive. This theory suggests that human beings value their place within an established group
to the point that they are willing to do almost anything to avoid losing their status amongst the
other group members. Humans, much like many tribal animals, do not want to be forced to
leave the group because of some new opinion or belief. Also, this theory states that people that
are considered to be members of the in-group are desirable while members of the out-group
are considered undesirable. In todays world, climate change inaction is promoted by the ruling
majority (the in group). This in-group makes it popular to focus ones attention on other
more pressing matters, rather than what many consider to be a far-off and fairly ridiculous
concept. One who desires to be a member of the in-group, or is considered a member already,
will not risk the negative attention of his or her peers by acting in a way that is outside the norm
(for example, recycling on a regular basis or driving an unattractive electric car). This bias is
dangerous because it is rooted in the inherent desire to belong and to be needed in a group
setting.

A desire for belonging is not the only issue driving inaction; misunderstanding also
plays an important role. In his article, Why Are We Reluctant to Act Immediately on Climate
Change? From Ontological Assumptions to Core Cognition, Xiang Chen argues that climate

THE CLIMATE GAME: WHY ARENT WE ACTING? LETS TALK PSYCHOLOGY.

change inaction is based on a misunderstanding of the basic scientific facts surrounding the
topic. He claims that this misunderstanding is based on a belief that heat is a material-like
object (Chen, 2014, p.580). This object bias causes human beings to view climate change in a
way that is very different from actual fact (Chen, 2014). Chen believes that inaction is directly
related to misunderstanding. In fact, Chen relates that many students (even graduate students at
MIT) do not understand the complex workings of the earth on which they reside. Instead, they
believe that the earth works like a basic machine with an input and an output that is
instantaneous. They forget that all systems of the earth are interconnected and hard to predict.
This object bias, the belief that complex earth systems are as simple as a toaster, causes many
people to underreact to the news that the earth is warming (Chen, 2014). People suffering from
Chens object bias tend to believe that immediate action should have an immediate impact.
They believe that the problems caused by years of pollution can be solved by one year (or
perhaps two) of minute changes. This belief drives people to put off changing their habits now
simply because they believe that they will have the same impact twenty years into the future.
One final bias that likely drives climate change inaction is the infamous fundamental
attribution error. Mentioned by Johnson and Levin in their brilliant paper The Tragedy of
Cognition: Psychological Biases and Environmental Inaction, this bias is related to one of the
most interesting parts of human interaction: ; perception of motivation. The fundamental
attribution error describes a situation in which one person believes that another is acting out of
internal malice without considering the external factors. This error also causes people to attribute
their own actions to situational constraints such as limited choices, necessity, or competing
concerns (Johnson and Levin, 2009, p.1598). In terms of climate change inaction, the
fundamental attribution error can cause average people to view actions by the government or

THE CLIMATE GAME: WHY ARENT WE ACTING? LETS TALK PSYCHOLOGY.

individual organizations (such as raising taxes or imposing carbon limits) as self-serving, fueled
by evil intent, while their own inaction is fueled by necessity. According to Johnson and Levin,
this kind of bias is most often seen when undue emphasis is placed on the behavior of others,
rather than the ability of the single individual to eaffect change (Johnson and Levin, 2009,
p.1598). This bias is rooted in the human inability to truly view other people with the same
complexity with which they view themselves. It is far easier to place people and ideas into
simple black and white categories. Unfortunately, the world exists in shades of grey.
Thus far, only the cognitive, social, and industrial aspects of psychology have been
applied to the problem of climate change inaction, but it is impossible to truly understand human
behavior and motivation without studying the biological processes that play an important role.
Human beings tend to believe that they make generally rational choices based on the availability
of information. In fact, many political scientists and economists still like to believe that humans
generally make the best and most logical choices available to them. Recently, many scientists
(including Johnson and Levin) have claimed that human behavior is inherently irrational and
illogical. Humans do not make decisions like machines. Rather, they make their choices based on
a number of irrational factors, including inherent biases and basic biology.
One driving aspect of the human experience is sensory perception. Without the five
senses, human beings have no way to make sense of the world around them. Sight, touch, smell,
taste, and hearing impact human motivation greatly because our need to survive is rooted in our
ability to understand our environments. The problem with human reliance on sensory perception
is that, in the words of Johnson and Levin, the machinery of the brain does not fully react to
something until we detect it in the flesh (Johnson and Levin, 2009, p.1595). Thus, one of the
driving aspects of climate change inaction is a lack of direct, sensory experience with the impacts

THE CLIMATE GAME: WHY ARENT WE ACTING? LETS TALK PSYCHOLOGY.

of climate change. In their article Mind the Gap: Why Do People Act Environmentally and
What Are the Barriers to Pro-environmental Behavior?, researchers Anja Kollmuss and Julian
Agyeman cite four main reasons for the differences between attitude and behavior as it pertains
to climate change. One of these reasons is direct versus indirect experiences with the
researchers even going so far as to say that learning about climate change in a classroom setting
is very different from seeing the dead fish in the river (Kollmuss and Agyeman, 2002, p.242).
Sensory perception alone is not entirely responsible for differences between attitude and
behavior as it pertains to climate change; the human tendency to stereotype also plays an
important role. In his book Brain: The Complete Mind: How it Develops, How it Works, and
How to Keep it Sharp, author Michael Sweeney (2009) argues that the brain often simplifies
perceptions to get through the day; stereotypes lead to expectations about the world (p.253).
The brain needs to be able to stereotype in order to maintain sanity. If the brain considered every
aspect of every moment to be vital to an individual, then the individual would adsorb too much
information and would be unable to make important, even life-saving, decisions. Stereotyping is
done in order to protect the brain from a catastrophic information overload that could have
negative consequences for the individual involved. Unfortunately, this system of easy
categorization leaves the brain in a difficult situation with topics that are too complex to be easily
sorted or easily ignored. Climate change is a large and complex issue with far-reaching effects
and the research surrounding it contains large amounts of scientific data that is often too complex
for the average person. In order to avoid the headache of attempting to understand and rationalize
all of the available information, the brain simplifies the issue, placing it in a neat little folder that
can be accessed later. This basic aspect of neurology (based on the lazy brain theory), is the
root cause of Chens object bias. The brain does not have the time or the energy to attempt to

THE CLIMATE GAME: WHY ARENT WE ACTING? LETS TALK PSYCHOLOGY.

understand all of the complex aspects of climate change, so it simplifies, and thus causes climate
change inaction. If the brain does not label a concept as important to survival, it is unlikely that it
will ever be accessed, or even truly investigated, again. For example, many people tend to deny
climate change and justify climate change inaction because of evidence such as record snowfalls
across the U.S. This is an oversimplification of the issue at hand. More snow does not necessarily
have any bearing on the very real problem of climate change.
Sweeney (2009) also argues that human memory is inherently unreliable and is easily
shaped by the power of suggestion (p.253). Sweeney claims that the power of suggestion can
cause people to believe in something that is irrational or even unrealistic based simply on a
suggestion from a trusted figure. Sweeney relates that in experiments subjects have been
convinced of events that never even occurred with relative ease (p.254). This elasticity of the
brain allows human beings to create their own narratives concerning the world around them. The
brain even goes so far as to convince an individual that their perception of a situation is the only
correct one, leading to problems like the fundamental attribution error and confirmation bias.
This problem concerning unreliable memories is related to the concept of climate change
inaction through the ever-complicated world of politics. In todays world, the issue of climate
change has been increasingly politicized (especially in the United States) with liberals often
siding with the view that climate change is happening and conservatives condemning it as false.
The constant barrage of experts filling the airways with information about climate change
could cause people to be influenced by the power of suggestion. People could begin to believe
that they had reached certain conclusions about climate change on their own while, in reality,
they had simply been stated by someone with little experience or knowledge in the field.

THE CLIMATE GAME: WHY ARENT WE ACTING? LETS TALK PSYCHOLOGY.

Ignorance is not bliss. In fact, according to Brad Balukjian (2014), a writer for PBSs
Nova Next, a wisdom deficit is responsible for the general publics distrust of the scientific
discoveries surrounding climate change (Balukjian, 2014). This "wisdom deficit" describes a
situation in which people act as if they understand something, but have done no actual research.
People act as if they understand what the term "climate change" describes, but often they have
been misinformed (perhaps due to the politicization of the topic) or they are confused by
information that they cannot understand. In fact, this wisdom deficit even causes people to ignore
important information that they view as too complex. Driven perhaps by inherent biases and
basic biology, this wisdom deficit is the most likely contributor to climate change inaction.
Action cannot be taken on a subject that is not understood by the majority of the public. The
politicization of the topic of climate change in public discourse discourages the research and
rational discussion that is needed for positive action.
Does the American public even have an understanding of the risks surrounding climate
change? Researchers connected with the Yale University Project on Climate Change
Communication conducted a nationwide survey to find out. Overall, 61% of those surveyed had
given little or no thought to how global warming might affect people's health (Maibach,
Kreslake, Roser-Renouf, Rosenthal, Feinberg, and Leiserowitz, 2015). On a more personal level,
of respondents in Jackson County, North Carolina (my hometown, and perhaps a better
representative sample of common America than liberal, wealthy, and diverse Charlotte), 58%
replied that they thought that climate change was happening. Only 45% of Jackson County
respondents attributed climate change to human actions and 48% replied that they were worried
about climate change. Surprisingly, 58% of respondents from Jackson County replied that they

THE CLIMATE GAME: WHY ARENT WE ACTING? LETS TALK PSYCHOLOGY.

10

believed that climate change would negatively impact future generations (Maibach, Kreslake,
Roser-Renouf, Rosenthal, Feinberg, and Leiserowitz, 2015).
So. How is this problem solved, then? Discussions and data are all good and well, but
what about taking action? In the end, the answers to this problem might lie, like most problems,
in the realm of education. The wisdom deficit can only be overcome by information. This
information must be concentrated and presented in a way that is as clear and concise as possible
while also being correct. So how could this be done? One method might involve creating a
program, much like the drugs and alcohol programs in schools now, that emphasize the dangers
of climate change. These programs could be implemented in public and private schools. There
could also be a push for getting information to the general public through one simplified
government website, with downloadable PDFs of information that can be distributed. New
climate legislation could be introduced that encourages people to drive electric cars, and new
taxes on big oil companies could decrease their power over the market and the global
conversation. Overall, just like climate change itself, inaction is a problem that has many causes
and no easy solution, but it is important to remember that we, the general population, do have
some power. Through education and reform we have the ability to fight back against the easy
complacency of inaction.
In the end, is there hope that the problem of climate change will be resolved? Is there a
positive future for climate action ahead despite the problems of inherent biases, biology, and
knowledge deficits? In terms of understanding, human beings are closer now than ever to
comprehending the reasons behind action and inaction. With the knowledge obtained from the
study of basic psychology perhaps it is possible to approach the problem of climate change
inaction with voices of reason rather than anger. There is no place in this debate for political

THE CLIMATE GAME: WHY ARENT WE ACTING? LETS TALK PSYCHOLOGY.

11

remarks thrown in the hopes of causing maximum damage to the opposing side. Climate change
is not an issue that can be ignored any longer, despite the tendencies of the lazy brain or the
influence of various biases. Climate change must be addressed for the problem that it is, in a way
that can impact the greatest number of people in the kindest manner possible. Biases, biology,
and knowledge deficits have separated people for far too long. It is now time to accept the
reasons for inaction and move past them. It is time to stand up for the future of the planet on
which all of humanity resides. Earth is only one planet, but its the only planet that we have. On
it lie the hopes, dreams, and futures of generations of human beings, those who exist now and
those who have yet to be born. We have an obligation to stand up and fight, despite biases,
politics, or sheer laziness. This is our planet. We only have one shot to get this right.

THE CLIMATE GAME: WHY ARENT WE ACTING? LETS TALK PSYCHOLOGY.

12

References
Achenbach, J. (2015, March 15). Why Do Many Reasonable People Doubt Science? Retrieved
October 13, 2016, from http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2015/03/sciencedoubters/achenbach-text
Balukjian, B. (2014, November 19). Why Doesn't Everyone Believe Humans Are Causing
Climate Change? Retrieved October 13, 2016, from
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/next/earth/climate-change-acceptance/
Chen, X. (2014). Why are we reluctant to act immediately on climate change? From ontological
assumptions to core cognition. Perspectives on Science, 22(4), 574-592.
Johnson, D., & Levin, S. (2009). The tragedy of cognition: Psychological biases and
environmental inaction. Current Science, 97(11), 1593-1603. Retrieved January 6, 2016,
from Science Reference Center.
Kollmuss, A., & Agyeman, J. (2002). Mind the gap: Why do people act environmentally and
what are the barriers to pro-environmental behavior?. Environmental Education
Research, 8(3), 239-260.
Maibach, E., Kreslake, J., Roser-Renouf, C., Rosenthal, S., Feinberg, G, & Leiserowitz, A.
(2015) Do Americans understand that global warming is harmful to human health?
Evidence from a National Survey. Annals of Global Health, 81, 396-409. DOI:
10.1016/j.aogh.2015.08.010.
Sweeney, M. (2009). Brain: The Complete mind: How it develops, how it works, and how to
keep it sharp. Washington, D.C.: National Geographic.