My daughter
and her generation have been given a life sentence for a crime they did not
commit. Mark
Hertsgaard
During the three US presidential debates there was
just one fleeting reference to climate change. Clearly, the state of the planet
was not a major issue with voters. One month later with Washington gripped and
gridlocked and alarm bells sounding all over the country, the US inched towards
the “fiscal cliff.” Inexplicably, nobody seems to care as the country
sleepwalks over the “climate cliff.” At least, lemmings go over a cliff with
their eyes wide open.
Likewise in Canada, the environment is a political
non-issue. Prior to the last election, a well known political advisor remarked
in the National Post that the major
parties had all concluded that “the environment is quite possibly a dangerous
issue.” It must have been “dangerous” because the environment hardly came up
for air in the election campaign. In the same article, a senior polling
executive stated that “you can’t run an election nowadays on the environment.”
There is no perceptible difference between Canada –
its moral monopoly long gone – and the US regarding environmental values,
greenhouse gas (ghg) emissions and ecofootprints: just indifference. The
inertia is overwhelming and the lethargy is pervasive continent-wide,
punctuated only by lame lamentations about the impact of global warming on our
privileged lifestyles.
George Monbiot describes the public paralysis in his
inimitable way: “We sit back and view the deteriorating climate scene with the
impotent fascination with which we might watch a good disaster movie.”
The silence and the somnambulism is not only surreal,
it is stupefying.
Peer
Pressure: The Paralyzing Impact of Social and Current Norms
Both climate scientists and social scientists are
baffled by this nonchalant, even defiant, public response to the threat of
global warming in the face of overwhelming scientific evidence. Psychologists
are now suggesting that changing contemporary cultural conditions in the form
of social media, saturation advertising, rampant consumption, peer pressure,
income disparities and polarized politics are transforming our world views.
Our individual subjective world views have to a great
extent been shaped by our personal life experiences. Family, friends,
education, religion and careers have all left their imprint that, in turn,
influences our beliefs and values. This process of socialization or cultural
conditioning tints the spectacles we all wear which then filter our perceptions
of reality. We are, to a certain extent, captives of our upbringing.
Sociologists contend that as we grow up, we are
increasingly gravitating to groups with similar world views. This is especially
true of our smaller social circles which are usually representative of larger
socio-cultural groupings, based primarily on income and bound together by
implicit common values. Because social status and approval is such a powerful
driver of behavior, we are defining ourselves by our socio-cultural group. As
we conform to the lifestyle values of our group, we silently absorb the
prevailing beliefs and consumption patterns.
An unspoken group solidarity discourages individuals
from breaking ranks and risking social isolation. Even fewer will speak out
publically on pressing environmental issues because messengers of bad news have
traditionally met a messy end. Such is the power of social networks and peer
pressure in shaping our ideological views and, ultimately, even our thinking
processes.
While we may be predisposed to developing certain
attitudes because of our life experiences, we are not predestined to pursue any
particular course. Nor is our behaviour predetermined or our choices
constrained. Because our world views are not immutable, we can break the bonds
that bind us to our upbringing. For the future of the planet, we dare not allow
ourselves to be socialized into submission.
Widespread disapproval of smoking and drinking and
driving and the subsequent public pressure forced the government to legislate
changes. It is socially unacceptable to smoke today, but oddly, it is still
socially acceptable to practise an extravagant lifestyle that is endangering
the health of the planet. The consumer culture of our age – characterized by
high-end cars, homes, cottages, travel, clothing and entertainment – has shaped
a web of values that has neutered the popular pressure so essential to
initiating political action.
Increasing income disparity in North America is
reinforcing social stratification and further entrenching divergent values and
beliefs. The top twenty percent of the socio-economic pyramid contribute a
disproportionate share of ghgs and virtually every other form of pollution. Major
decision makers, such as corporate and media executives, senior bureaucrats and
politicians are all part of this influential segment of society, further
militating against the enactment of environmental legislation.
A complex interlocking of sociology, psychology and
ideology is helping social scientists understand the complexity of our task of
mitigating climate change. Mitigation is not simply a matter of publishing detailed
“menus” of environmental tips. Mitigation is mired in the mind and the
responses are wired in our brains.
Political
Polarization: The Impact of Ideological Solitudes
Jonathan Haidt in his recent book, The Righteous Mind, suggests that there
are six basic impulses or intuitions, shaped by our socio-cultural backgrounds,
that drive the political behavior of liberals and conservatives. The six
intuitions or traits are: Care, Fairness, Loyalty, Authority, Sanctity and
Liberty.
Haidt’s analysis, although focused on the moral
foundations of political behavior, is useful for understanding the competing
ideologies behind the climate confrontation. The gulf between the progressive
left and the conservative right is so wide and so deep and the environmental
positions so unyielding that one wonders how the political process can ever
reconcile the differences.
Haidt’s six basic traits are given different weight
and interpretation by the ideological right and left. In applying his theory to
the environment, it is “Sanctity” that especially divides liberals and
conservatives. For the latter group, “Sanctity” represents the flag, the
constitution and “God and country,” whereas the liberal left regards nature as
the supreme symbol of sanctity.
Increasingly in North America, we are living in a
world of social silos and ideological echo chambers where our world views and
personal identities are bound up with our socio-cultural group and our values
are defined by our political party affiliations.
Our “ideological solitudes” have major environmental
policy implications. For example, progressive groups argue that free market
capitalism promotes ecological destruction and that only decisive government
intervention can stem the downward spiral. On the other hand, conservatives
whose ideology is rooted in individualism, oppose any regulation of the
economy. Some extreme conservatives even believe that global warming is a
socialist plot. There is no common ground for discussion and if one group’s
value stance clashes with the opposing group, there is no chance of resolution.
Mother Nature must weep at the shenanigans in the sandbox.
Equally disturbing is Haidt’s contention that our
deeply embedded socio-cultural intuitions can derail our cognitive processes
and direct our reasoning. Not only can we be held captive by our upbringing, we
may also be trapped by our thoughts. He suggests that we jump to conclusions on
the basis of our intuitions and sentiments and we then use our cognitive skills
to rationalize our decisions. Consequently, we are often selective in our
listening and reading; we cherry pick what we need to support our arguments and
then conveniently tune out the rest. We believe what we are conditioned to
believe.
Prejudging is prejudice. Consciously selecting
information, even though guided by subconscious forces, to support a
preconceived position is bias. This disturbing process is often referred to in
the media today as biased assimilation or confirmation bias. Sadly, it is
intensifying the increasingly rigid mindsets around climate change.
We are faced then with the irony that information and
knowledge, such as solid scientific data, is actually a barrier to mitigating
global warming. Dispiriting indeed: our belief systems contort the evidence,
facts fail to motivate us, and logical arguments backfire. No wonder efforts at
mitigation hit a dead end.
What has happened to the role of education? The same
discipline, the social sciences, that is helping us unravel the mysteries of
the mind regarding our behavior and thought processes, claims as its
objectives: critical thinking, problem solving, informed decision making and logical
argumentation. These attributes are crucial weapons in the battle against
climate demagoguery but how effectively are they taught in our schools and
universities?
Chris Mooney, author of The Republican Brain, quotes a
startling statistic: better educated Republicans are more in denial regarding
the science behind climate change than their less educated colleagues. We are in
deep trouble if the institution tasked with opening our minds, encounters minds
that have already shut down.
Perhaps education itself is a major barrier in
resolving our ecological problems. Education is hardly living up to its
universal claim that it overcomes ignorance. North America, possibly the most
educated continent, is home to a range of antediluvian environmental views
despite the impact of extreme weather conditions of recent years.
The pedagogical problems might not just be in the area
of knowledge and skills but, of more concern, in the area of attitudes and
values. Are our schools and universities focusing on beliefs and notions that
conform to the dominant socio-cultural values, such as consumerism, entitlement
and competitive self-interest rather than on community, co-operation and
empathy?
We may be
entering an anti-science age characterized by a contempt for evidence, rational
discourse and experimentation and stoked by the climate denial industry. More
ominously, we may be entering an age of anti-intellectualism characterized by a
fear and distrust of education and learning. What a tragic paradox: the most
educated generation in history leading the charge into a new Dark Age.
The Gender
Divide: Man’s Inhumanity to Nature
According to the World Meteorological Organization and
virtually every other major scientific body, global warming is primarily
manmade. It is doubly manmade, however. Not only are ghgs largely anthropogenic
in nature, but global warming is largely a function of gender. Generally, women
are greener than men.
The research of Aaron McCright, a sociologist at Michigan
State University, demonstrates how education can reinforce the gender divide on
environmental issues. He suggests that boys learn that masculinity emphasizes
detachment, control, mastery and competence while the feminine identity
stresses attachment, empathy, care and cooperation. These qualities play a
major role in shaping our environmental behaviour.
It is not just qualities and behaviour patterns that
are different between men and women but also levels of knowledge. Men,
certainly those of a more conservative bent, will often read the science
explaining global warming and then cherry pick the information that will
reinforce their denial stance. Many men, according to polls, rate their
knowledge of climate science above women’s. But Professor McCright has shown
that, although women underestimate their scientific comprehension, “their
beliefs align much more closely with scientific consensus.”
Studies and surveys done recently in the UK and the
EU, and probably would not differ greatly in Canada and the US, indicate a
greater environmental concern and awareness among women than men.
Women:
· Support environmental initiatives and increased spending· Prepared to pay higher taxes to protect the environment· Volunteer more for environmental projects· Less likely to support geo-engineering projects· Purchase more green products· More concerned about environmental risks to health· Recycle more and use energy more efficiently· Buy smaller, more energy efficient vehicles· More concerned about the long term risks of climate change· More likely to make lifestyle changes
A study with a different focus from the University of
Oregon demonstrates that in countries where women have a more prominent
political status and a greater participation in public affairs, the carbon
emissions are lower and these countries also ratify more environmental
treaties.
Both the US Congress and the Canadian Parliament are
male dominated. The upper echelons of the North American corporate world are
also largely male and the various groups appearing at Congressional hearings
are overwhelmingly male in composition. We should ask ourselves how many women
are lobbyists in the Canadian fossil fuel industry and how many women work in
the gas fracking business in the US.
h with their feelings
and emotions than men and they are also more protective of Mother Earth, as the
research shows. Although science can explain climate change, the environmental
crisis itself can only be solved at the emotional and not at the intellectual
level. Behavioural change flows from the heart, not from the head.
Studies, polls and surveys are never conclusive but
all the results show a disturbing pattern in the way men and women confront the
dangers of climate change and the many other ecological problems facing the
planet at the beginning of the 21st century.
Among the major barriers to mitigating climate change are
ideology, wealth, gender and possibly education. These factors are all
outgrowths of our cultural conditioning and they are both interconnected and
self-reinforcing, thereby giving them added force and influence.
As a sentient species, we can shed and shred the
shackles that bind us to our past. We have to confront our consciences and
challenge our beliefs – we must never allow conditioning to conquer conscience.
Nor can we be held captive by outdated values that are inimical to the very
foundations of life. Breaking through our
behavioural barriers is a barometer of our moral maturity.
Government is not a barrier to combating climate
change in a democratic society. To blame government for inaction on the climate
file and for anti-environmental legislation is to absolve ourselves, both
individually and collectively, of the ethical responsibility for initiating and
promoting ecological change. Governments are not deaf. They are extremely sensitive
to all signals and they will become proactive overnight when we, the
electorate, send them a clear message – at present our environmental message is
barely audible.
