Mason 1

Mason 1

Psychological flaws, the consumerism crisis and investment hurdles - Climate transition problems

There is no question climate change is occurring. Perhaps a more burning question that should instead be dominating headlines is whether established economic, social and political institutions are capable of dealing with the climate change and global economic crises? This is the question editors Mark Pelling, David Manuel-Navarrete and Michael Redclift pose at the beginning of Climate Change and the Crisis of Capitalism. Based on the curricula, lectures and texts presented during the course of the term, it seems the answer is yes, our established institutions are in fact capable of dealing with climate change, however it will be very, very difficult. I have chosen to examine three climate transition problems that I find to be most interesting. The transition problems that I will address in this paper include the psychological barriers to action, the crisis of consumerism and investment hurdles.

Psychological barriers

Avoiding climate change is one of the most urgent transition problems we face today. In order to engage the public with an effective plan of action to trump climate change, it is first important to understand the psychological tendencies that are making it so difficult to grab societys attention. According to Anthony Leiserowitz, the director of Yale Universitys Project on Climate Change Communication, You almost could not design a problem that is worse fit for our underlying psychology. The human psyche has a tendency to refuse climate change is even a problem to begin with. Climate change is perceived as distant to the human psyche and therefore not an important issue for our generation to address. Climate change is abstract, humans prioritize information that confirm their beliefs and a tendency for wishful thinking leads people to believe the issue will resolve itself (Spence, Poortinga, & Pidgeon, 2012).

The first psychological barrier that makes climate transition difficult is the abstraction of direct and indirect carbon emissions. Each time we consume a product or fill our car up with gas, the repercussions of our action are not immediately visible. Because we cannot visualize our individual carbon footprint and the repercussions of our behaviors, it makes climate change an abstract concept. For example, when someone buys a pizza from the grocery store, they are unable to see the impact they are truly having. The total amount of carbon emitted into the environment between the pizzas production process, transportation to a grocery store and shelf-life cannot be tangibly experienced. There are two ways consumers can emit carbon dioxide - directly and indirectly, both of which perpetuate the abstractness of climate change. Direct carbon dioxide emissions result from energy consumption extracted from fossil fuels. Energy generation alone produces greenhouse gases that are emitted into the environment. A few examples of direct carbon emissions include using gas to fuel vehicles, using natural gas to heat homes and using electricity to light a store (Weisbrot, 2003). The Hinkle Charitable Foundation, a foundation that advocates for environmental and musical education, released a report that stated an average household emits nearly 24.2 tons of carbon dioxide each year operating their home and vehicles. On the other hand, indirect carbon emissions result from remaining energy consumed in the economy. Indirect emissions are not the direct result of a consumer. Of the two types of emissions, this is the more abstract of the two because often times an individual does not recognize or cannot control the carbon being emitting. Examples of indirect emissions include purchasing a product that embodies energy either from its manufacture, packaging or delivery processes, visiting heated or air-conditioned buildings, eating food that was transported from a different location and using street lamps while driving (Spence et al., 2012). According to the Hinkle Charitable Foundation report, an average households indirect carbon emissions per year is 35 tons - almost double the average of direct carbon emissions (Weisbrot, 2003).. The abstraction of climate change makes it incredibly difficult for our minds to rap around. Because we cannot visualize carbon emissions happening and often dont notice the indirect emissions, it makes refusing to accept climate change very easy.

The second psychological barrier that makes climate transition difficult is confirmation bias. A mental model represents the way a person processes and understands the world. Often times, a mental model is comprised of an individuals firsthand experiences, incomplete facts, input from people they consider worthy and from their own intuition - all of which make up an individuals bias. Mental models are used as frameworks to filter out and interpret new information. Confirmation bias occurs when an individual accepts information that is in sync with their mental model and rejects information that is not in sync with their mental model. In terms of climate change, individuals use mental models to decide what they think is really happening to the environment (Center for Research on Environmental Decisions, 2009). The problem with the confirmation bias tendency is that individuals who believe climate change is not a pressing issue will avoid news and information that challenges their preconceived belief that climate change is not occurring. Individuals tune out information that does not sync with their mental model. This is especially concerning when the impact of the media on public opinion is considered (Burke, 2010). According to Mike Berners-Lee, the author of The Burning Question, carbon businesses with the most at stake are making great efforts to undermine the problem to the public. They support messages that support the idea climate change is not a real problem or is too expensive to reverse. Campaigns such as these have damaged the publics understanding of the scope of climate change. Berners-Lee also refers to media outlets who have tarnished public opinion because of misguided anchors. He refers to Fox News, one of the leading media providers in the United States, which has commentators who believe global warming is a hoax and publishes misleading reports and other material about climate change (Berners-Lee, 2013). When individuals who already dont believe that climate change is occurring are exposed to information such as this, they take it as truth. Despite the fact the information is false, the information syncs with the individuals preconceived mental model and therefore it must be true (Center for Research on Environmental Decisions (2009). This perpetuates the idea that climate change is not an issue and discourages consumers from paying closer attention to their direct and indirect carbon emitting behaviors.

The third psychological barrier that makes climate transition difficult is the tendency for wishful thinking. Wishful thinking is defined as, the formation of beliefs and decisions based on what is most appealing to imagine, rather than appealing to evidence, rationality or reality. This optimistic outlook results from resolving the conflict between what you believe to be true and what you desire to be true. Studies have shown that individuals are more likely to predict positive outcomes than they are negative outcomes - an example of wishful thinking. In terms of climate change, individuals are more likely to believe environmental issues are not really be as bad as scientists and climate specialists are saying than they are to accept that it is a pressing issue. In addition, wishful thinkers tend to believe in silver bullet solutions, or a single solution discovered in the nick of time that will alleviate everything - a Hollywood ending. There are two forms of wishful thinking: spatial and temporal discounting. Spatial discounting occurs when an individual assumes environmental problems are worse in other parts of the world compared to where they are located. For example, an individual living in the United States may assume people living in Antarctica are experiencing worse repercussions of climate change because of the massive amounts of ice that could potentially melt. It may seem to that individual living in the U.S. that melting glaciers is worse than hotter summers because everyone loves longer and hotter summers. In reality, both of these environmental changes are of equal significance no matter the spatial wishful thinking at play. The second form of wishful thinking, is temporal discounting occurs when individuals assume problems will be worse later in the future and so immediate action is not necessary. This is a selfish way to think, however it is a way that many climate skeptics think. Individuals assume that because they will not personally be alive when climate change really hits its peak, that it is not important to make changes. Humans tend to think in the short term (Spence et al., 2012). According to Berners-Lee, it is easier for an individual to think one day ahead compared to one month, one year, one decade ahead or even one lifetime in advance (Berners-Lee, 2013). Short-term thinking is a transition problem because in order to eventually see a change, it is important to act now and make goals that can be accomplished in the long term. These tendencies to think in a wishful manner are poisonous because they cause individuals to feel less motivated to act now and change their behaviors, which is necessary for climate transition. Wishful thinking instead perpetuates the problem of climate transition even further.

Consumerism

In addition to psychological tendencies making climate transition difficult, global society has been sucked into a vicious cycle of consumerism. Consumerism is defined as the theory that an increasing consumption of goods is economically desirable or a preoccupation with and an inclination toward the buying of consumer goods. More simply put, society values buying and spending money. The economy is largely driven by consumerism and the current state of the environment can be largely blamed on consumerism. Ordinary consumers maintain lifestyles that entail large carbon footprints. In order to reduce carbon emissions it would take discouraging consumerism. That would mean consumers would need to give up their fancy lifestyles - stop driving cars fueled by gas, traveling to countries by plane, eating food delivered to stores via trucks, purchasing clothes produced in factories run by energy and pretty much consuming either directly or indirectly anything that use carbon.

The first reason consumerism is a crisis that affects climate transition is because society values material possessions. The truth of the matter is consumerism has locked society into a system of using the planet as a means to its end (Holthaus, 2014). Producers and manufacturers continue to exploit the Earth of it natural resources by burning heaps of coal in order to keep up with the demands of society. Many consumers do not even stop or slow down to think about the impact their purchasing behaviors are having on the physical environment. Instead, consumers are fixated on what consumerism symbolizes in terms of status. The current crisis is so embedded in everyday behavior justified by co-produced values and reinforced through habit that the very construction of identify and notions of self - the signifiers of success, happiness, status, to say nothing of norms of social responsibility - have become part of the problem. This is demonstrably so in affluent societies displaying excess consumption (Pelling, Manuel-Navarrete, & Redclift, 2011). Consumption is viewed as a symbol of status and importance. Status symbols are defined as visible, external denotations of ones social status within society and a perceived indicator of economic status. Members of society often unconsciously ignore the possible repercussions their consumption habits may be having on the environment because they have been socialized into thinking that spending money and displaying your monetary self-worth are most important (Holthaus, 2014). Modern societies tend to stress an individuals societal self-worth, or human agency based on their roles as a consumer, or ability to boost the economy. Climate transition is a matter of changing consumer choices and reducing consumption habits. Consumerism has come to provide a meta-framework through which we understand our relationship with the material world of nature. This reductive fame plays down understandings of human agency that emphasize co-dependence with ecological and biological processes, spirituality, or altruistic commitment with others (Pelling et al., 2011). At this point in time, consumers are demonstrating that societys relationship with the material world of nature is not important. If it were important, consumers would stop behaving in excess and value the environment more for what it is worth. Unfortunately, without status symbols society would be forced to develop new symbols to rely on to interpret one anothers worth within society, which would require some type of revolution and would not likely take effect in a timely manner.

The second reason consumerism is a crisis that affects climate transition is because humans are social learners and unless the majority of society makes a drastic change all at once, individuals will not adjust their behaviors. Social learning theory indicates that learning and behavior are a cognitive process that takes place in a social context and occurs as a result of observation or direct instruction from someone. Social learning is often encouraged through reinforcement. The media is often a large influencer of social learning. Individuals are likely to repeat the behaviors they are exposed to in the media. This is a problem in terms of climate change because the media and advertisements send messages that encourage consumers to travel more, shop more, eat more and consume more in order to be accepted in society (Burke, 2010). This is an issue for climate transition because consuming more, traveling more, etc increases carbon footprints. This is the opposite of what consumers should be doing, but because of social learning theory these behaviors are the ones they are likely to adopt. However, if the media and advertisements sent out alternative messages, such as carpool more, grow your own produce and make your own clothing, individuals would be likely to adopt these behaviors. The idea of this change in media messages is very unlikely to occur considering societys fixation on consumerism and material goods as status symbols (Kasser, 2003). There is a link between economic growth and well-being, one that indicates how unhealthy excessive consumption really is not only for the environment, but for an individuals mental health. One of the principal psychological and cultural determinants of excessive consumption has been found to be feelings of personal insecurity and vulnerability - whether about ones body shape, sensitivity to peer judgements, or externally generated and reinforced views of self-other relations that undermine personal or other forms of security and self-esteem. Giddens in a slightly different vein, has written persuasively about the way in which modernity can undermine what he calls ontological security, but does not connect this with patterns of defensive consumption - those forms of consumption which do not add to quality of life, but are forced upon the individual as a necessary means for them to simply protect their existing material standard of living. Ego insecurity may therefore be viewed as a main cause of consumerism and materialism, which lead to diminished well-being (Pelling et. al, 2011). It is a vicious cycle. Consumers consume to feel accepted and valued in society, but in reality over consumption, which occurs often, only makes a consumer feel worse about their worth. According to psychologist Tim Kassers work, Materialistic people, from children to pensioners, are less satisfied with life, lack vitality, and suffer more anxiety depression and addiction problems. Materialistic values make people more anti-social, less empathic, more competitive and less cooperative. He points out that the U.S. increasingly turns to money and possessions as a way of coping with distress rather than seeking comfort and support in social interaction and community or family relationships (Kasser, 2003). This is an issue in terms of climate change because it indicates consumerism is a vicious cycle. People consume to trump their insecure egos, but in reality they are damaging their egos even further. As a result consumers are less empathetic and therefore care less about preserving the environment and reversing climate change for the sake of others, the well being of the Earth and for future generations.

Consumerism is a crisis because society admires individuals who rise to the top. Those who own yachts and mansions, rack up frequent flyer miles, eat slabs of steak for every meal, drive gas-guzzling vehicles and outwardly display their economic status are deemed the most valuable in society. These are also the members in society posing the most threats to our environment. Consumerism is a major transition problem because of how much society values material goods and because humans are social learners and will not likely change their behavior unless the media change their messages.

Investment hurdles

Similar to other environmental issues, climate change involves an externality - the emission of greenhouse gases damages others at no cost to the agent responsible for the emissions. Because the agent responsible for the emission doesnt experience repercussions for their action, they continue to go about their greenhouse-gas-emitting business, and thus perpetuating the carbon economy (Stern, 2006). The carbon economy has transformed everyday life touching upon our very senses of identity, which have become increasingly associated with material consumption, and perhaps more profoundly the very systems that provide food (through chemical fertilizers and international transport), heat and increasingly (through dealination plants) even water for the rapidly growing and urbanizing global population (Pelling et al., 2011). As global society continues to sink more money into vehicles, plants and buildings that require oil, coal and gas to function, the more resistance there will be to constricting the supply of these destructive fuels and less initiative toward making positive changes. According to Berners-Lee, green campaigners describe the world as being addicted to fossil fuels, but yet efforts to curb this addiction are almost entirely focused on the users of carbon, not the dealers that produce them and bring them to to market. The companies and countries that own all the oil, coal and gas have so far been largely ignored. The companies who own the largest fossil fuel shares have been the most resistant to progress in the global climate change discussion. For example, the U.S. never ratified Kyoto, a protocol drawn up to reduce their emissions of carbon dioxide. Similarly, Canada dropped out last minute, Russia was indecisive, Australia ratified Kyoto after years of delay and India and Venezuela strongly resisted. Considering these countries make up several of the top fossil fuel owning countries, it is not surprising that they are the most resistant to change because of their tangible assets that could be endangered should a major global effort to reduce emissions occur (Berners-Lee, 2013).

A climate transition problem is resistance to alternatives. In order to see positive climate change, it will take investing alternative energy sources such as wind, solar and hydro energy (Sterner, 2006). According to Berners-Lee, the problem with this is that companies and others heavily invested in fossil fuels have spent a ridiculously larger amount more than those advocating alternative energy sources. Businesses and the government are more concerned with what they have to lose from fossil fuel restrictions than they are about the actual climate change issue. This is because they own and use many devices that depend on fossil fuels to function. In addition, green campaigners describe the world as being addicted to fossil fuels, however, efforts to curb the addiction are almost entirely focused on the users of the substance rather than those that deal and produce fossil fuels. The companies and countries that own all the oil, coal and has have so far been largely ignored when addressing transition problems. He also indicates that fossil fuel companies have worked hard to minimize their losses by undermining public concern about climate change (Berners-Lee, 2013). Many major fossil fuel investors have hired lobbyists to downplay the issue of climate change so they can continue to see more coal, oil and gas despite the science that indicates how harmful it is to our planet. One example of a global warming skeptic organization is American Enterprise Institute. The AEI has received donations from foundations that are established and supported by the Koch brothers, which are fossil fuel billionaires. The AEI has attempted to undermine the credibility of climate science several times. The institute played a key role in passing along misinformation about a manufactured scandal involved emails stolen from climate scientists. One AEI research fellow even stated that climate scientists are the most distrusted of occupations. The institute received more than $3 million from ExxonMobil from 1998-2012 and more than $1 million from Koch foundations from 2004-2011 (Union of Concerned Scientists, 2013). The fact sneaky deals such as this go on behind the curtains goes to show that the carbon economy itself is a climate transition.

The problem that I discussed in this paper that I have also discussed in my journalistic work is that of the crisis consumerism. The Hurdal eco-village that I describe in my journalistic work emphasizes a low-consumption lifestyle in addition to their sustainable values. They encourage the villagers to grow their own food or buy produce from their village market. In addition, buying cars and spending money on gas are discouraged. The mission of the village is to lower consumption habits and in turn lower their carbon footprint. I think one of the main takeaways from my time at the village and interviewing people is that even though they are a small fraction of this gigantic universe, they are doing their part to lower emissions. I think I could have done a better job describing why it is important to the village to continue their efforts when they are such a small rock in a big pond. I have also discussed the psychological barriers in this paper as well as a little bit in my journalistic work. Psychologists say that there couldnt be a worse problem, but the idea of friluftsliv that I chose to explore in my journalistic work indicates otherwise. Because I am a psychology student in addition to journalism, I found it really interesting learning the psychological aspects of climate change. It was interesting to combat the psychological tendency to avoid climate change with a philosophy that was completely new to me. I feel that friluftsliv is such a common thing for Norwegians, almost so common that it is difficult to explain to others who are new to the word what exactly it means. I think I portrayed friluftsliv to the best of my ability considering the language barrier. The solution to these problems I have discussed in my paper that is most appealing is found in my journalistic work. I think that spreading knowledge about friluftsliv to other countries and encouraging better connections between humans and their habitats will really facilitate the type of change our environment needs to curb climate change. In order for society to quit ignoring the facts, stop over consuming and for investors to no longer be a climate transition issue, it is of vital importance that we get back to our roots, and that is to nature. I think that friluftsliv would open societys mind to the grave damage we are collectively causing to our environment. I think that helping people understand that we only have one place to live, and when its gone its gone is important to help persuade people to break their habits. Even if society continues to ignore the facts that climate is changing, perhaps being out in nature and appreciating it for its beauty may cause humans as a whole to be a little more conscientious of their behaviors and how they affect the world that we all share.

Works cited

Berners-Lee, M. (2013). The burning question: We cant burn half the worlds oil, coal and gas. So how do we quit? Profile Books.

Burke, S. (2010). Understanding the psychological barrier to climate change, Australian Psychological Society. Received from http://tinyurl.com/klm68ve.

Center for Research on Environmental Decisions (2009). The Psychology of Climate Change Communication. Received from http://tinyurl.com/k53e772.

Holthaus, E. (2014). Fighting climate change and capitalism at the same time, Slate.

Kasser, T. (2003). The high price of materialism. A Bradford Book.

Pelling, M., Manuel-Navarrete, D., & Redclift, M. (2011). Climate change and the crisis of capitalism: A chance to reclaim, self, society and nature. Routledge.

Spence, A., Poortinga, W, & Pidgeon, N. (2012). The psychological distance of climate change. Risk Analysis, 32(6), 957-972.

Stern, Nicholas (2006). What is the economics of climate change? World Economic, 7(2).

Union of Concerned Scientists (2013). Global warming skeptic organizations. Received from http://tinyurl.com/py35u9h.

Weisbrot, C. (2003). Report 5: How do we contribute to global warming? Hinkle Charitable Foundation. Received from http://tinyurl.com/39frtx.