Denial as a key obstacle to solving the environmental crisis

By Dr Haydn Washington, Visiting Fellow,The Institute of Environmental Studies, UNSWFenner Conference, 2013

The evolution of humanity?

Homo sapiens?

Homo denialensis?

Australopithecus Homo habilisor

Not just a river in Egypt …

Denial is arguably the greatest problem in the human psyche

Four elephants in the roomPopulation

Consumption The Growth economy

Climate Change

Which elephant is bigger?Which is more dangerous?

Ignored or denied – ‘undiscussables’

‘The best way to disrupt moral behaviour’ notes political theorist C. Fred Alford ‘is not to discuss it and not to discuss not discussing it’. ‘Don’t talk about ethical issues’ he facetiously proposes ‘and don’t talk about our not talking about ethical issues’. As moral beings we cannot keep non-discussing ‘undiscussables’. Breaking this insidious cycle of denial calls for an open discussion of the very phenomenon of undiscussability.

Zerubavel (2006)

Denier = denialist = contrarian

I use ‘denier’ as it accepts how common denial actually is. We don’t need to create a new word ‘denialist’ for something so common in humanity =

denial

What is denial? Is it skepticism?

• The Oxford English Dictionary definition of a skeptic is:‘A seeker after truth; an inquirer who has not yet arrived at definite conclusions’• Genuine skepticism in science is one of the ways that science progresses• Denying multiple coherent sources of research is not skepticism but denial• Denial and skepticism are really opposites – skeptics seek the truth, deniers run away from it.

• The Oxford English Dictionary definition of a skeptic is:‘A seeker after truth; an inquirer who has not yet arrived at definite conclusions’• Genuine skepticism in science is one of the ways that science progresses• Denying multiple coherent sources of research is not skepticism but denial• Denial and skepticism are really opposites – skeptics seek the truth, deniers run away from it.

Denial is common

• Cohen (2001) notes this unexplained phenomenon is a ‘product of the sheer complexity of our emotional, linguistic, moral and intellectual lives’

• We deny some things as they force us to confront change. We deny others as they are just too painful

• Zerubavel (2006) says denial is inherently delusional and inevitably distorts one’s sense of reality

• People get upset when their self-delusional view of the world is challenged. Many indeed cherish their ‘right to be an ostrich’.

The long history of denial

No problem with destruction of wilderness (‘Wise Use’ movement)

No problem with increasing populationNo problem with DDT and other chlorinated

hydrocarbon pesticidesNo problem with nuclear winterNo problem with tobaccoNo problem with acid rainNo problem with hole in ozone layerNo problem with biodiversity crisisNo problem with climate change

DO YOU SEE A TREND?

What is going on?

In Norway, the percentage saying they were ‘very much worried’ about climate change declined steadily from 40% in 1989 to less than 10% in 2001

In Australia in 2007 the Lowy Institute reported that 75% of those surveyed thought climate change was very important. In 2009 it was 56%, in 2011 it was 46%

Science getting more certain, but belief less.How can this be?

Do we let denial prosper?

• Fear of change. Conservatism is negatively related to pro-environmental attitudes, especially among political elites

• 75% of US Democrats believe humans cause climate change, but among Republicans it is only 19%

• Conservative ideological view is free market = liberty and environmental regulation = attack on liberty

• Failure in environmental ethics and values – e.g. regarding intrinsic value of nature

• Fixation on economics/ society and not ecosystems• The media – loves controversy, and ‘balance as bias’.

Psychological types of denial

• Literal denial - The assertion that something is not true – e.g. claims by fossil fuel companies that climate change is not happening

• Interpretive denial - Facts not denied but given different interpretation. Jargon used to confuse – ‘Collateral damage’ rather than killing civilians. Political ‘spin’ is one type of interpretive denial

• Implicatory denial - Not denying climate change per se, rather a failure to transform it into social action. People have access to information, accept it as true, yet choose to ignore it.

• Literal denial - The assertion that something is not true – e.g. claims by fossil fuel companies that climate change is not happening

• Interpretive denial - Facts not denied but given different interpretation. Jargon used to confuse – ‘Collateral damage’ rather than killing civilians. Political ‘spin’ is one type of interpretive denial

• Implicatory denial - Not denying climate change per se, rather a failure to transform it into social action. People have access to information, accept it as true, yet choose to ignore it.

(Cohen, 2001)

Implicatory denial – how we delude ourselves

Most common in the publicIssues such as climate change are accepted but fail to be

converted into action ‘Distraction’ an everyday form of denial. We worry, ‘switch

off’ and shift our attention to something elseWe can ‘de-problematise’ problems by rationalising that

‘humanity has solved these sort of problems before’We can ‘distance ourselves’ by rationalising ‘it’s a long way

off’We can ‘Blame-shift’, where we blame others, such as the

US, industry, or the Developing World. (Hamilton, 2010)

Most common in the publicIssues such as climate change are accepted but fail to be

converted into action ‘Distraction’ an everyday form of denial. We worry, ‘switch

off’ and shift our attention to something elseWe can ‘de-problematise’ problems by rationalising that

‘humanity has solved these sort of problems before’We can ‘distance ourselves’ by rationalising ‘it’s a long way

off’We can ‘Blame-shift’, where we blame others, such as the

US, industry, or the Developing World. (Hamilton, 2010)

Ignored population‘More is better’ – the mantra of the past

Population ecologist Meyerson (see Hartmann et al, 2008) notes:

Conservatives are often against sex education, contraception and abortion and they like growth – both in population and in the economy. Liberals usually support individual human rights above all else and fear the coercion label and therefore avoid discussion of population growth and stabilisation. The combination is a tragic stalemate that leads to more population growth.

Consumerism and the growth economy

• Challenging consumerism is seen as challenging the growth economy – a key myth or ‘given truth’ of modern society

• Consumption has become the meaning of life, the ‘chief sacred’, the ‘mystery before which one bows’ (Ellul, 1975).

• Tacey (2000) points out that consumers in Western society are spiritually empty, so shopping temporarily fills this void. Mass consumption requires consumer demand to remain insatiable (Westra, 2008). We can never have enough.

Population solutions• Assure access to contraceptives• Guarantee education in secondary school (especially girls)• Eradicate gender bias from laws and culture• Offer age-appropriate sexuality education for all students• End all policies that reward parents for more children • Integrate teaching about population, consumption and

environment into school curricula at all levels• Put prices on environment costs and impacts• Adjust to population ageing rather than boost birth-rates• Convince leaders to commit to ending population growth

through the exercise of human rights/ development

Iran was able to halve its population growth rate from 1987 to 1994 (Brown, 2011). Population Media (www.populationmedia.org) has success promoting the above.

(Engelman, 2012)

Dealing with ‘shop till you drop!’

• Consumerism was deliberately constructed after WW II. It needs to be deliberately deconstructed

• Introduce a tax on advertising (Daly, 2008)

• Ban ‘planned obsolescence’ and make ‘cradle to cradle’ products mandatory

• Enact ‘minimum packaging’ laws• Education about the ethics of living simply = thriftiness• Consumption that undermines well-being has to be

discouraged (e.g. ‘choice editing’)• Replace private consumption of goods with public

consumption of services (e.g. libraries, public transport) (Assadourian, 2010)

Move to a green and steady state economy

• Adopt a low carbon and low material use ‘green’ economy (UNEP) immediately

• Then move to a steady state economy where population and throughput of energy and materials are stable and sustainable (Daly, 1991)

• This will need to involve degrowth of developed countries to allow some further growth of developing countries (due to equity considerations)

• Overall, throughput must be much lower than today (e.g. Factor Five)

5 characteristics of denial arguments

• Cherry picking

• Fake Experts

• Impossible Expectations

• Misrepresentations & logical fallacies

• Conspiracy Theories

• Cherry picking

• Fake Experts

• Impossible Expectations

• Misrepresentations & logical fallacies

• Conspiracy Theories

(Diethelm & McKee, 2007)(Diethelm & McKee, 2007)So assess denial arguments

Tips to rebut Climate Change Deniers• Focus on those genuinely confused. It is almost impossible

to change those in strong denial. Lord Molson stated: ‘I will look at any additional evidence to confirm the opinion to which I have already come’ (Tavris and Aronson, 2007)

• Lead with positive facts

• Supply a narrative of how the denial argument misleads

• Explain that every Academy of Science and 97.5% of practicing climate scientists are saying the same thing

• Explain we need to apply the Precautionary Principle to protect future generations. Australia is at major risk from climate change.

Solutions – see the elephants!• All the elephants in the room cause the

environmental crisis, and all must be seen.• Break the denial dam! Accept we have

problems to be solved. • Control population and bringing it to a stable

and ecologically sustainable level• Control consumerism and over-consumption• Move to a steady state economy• Decarbonise our society and solve climate

change.

In SummaryDenial is common, a very human trait, but it is a delusionWhen it threatens ecosystems/ society it is a pathologyWe need to acknowledge the elephants in the room. If we confront denial, the elephants will shrink and

disappear‘We the people’ are part of the problem so we need to be

part of the solution

The environmental crisis can be solved, it’s not ‘hopeless’, but society needs to stop denying the problem now.