The Psychology of Climate Change Denial
Stories of pink ice and thawing woolly mammoths are making headlines these days thanks to the warming ice cap. That the planet is warming up makes 2-inch columns in news outlets along with big digits showing the infection rates due to Covid-19. This pandemic malaise has taken up a tiny space in our minds which says ‘it is what it is’ although few among us responsibly link global warming to the onset of devastating pandemics (yes, there are possible pandemics lined up for the future).
So what is this denial about climate change that the human race is collectively afflicted with? Sure, the fossil fuel industry is at fault and the conservative political scenario is abetting the absolute reliance on coal and natural gas but ask anyone around you about what steps they personally take to lower their carbon footprint, the answers will range from negative, vague, to a mere shrug. Here are some psychological insights into this ‘denial’ phenomenon:
Motivated Interference
This happens when we largely ignore or refuse to accept the evidence in front of us. An inherent defence mechanism wherein consciously or unconsciously we tend to overlook, forget, and deny things that are potentially harmful to us. A report from the Brookings Initiative states that
Humans aren’t well wired to act on complex statistical risks. We care a lot more about the tangible present than the distant future.
How does this cognitive makeup affect how we vote for our governments and elect our local leaders? Many of us are moderately aware of the disastrous effects of global warming but why doesn’t this ‘worry’ reflect in our governance. On this the Brookings report says
Our mental space is limited and we aren’t primed to focus on abstruse topics. Except for a small fraction that is highly motivated, most voters know little about the ins and outs of climate change, or the policy options relating to it….
…The arrival of extreme events — hurricanes, wildfires, drought and torrential deluges — is not proof to many people that scientists are right and that a complete rethinking of climate policy is overdue. Instead, voters see these shocks more as evidence that things are out of whack. Change is needed, and voters deliver that verdict not by reevaluating policy but by casting politicians out of office.
So our evolutionary needs have equipped us to deal with short-term problems which threaten our social safety, local food supply, etc. But it turns our brains are not wired to tackle multifaced long-term gargantuan problems like climate change. Bad brain!
Mind Over Reality Transition (MORT) theory
While reading about the cognitive basis of denial I came across the MORT theory by Dr Ajit Varki. First, he proposes ‘reality denial’ — our ability for self-deception, false beliefs, irrational risk-taking, and optimism bias. These traits are the roots of several seemingly illogical human acts like climate change denial, anti-Darwinism, anti-vaccine movements, racism, anti-maskers, etc. True, many animals like apes, cetaceans, elephants have higher cognitive abilities like humans but we are the only species that evolved an extended Theory of Mind (ToM)- which is the ability to understand another mind, an extended ToM means the ability to grasp the intentions from multiple subjects (multilevel intentionality). ToM has been attributed to be the reason for our species to spread across the world, develop cultures, and spawn technologies. This extended ToM eventually led to a full understanding of the death/mortality of a member of our society. So if we indeed became conscious of death, why do we overlook the truth and take life-threatening risks.
Varki suggests here that if reality denial and risk-taking evolved in minds at the same time, they would allow tolerance for death anxiety and passed onto the next generations. This is the MORT theory. In Varki’s words
One can thus posit a hypothetical singular phase in human evolution, during which mortality salience and maladaptive death anxiety were triggered by acquiring extended theory of mind, but happened to be stabilized by simultaneous evolution of reality denial in the same minds.
Solutions?
Now that we have seen a glimpse inside our complicated brains what better time than now to analyze local actions that may have the butterfly effect on global climate change. There are tiny things that we can do to lower our carbon footprints. Instead of barking people to stop eating meat, become vegan, and stop taking flights ( which almost always is taken as offensive ), we can start taking doable steps without raising animosity. Taking cloth bags for shopping groceries, using recyclable garbage bags, walk when we can avoid elevators, changing incandescent bulbs at our homes to LCD ones, and even eating one less bag of potato chips can contribute to opposing the palm-oil industry that devastates our tropical forests and rob animals of their homes.
