Wade 1

Anne Wade
Professor Malcolm Campbell
UWRT 1103
5 October 2016

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

Introduction/Overview
I will be examining the basic psychological concepts that contribute to the problem of
climate change inaction and will specifically focus on biases, basic biology, and a wisdom
deficit amongst the general population. The term climate change, often used in a broad
context, specifically refers to a global increase in average temperatures distinct to the 20th and
21st centuries. It is believed, by most scientists, that this trend is man-made and is caused by
increasing levels of greenhouse gases entering the atmosphere. Climate change inaction is the
tendency of the general population to act in a manner that is destructive to the environment
despite plentiful evidence supporting the global warming theory. Psychologists have studied this
phenomenon and have noted that several different biases including confirmation bias, ingroup/out-group bias, object bias, and the fundamental attribution error play into the problem of
climate change inaction (Achenbach).
The term greenhouse effect was first coined in 1824 by French physicist Joseph
Fourier, but it was not until 1896 that Swedish chemist Svante Arrhenius hypothesized that coal
emissions could enhance the greenhouse effect (BBC). In 1938, British engineer Guy Callendar
proved, using data from 147 different weather stations around the world, that temperatures had
risen over the previous century (BBC). He was also able to prove that CO2 emissions had

Wade 2

increased alongside temperature and hypothesized that the two might be related. It was not until
1965 that governments across the world began to take note of the problem of increasing CO2
emissions, and it took until 1975 for the term global warming to be coined (BBC). After many
long years of debate, scandal, and party politics in countries across the globe, real action began
to take place in the form of various accords, treaties, and agreements, and now, or at least as of
2013, the IPCC (or Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) has stated that scientists are
95% certain that humans are the "dominant cause" of global warming since the 1950s.
Despite this certainty in the scientific community about the causes of climate change,
there are still many people, average citizens and political pundits alike, that believe that the
entire idea of climate change is a hoax. Perform a simple Internet search and hundreds of
different sites claim to have irrefutable evidence that climate change is nothing more than a
government-perpetuated lie. Climate change deniers site many different reasons for their
skepticism, but one of the most common is that record snowfall and increasingly cold
temperatures in the winter months prove that the planet is not warming. Other members of the
population deny climate change based on religion, or choose not to act because of sheer laziness
or lack of opportunity. This choice, not to act even when faced with dire consequences for future
generations, is called climate change inaction, and is even more powerful and influential than the
problem of denial.
Climate change inaction occurs when individuals consciously choose not to act on an
issue despite repeated warnings and plans of action. Inaction, just like denial, is fueled by a
variety of different factors. Many argue that inaction is fueled by businesses and politicians who
are far more concerned with short-term gains rather than with long-term stability (The Week).
Others argue that a lack of basic knowledge on the subjects at hand influences individuals to

Wade 3

make quick judgments on a complex topic (Balukjian). If there is any hope of reversing or even
slowing the effects of climate change, there has to be a consensus to act. If it is possible to
understand the reasons behind inaction and denial, there might be hope that both can be
eliminated so that positive action can take place.
Of course, climate change inaction is fueled by far more than politicians, businessmen, or
a lack of basic knowledge. The human mind is a complex piece of machinery that makes choices
based on much more than simple fact. Cognitive biases are tendencies of the human mind to
think in a specific way that can lead to irrational and illogical behavior that can be harmful.
Biases shape the human experience in many different ways. They are the reason that advertising
and marketing exist, and are the basis of sports rivalries. They are the reason that branding is so
effective, and the reason that the media portrays major news stories in the way that they do.
Biases such as the fundamental attribution error (in which one attributes ones own actions to
necessity and the actions of others to malice) are absolutely fascinating in their power over the
unconscious mind (Achenbach). Biases shape everything from social structure to eating habits
and are vital to consider when tackling the problem of climate change inaction.
Biases are not the only contributing factors to the problem of climate change inaction.
Basic biology also plays an important role. Sensory perception and direct versus indirect
experiences, the nature of human memory, and the lazy brain theory will all be examined as
they pertain to climate change inaction. The wisdom deficit, described by Brad Balukjian, a
writer for PBSs Nova Next, is also an important contributing factor that must be examined. The
wisdom deficit, as already noted, describes a situation in which individuals have no
understanding of a complex topic, but make judgments as if they do. Many individuals may
choose not to act on the problem of climate change because they simplify the issue. In fact, one

Wade 4

psychologist notes that inaction may be fueled by a belief that the earths climate works like a
toaster in the sense that any kind of positive action will have an immediate effect (Chen). The
problem with this way of thinking is that individuals might choose not to act because they
believe that their actions will have the same effect now as they will later.

Initial Inquiry Question(s)

How does psychology explain climate change inaction?

My Interest in this Topic

I am interested in this topic because I am fascinated by the workings of the human mind,
and I am terrified by the problem of climate change. I am distressed by climate change inaction
and want to understand the reasons that individuals refuse to taken even small and fairly
insignificant steps towards progress. I want to undertake this project in order to further my
understanding of my fellow men and women, and to be able to explain their behavior in a way
that is rational and scientific. In this way, I will be able to contribute positively to the
conversation about climate change that is, more often than not, marred by ignorance and hatred
on both sides.
Additionally, I am interested in this topic because I took an absolutely fascinating class
on climate change biology in my senior year of high school. In this class, I was given the
opportunity to investigate the almost irrefutable evidence supporting the fact that humanity was
the greatest contributing factor to global warming. Frightened by the problems that future
generations are likely to face, I was quick to ask the question, but wait, why arent we doing
more? Psychology is the area that I tend to turn to when a problem is related to what seems to

Wade 5

be irrational behavior. It is my hope that this project will help me to understand inaction so that I
can combat it in myself and in my community.
Next Steps
In order to learn more about my topic, I intend to read articles from various scientific
journals such as Perspectives on Science and Annals of Global Health. I will find these articles
using Google Scholar, EBSCOhost, or other online resources offered through the J. Murrey
Atkins Library at UNC Charlotte. In these articles, I will seek out information on specific biases
that psychologists have researched. Additionally, I will search for data and statistics about which
sections of the population tend more towards climate change inaction, and will look at data on a
national level to see if any parts of the United States are more affected by inaction than others. I
will also seek out print books on the topic of climate change inaction at the library. In these
books, I will look for information on the human brain and memory and will apply this
information to climate change inaction. I also intend to contact and discuss the issues that I
investigate with my aunt who is a psychology professor at Abilene Christian University in
Abilene, Texas. Also, I intend to conduct Internet searches for articles about the intersection of
climate change inaction and psychology. I will look for articles from such sources as The Week,
National Geographic, PBS Online, National Public Radio (NPR), The New York Times, and
Wired.