Dragons of Inaction - 340

In 2011, Robert Gifford, a professor at the University of Victoria, wrote about the psychological barriers to accepting that rapid climate change is happening, that humankind is responsible for most of it, and that we need to work diligently to cease making it worse. He called them the "Dragons of Inaction." He identified numerous psychological barriers hindering individuals from engaging in pro-environmental behaviors.

Scientists knew that vested interests in the fossil fuel industry were massively funding deniers, but they thought the common man would rise to the occasion if the science was made available. Humankind would, they believed, act on their extensive research. They were naïve. And so was I.

Gifford, trying to do his part, identified many of the psychological barriers that make it challenging to accept well-founded science rather than well-funded denialists.

We have not been successful in large part because billionaire-owned social media, with its perverse algorithms, has destroyed any efforts to bring humankind back to rational thinking. According to Professor Mathew Nisbet at Northeastern University,  “Social Media plays to the rawest elements of human nature, and has done great damage to American Politics,* destroying our ability to think collectively, maintain a sustained focus on pressing problems, and discuss productively across lines of difference." It was hard to foresee the corrosive effect of social media,  the new “Way” to deliver information. A way which preys on humankind's ingrained weaknesses with little regard for truth or goodness.

2011, I purchased "Dragons of Inaction" from the American Psychologist. In frustration and with good intentions, many well-educated people have added depth to Gifford's Dragons. Here, I briefly introduce the Dragons to you, with more depth next week.

When The Dragons of Inaction was written in 2011 and published in The American Psychologist, many, including myself, believed that if we worked harder to get the climate facts out, we could mobilize action. Later studies informed us that 40% of humankind resists rational arguments. They consciously and/or subconsciously practice "willful ignorance." These people are particularly easy targets for the dragons of inaction.

Other people on the other end of the spectrum which make up another 40% of humankind, care. These people are also the deliberate target of deniers. They are overwhelmed with  a tsunami of denier propaganda. These people, Gifford says, suffer from "environmental numbness," and it is not hard to understand why.  99% of climate scientists have little money defend facts. Deniers representing only 1% of climate science have flooded the social media field with over 200 climate myths. How many people have the time to run down 200 false rabbit holes? (SkepticalScience.com).

Today, we all suffer from carefully crafted propaganda. Creating doubt immobilizes well-meaning citizens. The book and documentary Merchants of Doubt exhaustively examines subversion. The well-meaning 40% are often emotionally overwhelmed by what Gifford calls "environmental numbness."

Others felt climate change is so slow-moving that it oculd not impact them. Nor did they understand they might be morally challenged. It is obvious the worsening global weather is caused by a warming climate. Rising food and insurance prices are a result of our inaction. Unless they are dead today or have lost their cognitive ability to connect the dots, the cold, hard truth is coming home to roost.

Many people practice escapism ideologies. Instead of engaging with a troubling issue, they believe we will be saved by the free market, technology, or divine intervention. These blind beliefs in entities or systems are practiced by people with inflexible worldviews and ideologies. These belief systems allow people to dismiss any needed personal commitment to change.

Another dragon is people are social, tribal, herd animals.  If they do not see others engaging in pro-environmental action, they cannot self-motivate. The tribe ignores, they ignore.

Many resist taking action because they do not want to risk being viewed as different from those they socialize with. Consciously and subconsciously, the fear of no longer being accepted ends intellectual/moral investigation and action.

Some people are referred to as "What-abouts". If others are polluting, they feel justified in doing nothing because it will cost them time and money. They feel it is unfair that others are not participating. "I would," they say, "but what about them!"

The "Sunk Costs" risk can be a dragon to the truth.  The most common example of sunk cost resistence is with oil exploration. The oil industry has sunk money into finding more oil. This is money already spent or “sunk”.  They want a return on what they have already spent to find oil.

Another example of sunk cost might be if a person has just purchased a gas guzzler.  They are discouraged from accepting the science because they just sunk money into an inefficient internal combustion vehicle. This is false guilt and a false choice. A person can still accept scientific facts and drive a gas vehicle.  There is no need to change right now. The average car only lasts 12 to 15 years.  The calendar goal of switching to an all-electric society is 2040 to 2050. Don't fret over driving a gas vehicle. Do it responsibly and make the next one a hybrid or electric vehicle.

Sometimes, we find it hard to change habits, especially as we age. Gifford calls this "behavioral momentum." This is a tough one, as we are all creatures of habit. I will, again, try to change my habit of getting my groceries in one-use bags. Despite my efforts, behavioral momentum has been winning out all too often.

We have a natural tendency to be skeptical of institutions and authorities. This healthy skepticism has been exploited by those who would have us hesitate to act. The erosion of trust in our institutions has been deliberately set upon us. I have repeatedly heard people say this or that group of people is untrustworthy, making accusations that they cannot back up with facts.

There is an insidious twist to the people who have instilled mistrust of reputable institutions. Because the weather worldwide has worsened more rapidly than predicted by scientists, the same clamoring deniers cannot tell us the world is not warming without looking like whackos. But this has not stopped the flood of disinformation. In a despicable switch, many of the same deniers tell us there is nothing we can now do. "Why even try?" they say.  Again, the propaganda is about discouraging and making us feel powerless. They are the spirit killers.

Many people fear the changes needed will be too expensive. This is despite scientists' warnings that kicking the can down the road will make cleaning up the climate mess much more expensive for future generations, putting our kids at great financial and environmental risk.

While deeper psychological problems are feeding these "dragons," it is crucial to start developing strategies to overcome them. Addressing these psychological barriers can lead to more effective communication and policies encouraging sustainable behaviors.

*Regarding the damaging effects of social media, read "Anti-social Media" by Siva Vaidhyanathan.