Climate change can be defined as changes that can be attributed to human activity that has changed the composition of the atmosphere, and thereby, the functioning of the Earth's climate system. An important barrier to public action on climate change may be that it often fails to activate our moral judgement system. Research has shown that individuals who consider the ethical implications of climate change report greater support for a variety of mitigation policies aimed at reducing climate change. There are several psychological principles that prevent climate change from registering as a moral imperative, which causes a failure to act to reduce climate change.
Although climate change is the direct result of intentional, goal-directed behaviour (e.g. use of energy for luxury cars), it is perceived by many individuals as an unintentional, unfortunate side effect of such actions, that they can't be blamed for. Studies suggest that unintentionally caused harms are judged less harshly than equally sever but intentionally caused ones. Therefore, recognising climate change as the result of intentional action is a highly motivating cue for corrective action, and unintentional action explains why people fail to act.
The spatial and temporal distance of the victims of climate change is another explanation for why people fail to act. Many individuals living in developed nations correctly believe that climate change will most negatively affect individuals who live faraway in place, time, or both. This makes victims of climate change seen as less similar to oneself, and out-group members, who are seen as less deserving of moral standing. Research has found that treatment of out-group members is worse than that of in-group members, even when membership is arbitrary, and especially for sins of omission. For example, a Swedish study found that although US citizens are hesitant to engage in acts that directly harm either fellow US citizens or foreigners, they are significantly more comfortable harming foreigners through inaction than fellow US citizens. This directly relates to climate change - through failing to act to reduce climate change, we are harming out-group members indirectly. Therefore, this research suggests that the more dissimilar and socially distant the victims of climate change seem to be, temporally and spatially, the less morally obligated people will feel to act on their behalf.
The uncertainty of the effects of climate change lead to optimistic biases that reduce behaviours to eliminate climate change. Studies have found that uncertainty promotes optimistic biases. For example, a study found that the carefully chosen verbal labels used to describe different levels of the (un)certainty (e.g. very likely) in the 2007 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report led people to systematically interpret the outcomes as less likely than intended by the experts. This demonstrates how people optimistically misinterpret the intended messages conveyed regarding the outcomes as less likely than intended by the experts. Other studies have shown that optimistic biases cause a failure to act to issues. For example, optimistic biases are evident for many health- and life-threatening problems, such that people consider their chances to be below average, and that this undermines their interest in risk reduction indirectly, by reducing worry. Therefore, as optimism towards climate change having an impact reduces the gravity of the issue, it may also reduce the motivation to act.
The moral framing of climate change targets the moral priorities of liberals more than conservatives, leading liberals to act. Liberals tend to base their moral priorities on two foundations of individual welfare - harm and fairness. Conservatives supplement these with foundations focused on protecting the in-group. The moral framing of climate change has typically focused on only the first two values; harm to present and future generations, and the unfairness of the distribution of burdens caused. As a result, the justification for action on climate change holds less moral priority for conservatives than liberals, making them less likely to act.
Messages that hold people accountable for causing climate change as an unintended side effect f their behaviour often encourages people to engage in cognitive biases to minimise perceptions of their own complicity. Such biases involve derogating evidences of ones role in causing the problem and challenging the significance of the issue. For example, research shows that individuals actively work to avoid feelings of responsibility in part by blaming inaction on others and increasing focus on the costs of mitigation. The consequences of this reaction to perceived blame is that those responsible, who behavioural changes would be the most beneficial, are motivated to deny their complicity and fail to act to reduce climate change.
In conclusion, there are many psychological explanations as to why climate change does not register as a moral imperative. These include cognitive biases to avoid guilt, moral framing, optimistic biases, victims seen as less similar to oneself and climate change being perceived as an unintended side effect of our lifestyle. As climate change does not register as a moral imperative, people fail to act.
jbbartram-illu
turnnoffyourmind
tangentwithtanner
izzy806
ellievsbear
annaxmalina
romaincrisis
