Minding the environment: All too often global green issues seem too big for one person to make a difference.

Giles Crosse learns what psychology tells us about environmental excuse making.

There’s little doubt humans have perfected their ability to hide from problems when they seem too heavy.

The list is endless. Why should individuals make a difference when global multinationals fail to act on sustainability? What’s the use in insulating your home when coal power stations spring up daily in China?

The reality behind this kind of thinking is complex, and it seems to tie in with how we identify ourselves, from an individual or an egalitarian perspective. Tom Crompton works as Change Strategist for the WWF. He recently coauthored a document, ‘Meeting Environmental Challenges: The Role of Human Identity,’ and has some interesting views on human behaviour.

“It seems that those of us who identify more as individuals seem more resistant to accepting the science behind things like climate change,” says Crompton. “Whereas those who come from an egalitarian viewpoint seem more accepting and able to live with these kind of realities.”

“It is remarkable when you look at the importance of world views and at the acceptance of climate science. In spite of the vast scientific acceptance and consensus behind anthropological climate change there remains public resistance.”

“There are correlations and empirical evidence that we adopt ‘identity protective methods’ and defy world views which we deem to be threatening to us as individuals.”

Heads in the sand

Perhaps this concept is understandable. In the real world acting and worrying over climate change may be best hidden at the back of our minds, if this leaves us freer to concentrate on the daily school run, work, and the realities of a modern nine to five existence.

Acceptance of climate science also means accepting a big chunk of modern living, with its focus on consumerism and growth, has been leading us in completely the wrong direction, suggesting that the fabric of daily living is pretty meaningless. This is a tough realisation to make.

“There are also psychological studies that your sense of identity determines a reaction to climate science,” continues Crompton. “There are both effective and emotional implications and responses to these questions, sympathetic viewpoints.”

Crompton says further work is being done on in places like Cambridge. He’s not alone in his assessments:

“A huge shift in public attitudes to global warming is vital to secure our future. The new strategy put forward in this superb book is subtle, powerful and based on cutting edge psychological research. It’s probably our last best shot,” says Clive Hamilton, Author of Growth Fetish and Scorcher: The dirty politics of climate change.

“It would be the easiest thing in the world to neglect the demons in the human soul and place all our faith in angels. But Pollyanna politics won’t solve the enormous environmental and social challenges that face us,” confirms Tim Jackson, Professor of Sustainable Development and Director of RESOLVE, University of Surrey.

But what does the document recommend we actually do?

Actions not words

It seems we deliberately hide from information. ‘One environmental activist described how she avoided reading all of the details about global warming, believing that it is “better not to know everything”.’ explains ‘Meeting Environmental Challenges: The Role of Human Identity.’

‘There was an awkward pause in conversation after a guest raised the issue of climate change, until another intervened by remarking on how lovely the tart was, at which point everyone else emphatically agreed (Marshall, 2007). Another form of selective attention involved keeping one’s thoughts in the present, so that awareness about future impacts of climate change is avoided.’ it continues.

It even seems ‘probable that, when briefly reminded of their mortality, people will tend to orient towards self enhancing, materialistic values,’ That’s precisely what we need to avoid doing.

The solution, argues the narrative, will ‘promote those alternative aspects of identity that are environmentally beneficial,’

‘Data suggests that one approach to diminishing the power of self enhancing and materialistic values is to encourage people to place greater priority on values such as self-acceptance/self-direction, affiliation/benevolence and community feeling/universalism,’ suggests the publication.

‘What’s more, the research reveals that such values both oppose environmentally damaging self enhancing and materialistic values and promote more positive environmental attitudes and sustainable lifestyles,’

The point is, the more we align our sense of identity with positive elements, the more amenable to climate action we become. Whereas ‘individuals who value money, possessions, achievement, power, image and status are less likely to engage in pro environmental behaviours.’

There is a potential conflict at work here, as much environmental campaigning concentrates on the business case behind sustainability, or how it can offer profit making potential. Ironically, in so doing, environmental groups may be exacerbating unsustainable materialistic behaviours.

One idea involves a ‘second type of strategy that environmental organisations could pursue, [is] to support the development and implementation of new measures of national progress.’

By avoiding gross domestic product as a measure of wealth and success, we might help develop a shift away from unsustainable thinking. A wider focus on ‘intrinsic’ or ‘self transcendent’ values too is advised. The publication quotes UK Conservative MP Oliver Letwin:

“A child who has no access to the grand scenes of the countryside, of the mountains and the lakes, of the cliffs and the sea, is deprived, not in the way in which a child whose parents are living hand to mouth in poverty is deprived, but in a different and important way,”

Emotional viewpoint

For a campaigning environmentalist, more sensitive ideas that identify and accept our defensive mechanisms may be worthwhile.

‘Environmental organisations can state truths that often remain unspoken, global warming is scary and people often do feel hopeless. Moreover, such interventions convey a sense of understanding and even acceptance, and thereby help people begin to recognise that they may be attempting to manage their emotions in ways that are ultimately not adaptive for themselves or the environment.’ says the publication.

‘By demonstrating a sense of empathy and understanding, environmental organisations will be better placed to build public trust and rapport.’

It appears the role of psychology in determining how we respond to global crises may be more complex than we might have imagined. And whilst the ability to ‘stick our heads in the sand’ is familiar to us all, the regularity with which we’re doing it may not be.

Activism has long been the byword for getting people up and motivated about sustainability. But maybe activating them in the right ways is actually far more important.

Comments (1)