Order from us for quality, customized work in due time of your choice.
Human behavior and climate denial
Some people may be more skeptical about news sources, some may know more about climate change and some may be experiencing the effects of climate change. These all could affect how someone perceives anthropogenic climate change. In addition, personality traits or other parts of identity may affect an individuals views. This section will look at how differences in human behavior and personality affect the likelihood to deny climate change.
Climate anxiety
Anxiety is a feeling of worry, fear andor unease (29). When severe, it can lead to irrational behavior. Climate anxiety or eco-anxiety is used to describe this feeling in relation to the future of the environment and threats to nature such as climate change (30). If this leads to irrational behavior, it could unintentionally make climate change matters worse if the irrational behavior is climate denial. Before looking at how climate anxiety can lead to climate denial, it is important to understand why someone may experience climate anxiety. Suggestions could be related to the guilt of climate change in how human processes are harming nature or, a feeling of helplessness around the issue because of its scale and a fear of the rapid need for change in society.
In her book (31), Sally Weintrobe mentions two responses to severe anxiety: negation and disavowal, which are also responses to grief. She explains negation as an outright rejection of something. To relate this to climate change, it is the rejection of anthropogenic climate change. This is obvious of its effect on climate change: rejection is climate denial, and it prevents mitigation. This may be thought to be the worst response, but she argues that disavowal is worse. Disavowal is distorting the truth and turning a blind eye. Distorting the truth on a large scale, as mentioned in sections one and two leads to denial in numerous ways. It causes people to rethink the truth, causing confusion. Turning a blind eye is a significant part of the culture around climate change. The consequences of climate change have been known for decades. However, we still struggle to see significant changes in the processes that are causing climate change. For example, on a global scale, consumption of fossil fuels and on an individual level, daily actions such as transport and diet. Turning a blind eye may not be climate denial as such because one knows it is happening but chooses to ignore it, but it worsens the actions that lead to climate change and so it still has a negative impact.
Considering the fact that the same responses also occur in grief suggests they come from caring and at some point, there is a willingness to accept the reality of the situation. From this, it could be concluded that anxiety is not a major contributor to climate denial because anxiety is likely to arise from a belief in climate change, a recognition of its detrimental impacts, and care for the natural world.
Identity
As with other political issues, there is evidence that climate denial becomes part of an individuals identity, especially their political identity. Age, ethnicity, gender, and religious status are all factors that could predict whether someone is likely to deny climate change. (32) (33). This may correlate with those who are likely to be most affected by climate change financially, regarding business and jobs, regarding the place in which they live and within these are where some of the factors lie. For example, Asian and African countries are likely to be most adversely impacted and so those that live there, who will mostly share similar ethnicity, may have particular and similar views.
The cross-over between politics and identity is most obviously seen in the United States. For this reason, this section will explore only the United States, but it is important to recognize that similar trends may be seen across other Western countries but are unlikely to be as coherent.
The strong division in climate views between Democrats and Republicans may be due to political leaders. However, this cannot account for all the division because some Democrats did not believe in climate change and some Republicans did. Identity could be an explanation for this. Democrats and Republicans both have general stereotypes associated with them. Democrats being snowflakes and Republicans being anti-abortion anti-climate change, and anti-vaccination (these being the extreme). Although it is clear not all members cohere to the stereotypes, being surrounded by those that do and having certain expectations could lead to a self-fulfilling prophecy: where someone becomes their stereotype (34), which, for Republicans would consequently cause climate denial.
Another way in which identity links to climate views is religion, focusing on Christianity. There is an ongoing conflict between religion and science in society because religious people tend to believe science tries to disprove the presence of God. An example of this is the creation of the world. Religion tells this in the story of Creation whereas science has theories such as the Big Bang. There are several reasons climate change could cause conflict. For one, the idea that humans have enough of an impact on the Earth to cause climate change is problematic as it could be considered to contradict the idea of an omnipotent God. It could also lead to guilt and consequently possible anxiety (and consequently possible denial) because there is a bible reference in which God asked them to be stewards of the environment (35), but humans have not taken care of the Earth. In addition, in the Bible, God promised he would not flood the Earth again, the purpose of the flood allowing the world to start again by causing the death of almost every living thing. However, the effects of climate change will eventually lead to rising sea levels and changes in climate and consequently mass extinction, similar to the Flood. So, Christian people are may well believe in climate change, but less likely to believe in anthropogenic climate change and the effects it will have.
The Science
Despite established and widely accepted scientific evidence that anthropogenic climate change is happening, some climate deniers look for ways to disprove this science using other related science. The basis is factors of natural climate change and previous climate events. It is important to remember that some climate warming is necessary for life on Earth, and climate change has happened throughout Earths history. What is concerning now is the rate at which it is happening =.
Natural factors
Humans contribute to global warming by having lifestyles that emit greenhouse gases and performing deforestation. Some natural factors outside human control contribute to global warming: solar irradiance, volcanoes, Earths orbit, and ocean circulation. Global warming causes climate change so factors affecting global warming will affect climate change. This section will look at each of these and identify why they are unlikely to be causing the current rapid rate of climate change
Solar irradiance is the amount of energy the Earth receives from the Sun, also described as the brightness of the Sun. It can vary across solar cycles (36) and it is likely that more solar irradiance will lead to more global warming because there is more infrared radiation reaching Earth that is available for absorption. In addition, more greenhouse gases mean more will be absorbed so human processes are amplifying this. Since the 1970s, solar radiation has increased slightly but not enough to cause notable climate change (37).
Volcanoes can have both a cooling and warming climate effect. They emit greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide which will cause warming but also sulfur dioxide and ash, aerosols that reflect solar radiation away from the Earth, causing cooling (38). In addition, volcanoes generate about 200 million tonnes of carbon dioxide annually, whereas human activities generate 24 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide emissions per year (39). Humans have more of a contribution to carbon dioxide emissions and therefore more to global warming.
Similarly, to solar irradiance, the Earths orbit changes slightly in cycles. The Earth rotates on an axis that causes seasons. Changes in the shape or orbit, angle of Earths tilt, and direction of the axis will affect how much solar radiation reaches Earth and how seasons happen (40). This will affect how much-infrared radiation is absorbed. However, changes in Earths orbit are gradual and lead to gradual changes in climate so cannot be responsible for the relatively rapid global warming of current concern.
The last factor to be considered is ocean currents and circulation patterns. Currents distribute and circulate heat and nutrients between the Earths bodies of ocean water to maintain a stable climate. These currents are caused by changes in wind, water density and solar irradiance, and Earths orbit (41). Changes in ocean currents due to climate change are already being experienced and causing the extinction of coral reefs and marine organisms. Because ocean currents are governed by other factors, it can be said that they are also not solely responsible for the changes in climate being seen.
It is important to acknowledge that, like most things on Earth, these factors often influence each other and happen at the same time. When one changes, it is likely the others will too. They are often used to provide evidence that anthropogenic climate change is not happening. By, for example, suggesting these are solely causing the climate change or using them to justify the fact that humans could not have such a significant impact and that climate change is natural (which it is but it is being caused by unnatural, human processes). The changes that human processes cause amplify these natural changes and therefore result in an extreme change. And because these natural processes are interrelated, it is likely that a cycle of continued warming and climate change will occur.
Previous climate cycles
The Earth has experienced many climate cycles in its history, allowing life to evolve in the first place and suiting different organisms in different cycles. Two relatively recent periods were The Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age, both of which had a difference in temperature to now and both of which had almost entirely natural causes (processes at this time were much less significant as the population was smaller, and the Industrial Revolution had not yet happened.)
The Medieval Warm Period occurred approximately from 950-1250AD and temperatures were approximately 1-2 degrees Celsius warmer than today. Causes of this include an increase in solar radiation, a decrease in volcanic activity, and a change in ocean currents (42). However, there is a debate among scientists as to the degree to which this occurred, and notably, it did not happen worldwide. In addition to not being worldwide, the time frame it occurred over was 300 years, whereas the warming today is global and already, has occurred over 100 years, suggesting limited ability to compare.
The Little Ice Age occurred between the early 1500s and mid-1800s, a similar period of 300 years, where temperatures were approximately 0.6 degrees Celsius lower than today in the Northern Hemisphere. The causes identified are reduced solar radiation, increased volcanic activity, and changes in air movement within the atmosphere (43). For the same reasons, the Little Ice Age cannot be used as a comparison to now because of its longer time scale and where it occurred. Because both periods occurred over 300 years, it suggests that the current period is outside of climate norms because of the significantly shorter period that similar changes are occurring.
Conclusion
To conclude, and reinstate, science is the main reason for anthropogenic climate denial. Denial of the science is a denial of climate change. So, to understand the main reason for climate change denial, the main reason for the denial of science must be understood. The denial of the science proving climate change is caused mostly by the media. Furthermore, it is the use of the media by biased industries looking to maximize profit, influential political figures sharing their strong opinions, and mass media failing to recognize the harm in balance that causes skepticism. In addition, the use of social media by individuals whose identity and personality may shape their perspective of climate change in a way that makes them susceptible to consuming anti-climate change information, and the use of algorithms and bots that spread this misinformation cause social media to become a place for skepticism to grow. This information that is presented via the media suggests that science is only partly true or fake. Each factor is linked to the use of the media, but it is the media itself that provides a place for climate skepticism or denial to be presented. It can be said that misinformation, wherever it comes from or whatever the motives behind it, causes skepticism, and this when combined with more misinformation, causes denial.
Order from us for quality, customized work in due time of your choice.