The Layered Truth behind Climate Change Denial

The schism between beliefs of whether or not climate change is real, and the lack of a uniform global will to confront it, is one of the most harrowing issues of our time.

The earth has been ravaged, the impacts proven, yet millions still don’t seriously address the issue. The United Nations states that “urgent action” is required to save lives and livelihoods in the face of the climate emergency. The evidence—the Keeling Curve, global temperature rise, glacial retreats, acidic waters, the gut-wrenching video of a starving polar bear—mounts. But this doesn’t keep some from continuing to reduce the earth’s plight to political fodder. The fate of the natural world becomes an ingredient for vitriolic arguments and policy debate.

In 2019, The Guardian, YouGov, and University of Cambridge collaborated to survey more than 25,000 people from twenty-three of the world’s most advanced countries on critical issues including global warming and immigration. (This was the first of the annual YouGov-Cambridge Globalism Project.) The United States fell third for having the most climate change deniers, just under Indonesia and Saudi Arabia. The findings revealed that 13 percent of Americans stated climate change is happening but is not caused by humans. Five percent completely denied it.

These findings are daunting but they also prove a light: In the US, approximately 72 percent of Americans believe climate change is real, according to Yale University. In Great Britain, more than two-thirds of the population feel climate change needs immediate and immense attention. The vast majority of published scientists believe humans are the cause of these issues. Some find hope in these numbers; that the growing masses are understanding one of the greatest challenges in front of us and therefore will do what’s necessary to fight it. But the reasons behind the partisan energy are complex—that is because we humans are complex.

For one, there is no tidy collective agreement on the severity, cause, and immediacy of the issue. Among those who believe the science proving human-caused climate change are layers and layers of differences. Take the “Six Americas,” Yale’s research that categorizes American into six groups based on their attitudes on the subject. The research reads like a spectrum: The “Alarmed” category, which encompasses those with the highest climate change belief, concerns, and motivation, is on one end. The “Dismissive” category, which includes the lowest belief, concerns, and motivation, is on the other. In between are the groups labeled “Concerned,” “Cautious,” Disengaged,” and “Doubtful.” What does this show? In the library of climate change perceptions, humans are not on the same page, let alone in the same book.

Another reason that supports the labyrinthine nature of climate change acceptance and response is the reasoning of why we believe what we believe. People are persuaded by a myriad of things including geography, community, past experiences, and intuitive perceptions. A person’s mental model, or thought process for how something works, is unique to their journey and the information and biases they hold. It is the human psychological nature to seek out the information that supports one’s existing theories. This is jarringly evidenced with climate change. People “either ignore facts that contradict their mental model of climate change or interpret them as exceptions to the rule,” finds researchers at Columbia University.

Cognitive biases provide extensive insight into our motivation and capacity to collectively combat climate change. Hyperbolic discounting, the notion that the present is more pressing than the future, plays a role. As humans, we’ve evolved to respond to the threats right in front of us: a burning fire, a roaring bear, a catastrophic virus. But the issues that will gravely hurt us further into the future—climate change—tend not to grab our immediate attention. We also face what researchers call “dragons of inaction.” Including a range of things from understanding to apathy to perception of risk to avoidance, these “dragons” are the barriers that get in our way of doing things to better the situation.

This brings us to the bleak heart of the matter: We’re all not in agreement—and we need to be. We’re in a climate change quagmire that tells a great amount about how we, as humans, respond to threats and our capacity to make change. It also presents the question about our responsibilities, whatever side of the climate change argument we are on. Is it the duty of believers to understand, listen, and attempt to persuade? And is it the duty of deniers to listen, give credence to the science, and listen more? Is it all of our duties to look within and expand our minds, face our biases, and stretch our willingness to really change?

These questions are ones we must ask. The solves to the heart of the matter are copious and hard, but they begin and end with us. That is why we’ll be exploring this topic further on The Conscious Investor. We’ll be reading (see below) and asking experts questions not only about what we can continue to do to lower our carbon footprint, but also how we can better understand and communicate with those whose views may not align with our own. But no matter the situation, we all must lead with patience, values, and respect.

If the health of our planet and ourselves relies on better understanding, our challenge now is to make sure our future doesn’t worsen a gap between differing opinions on climate change but rather closes it.

This is our opportunity.

The Layered Truth behind Climate Change Denial

Further Reading on Climate Change Denial and Cognitive Bias