While it is easy to understand why
so many environmentally concerned people are
fearful and pessimistic, these attitudes detract from the goal
of improving our environment. Fear is well warranted, we are on the
verge of a widespread ecosystem collapse and we have reached 400 ppm of
atmospheric C02 in the arctic. However, rather than just ask how bad
things are, we should be asking how we can best address the
calamities we face within the time we have available.
Fear mongering does not move
us forward, if anything, it alienates people who most need to be brought into
the discussion. The reaction to Rio+20 is
a great illustration of the point. The summit in Rio has
been justifiably described as “weak,” ”remarkably listless,” and
a ”disappointment.” Sometimes the zeal of some
environmentalists makes it hard for them to recognize progress. The
business community’s commitments were the one bright spot at Rio, nonetheless they too were subjected to a
barrage of harsh criticisms. One article suggests that progress
at Rio was derailed
by big business. Some even dismissed the entire process, claiming that the
summit was hijacked
by powerful corporations.
Peter
Bakker is head of the World Business Council on Sustainable Development
(WBCSD) and he flatly rejects the criticism that the 1,000 businesses that
attended Rio were not serious about
creating change. As Bakker points out, there are good businesses that work to
be more sustainable and there are bad businesses that work to undermine
progress. “The 20 percent of really bad guys we need to regulate out of
existence…You can go home from Rio totally
frustrated and create absolutely nothing, but if you see the result as half
full, despite the disappointment, you will see hooks for processes, dialogues
and for agreements around targets,” Bakker said.
While
governments and most private citizens are doing little, some businesses
are showing leadership. There is no doubt that corporations like
those in the fossil fuel industry wield far too much influence, but it is
both irresponsible and inaccurate to dismiss the
sustainability efforts of a growing number of companies. The business
community is doing more for sustainability than governments and private
citizens put together.
Although Rio+20
did not produce the kind of results that many had hoped for, the business
community did provide some reason for optimism. There were a
host of announcements worth noting amongst the 150
corporate sustainability pledges made in Rio, they include the Natural
Capital Declaration, a public-private
partnership to reduce deforestation through sustainable agriculture and the
launch of the Clean
Revolution campaign. In addition, companies listed on the London
Stock Exchange will soon have to provide annual emission reports
and there is a plan to to reduce emissions
through sustainable transport.
There was also progress on sustainable cities, (which is
significant given the fact that cities are responsible for three-quarters of
global GHGs). According to the mayors of major cities who gathered at Rio+20, there are already measures underway to
reduce their combined GHG emissions by 248 million tons by 2020.
Selwyn Hart, a diplomat for Barbados,
was amongst those who saw Rio+20 as progress.
“The document represents a positive step forward. While it is not the major
breakthrough we had 20 years ago, it puts us on the pathway to sustainable
development,” Hart said. “The formal negotiations might be over but
[we] need to focus on the implementation of some of the central issues dealt
with in the document,” he added.
While there may have been some
progress at Rio+20, we are still a very
far way from creating a sustainable world. Given how far we are from the
desired goal, one could easily conclude that the answer lies in providing more
science-based information to people, politicians and business leaders. Others
believe we need to make people aware of the horrors that await us in a world
ravaged by climate change. However, a new study suggests that
environmental action will not come from pessimistic fear inspiring facts about
the environment. Research shows that positive appeals appear to be far
more effective.
The kind of changes we need to see
to save our planet will not be brought about by fear or even by
science. The issue impeding popular support for progress on environmental
policy is pessimism.
Research by historian Matthias
Dörries examined the role of fear in our understanding of climate
change. He explored how apocalyptic forecasting, estimates of mass extinctions
and other fearful predictions have not produced the necessary changes.
According to Professor Dörries, science invokes fear but does not
auger a change in our behavior. Dörries concludes that the appeals for action
on climate change are ultimately ”political and cultural,” not merely a
matter of science and reason alone.
Decades of research show that
appeals to fear can easily backfire causing recipients to reduce the
fear without reducing the danger, perhaps by denying that there is anything to
fear or concluding that the fear appeal was a manipulation attempt by an
untrustworthy source.
As reported in Nature
Climate Change, Paul Bain and his colleagues conducted a study with
important implications for increasing climate change advocacy.
The research of Bain et al shows that informing people about the
expected impacts of climate change had no effect on their positions. What did
change the positions was thinking about how limiting greenhouse-gas emissions
might promote interpersonal warmth and scientific and technological progress.
Ultimately, people’s attitudes on
climate change are directly related to different psychological strategies to
mitigate fear. Climate change deniers reduce fear through a variety of
techniques that reject climate change impacts. Their
tactics include avoidance of the facts, highlighting scientific uncertainties,
focusing on minor disagreements and maligning climate scientists. What makes
opponents of environmental policies so dangerous is the fact that they seek
fear reduction without doing anything to address the threat.
Bain’s research shows that approaches
based on hope work far better than fear. More effective approaches stressed
values of community good feeling and of scientific and technological progress.
If our goal is to bring about the
type of change that will enhance our chances for survival, we must
move beyond pessimism and fear. We must learn to engage people in a
more psychologically effective fashion. We need to work towards building
consensus and curtail the rampant cynicism that only makes matters
worse. Unless we can find a way to entice those not yet engaged in
environmental action, we are simply preaching to the converted.
People are not receptive to
negativity and this has profound implications for environmental advocacy. If we
are to communicate effectively we must move beyond angry rants. If we want to
effectuate change, we must acknowledge that pessimism is an affront to
progress and an impediment to efforts to improve our world.
