The reasons why more people are not demanding action on the environment is a
glaring moral failing. If we are to see a critical mass of support for efforts
to combat climate change, we must understand that in addition to an economic and
ecological crisis, we are also facing a moral crisis. To bridge the gulf between
morality and climate change we need to go to the places where morality still has
value.
Religions are a primary source of ethical conduct, and as such they are an
ideal platform for communicating a moral argument. Although governments and
businesses have a central role, churches, temples, mosques, synagogues and other
places of worship may be the best venues for disseminating the moral dimension
of the climate change issue. We need to tap into the deeply embedded
preexisting morality of the vast majority of people who consider themselves
followers of religion. (Even those who do not subscribe to religion also respond
to moral arguments about the need for action on climate change).
Religious leaders from all the major traditions see action on climate change
as a moral imperative. As reviewed in an extensive list of Climate Change Statements, all of the world’s major religious
traditions espouse a harmonious relationship between people and the planet.
One group called Interfaith Moral Action on Climate is a collaborative
initiative of religious leaders and groups that are promoting a moral call to
action on climate change. This group feels compelled by their “traditions and
collective conscience to take action on this deeply moral challenge. [They]
believe that a moral voice is essential in inspiring action on climate change,
since scientific and economic arguments alone have not moved the United States
to adequately address this deepening crisis.”
Interfaith is calling for policies that dramatically reduce wasted energy,
support renewable energy and phase-out all fossil fuel subsidies. Despite the
radical change they advocate, their message is positive. They seek a “brighter
vision” to unite the world around “a set of clear widely held moral
principles.”
Their third guiding moral principle is to protect the Earth, they reiterate
the aboriginal beliefs that we have a moral obligation to be good stewards of
the Earth and all of its creatures and processes. Interfaith’s vision advocates
a moral response to climate change while acknowledging scientific research.
They have circulated their Interfaith
Declaration on Climate Change, and an Interfaith Statement on Climate Change
was submitted by representatives of the world’s religions at the COP17 in
Durban, South Africa.
“We recognize that climate change is not merely an economic or technical
problem, but rather at its core is a moral, spiritual and cultural one. We
therefore pledge to join together to teach and guide the people who follow the
call of our faiths.”
In an article titled “Rekindling the Moral Call to Action,” climate change is
construed as a “fundamental moral and humanitarian issue.” The article urges
action from leaders and works towards a unified effort to combat climate
change.
On July 23rd, 2012, there was a phone conference briefing on “How to
Communicate about Climate Action as a Moral Imperative.” The event was
co-hosted by Climate Access, US Climate Action Network, Interfaith Moral Action
on Climate Change, and the National Climate Ethics. The speakers indicated that
we need to create a moral movement that urges people to take personal
responsibility and choose sides on the issue of climate change.
Even American
Evangelical Christian Leaders have clearly articulated a moral argument for
supporting action on anthropogenic climate change. They state that their
Christian moral convictions demand their response to climate change. They go on
to advocate national legislation in the U.S., requiring emissions reductions
through market based mechanisms like cap-and-trade.
As reviewed in a Guardian article, NASA scientist Jim Hansen calls climate
change a moral issue on a par with slavery. He is calling for a global carbon
tax and sees inaction on climate change as an “injustice of one generation to
others”.
Morality is also the key issue in an article titled Why Few Americans View Climate Change as a Moral Problem by
Ezra Markowitz. He is a doctoral candidate in Environmental Sciences at
the University of Oregon and a research fellow with the Climate Shift Project at
American. In a 2012 publication Markowitz points to an absence of strong moral intuitions on climate change.
Markowitz and his colleague Azim Shariff have published
research on the moral psychology of the public (dis)engagement with climate
change. Their new paper in Nature Climate Change is called “Climate change and moral judgment.” In the paper,
Markowitz and Shariff explore six reasons why climate change is not a more
common moral issue and six strategies that may help to compel us to act.
According to these researchers, the human moral judgment system fails to
acknowledge climate change because: Climate change is complex, distant and
abstract; it represents an untraditional type of moral transgression where it is
sometimes hard to attribute blame; people have an aversion to guilt; they see
the future as uncertain and they fail to identify with victims of climate
change. Finally, concerns about climate change are not at present core moral
values.
To help people engage efforts to combat climate change, the authors recommend
that we use existing moral values. They go on to suggest that we should focus on
communicating the problems that climate change will wreak upon future
generations, rather than on the potential benefits. The idea here is that it is
counterproductive to focus on “extrinsic motivators” for action on climate
change (i.e. economic growth and jobs). According to the researchers, it weakens
moral engagement by deemphasizing intrinsic values and non-materialist
motives.
The research indicates that it is more productive to use messaging that
generates positive emotions (eg: hope, pride and gratitude), rather than
negative emotions (eg: guilt, shame and anxiety). The study reports that we need
to expand our group identity, incorporate shared goals, and finally, we need to
highlight positive social norms where pro-environmental action is lauded.
“The point I want to drive home is this: truly engaging with climate change
as a moral issue—really feeling its moral significance viscerally—is no easy
feat” Markowitz said, “regardless of how often we hear about the people and
animals that will be harmed or the injustice of richer individuals and nations
misappropriating a life-sustaining, common resource.”
We will need to be creative and develop evidence-based approaches that help
people to understand climate change as a moral imperative. Despite the subtle
psychological nuances needed to effectively communicate the point, the moral
argument is capable of unleashing unprecedented activity.
Related Posts
Crafting a Positive Environmental Narrative
Pessimism is Impeding Environmental Advocacy
Building Support for Action on Climate Change Before We Reach Tipping Points
Why We Need to Reach American Climate Change Deniers
