You are on page 1of 11

Mason 1

Psychological flaws, the consumerism crisis and investment hurdles - Climate


transition problems
There is no question climate change is occurring. Perhaps a more burning question that
should instead be dominating headlines is whether established economic, social and political
institutions are capable of dealing with the climate change and global economic crises? This is
the question editors Mark Pelling, David Manuel-Navarrete and Michael Redclift pose at the
beginning of Climate Change and the Crisis of Capitalism. Based on the curricula, lectures and
texts presented during the course of the term, it seems the answer is yes, our established
institutions are in fact capable of dealing with climate change, however it will be very, very
difficult. I have chosen to examine three climate transition problems that I find to be most
interesting. The transition problems that I will address in this paper include the psychological
barriers to action, the crisis of consumerism and investment hurdles.
Psychological barriers
Avoiding climate change is one of the most urgent transition problems we face today. In
order to engage the public with an effective plan of action to trump climate change, it is first
important to understand the psychological tendencies that are making it so difficult to grab
societys attention. According to Anthony Leiserowitz, the director of Yale Universitys Project
on Climate Change Communication, You almost could not design a problem that is worse fit for
our underlying psychology. The human psyche has a tendency to refuse climate change is even
a problem to begin with. Climate change is perceived as distant to the human psyche and
therefore not an important issue for our generation to address. Climate change is abstract,
humans prioritize information that confirm their beliefs and a tendency for wishful thinking leads
people to believe the issue will resolve itself (Spence, Poortinga, & Pidgeon, 2012).
The first psychological barrier that makes climate transition difficult is the abstraction of
direct and indirect carbon emissions. Each time we consume a product or fill our car up with gas,
the repercussions of our action are not immediately visible. Because we cannot visualize our
individual carbon footprint and the repercussions of our behaviors, it makes climate change an
abstract concept. For example, when someone buys a pizza from the grocery store, they are
unable to see the impact they are truly having. The total amount of carbon emitted into the
environment between the pizzas production process, transportation to a grocery store and shelf-

Mason 2
life cannot be tangibly experienced. There are two ways consumers can emit carbon dioxide directly and indirectly, both of which perpetuate the abstractness of climate change. Direct
carbon dioxide emissions result from energy consumption extracted from fossil fuels. Energy
generation alone produces greenhouse gases that are emitted into the environment. A few
examples of direct carbon emissions include using gas to fuel vehicles, using natural gas to heat
homes and using electricity to light a store (Weisbrot, 2003). The Hinkle Charitable Foundation,
a foundation that advocates for environmental and musical education, released a report that
stated an average household emits nearly 24.2 tons of carbon dioxide each year operating their
home and vehicles. On the other hand, indirect carbon emissions result from remaining energy
consumed in the economy. Indirect emissions are not the direct result of a consumer. Of the two
types of emissions, this is the more abstract of the two because often times an individual does not
recognize or cannot control the carbon being emitting. Examples of indirect emissions include
purchasing a product that embodies energy either from its manufacture, packaging or delivery
processes, visiting heated or air-conditioned buildings, eating food that was transported from a
different location and using street lamps while driving (Spence et al., 2012). According to the
Hinkle Charitable Foundation report, an average households indirect carbon emissions per year
is 35 tons - almost double the average of direct carbon emissions (Weisbrot, 2003).. The
abstraction of climate change makes it incredibly difficult for our minds to rap around. Because
we cannot visualize carbon emissions happening and often dont notice the indirect emissions, it
makes refusing to accept climate change very easy.
The second psychological barrier that makes climate transition difficult is confirmation
bias. A mental model represents the way a person processes and understands the world. Often
times, a mental model is comprised of an individuals firsthand experiences, incomplete facts,
input from people they consider worthy and from their own intuition - all of which make up an
individuals bias. Mental models are used as frameworks to filter out and interpret new
information. Confirmation bias occurs when an individual accepts information that is in sync
with their mental model and rejects information that is not in sync with their mental model. In
terms of climate change, individuals use mental models to decide what they think is really
happening to the environment (Center for Research on Environmental Decisions, 2009). The
problem with the confirmation bias tendency is that individuals who believe climate change is
not a pressing issue will avoid news and information that challenges their preconceived belief

Mason 3
that climate change is not occurring. Individuals tune out information that does not sync with
their mental model. This is especially concerning when the impact of the media on public
opinion is considered (Burke, 2010). According to Mike Berners-Lee, the author of The
Burning Question, carbon businesses with the most at stake are making great efforts to
undermine the problem to the public. They support messages that support the idea climate
change is not a real problem or is too expensive to reverse. Campaigns such as these have
damaged the publics understanding of the scope of climate change. Berners-Lee also refers to
media outlets who have tarnished public opinion because of misguided anchors. He refers to Fox
News, one of the leading media providers in the United States, which has commentators who
believe global warming is a hoax and publishes misleading reports and other material about
climate change (Berners-Lee, 2013). When individuals who already dont believe that climate
change is occurring are exposed to information such as this, they take it as truth. Despite the fact
the information is false, the information syncs with the individuals preconceived mental model
and therefore it must be true (Center for Research on Environmental Decisions (2009). This
perpetuates the idea that climate change is not an issue and discourages consumers from paying
closer attention to their direct and indirect carbon emitting behaviors.
The third psychological barrier that makes climate transition difficult is the tendency for
wishful thinking. Wishful thinking is defined as, the formation of beliefs and decisions based on
what is most appealing to imagine, rather than appealing to evidence, rationality or reality. This
optimistic outlook results from resolving the conflict between what you believe to be true and
what you desire to be true. Studies have shown that individuals are more likely to predict
positive outcomes than they are negative outcomes - an example of wishful thinking. In terms of
climate change, individuals are more likely to believe environmental issues are not really be as
bad as scientists and climate specialists are saying than they are to accept that it is a pressing
issue. In addition, wishful thinkers tend to believe in silver bullet solutions, or a single solution
discovered in the nick of time that will alleviate everything - a Hollywood ending. There are
two forms of wishful thinking: spatial and temporal discounting. Spatial discounting occurs
when an individual assumes environmental problems are worse in other parts of the world
compared to where they are located. For example, an individual living in the United States may
assume people living in Antarctica are experiencing worse repercussions of climate change
because of the massive amounts of ice that could potentially melt. It may seem to that individual

Mason 4
living in the U.S. that melting glaciers is worse than hotter summers because everyone loves
longer and hotter summers. In reality, both of these environmental changes are of equal
significance no matter the spatial wishful thinking at play. The second form of wishful thinking,
is temporal discounting occurs when individuals assume problems will be worse later in the
future and so immediate action is not necessary. This is a selfish way to think, however it is a
way that many climate skeptics think. Individuals assume that because they will not personally
be alive when climate change really hits its peak, that it is not important to make changes.
Humans tend to think in the short term (Spence et al., 2012). According to Berners-Lee, it is
easier for an individual to think one day ahead compared to one month, one year, one decade
ahead or even one lifetime in advance (Berners-Lee, 2013). Short-term thinking is a transition
problem because in order to eventually see a change, it is important to act now and make goals
that can be accomplished in the long term. These tendencies to think in a wishful manner are
poisonous because they cause individuals to feel less motivated to act now and change their
behaviors, which is necessary for climate transition. Wishful thinking instead perpetuates the
problem of climate transition even further.
Consumerism
In addition to psychological tendencies making climate transition difficult, global society
has been sucked into a vicious cycle of consumerism. Consumerism is defined as the theory that
an increasing consumption of goods is economically desirable or a preoccupation with and an
inclination toward the buying of consumer goods. More simply put, society values buying and
spending money. The economy is largely driven by consumerism and the current state of the
environment can be largely blamed on consumerism. Ordinary consumers maintain lifestyles that
entail large carbon footprints. In order to reduce carbon emissions it would take discouraging
consumerism. That would mean consumers would need to give up their fancy lifestyles - stop
driving cars fueled by gas, traveling to countries by plane, eating food delivered to stores via
trucks, purchasing clothes produced in factories run by energy and pretty much consuming either
directly or indirectly anything that use carbon.
The first reason consumerism is a crisis that affects climate transition is because society
values material possessions. The truth of the matter is consumerism has locked society into a
system of using the planet as a means to its end (Holthaus, 2014). Producers and manufacturers
continue to exploit the Earth of it natural resources by burning heaps of coal in order to keep up

Mason 5
with the demands of society. Many consumers do not even stop or slow down to think about the
impact their purchasing behaviors are having on the physical environment. Instead, consumers
are fixated on what consumerism symbolizes in terms of status. The current crisis is so
embedded in everyday behavior justified by co-produced values and reinforced through habit
that the very construction of identify and notions of self - the signifiers of success, happiness,
status, to say nothing of norms of social responsibility - have become part of the problem. This is
demonstrably so in affluent societies displaying excess consumption (Pelling, ManuelNavarrete, & Redclift, 2011). Consumption is viewed as a symbol of status and importance.
Status symbols are defined as visible, external denotations of ones social status within society
and a perceived indicator of economic status. Members of society often unconsciously ignore the
possible repercussions their consumption habits may be having on the environment because they
have been socialized into thinking that spending money and displaying your monetary self-worth
are most important (Holthaus, 2014). Modern societies tend to stress an individuals societal selfworth, or human agency based on their roles as a consumer, or ability to boost the economy.
Climate transition is a matter of changing consumer choices and reducing consumption habits.
Consumerism has come to provide a meta-framework through which we understand our
relationship with the material world of nature. This reductive fame plays down understandings of
human agency that emphasize co-dependence with ecological and biological processes,
spirituality, or altruistic commitment with others (Pelling et al., 2011). At this point in time,
consumers are demonstrating that societys relationship with the material world of nature is not
important. If it were important, consumers would stop behaving in excess and value the
environment more for what it is worth. Unfortunately, without status symbols society would be
forced to develop new symbols to rely on to interpret one anothers worth within society, which
would require some type of revolution and would not likely take effect in a timely manner.
The second reason consumerism is a crisis that affects climate transition is because
humans are social learners and unless the majority of society makes a drastic change all at once,
individuals will not adjust their behaviors. Social learning theory indicates that learning and
behavior are a cognitive process that takes place in a social context and occurs as a result of
observation or direct instruction from someone. Social learning is often encouraged through
reinforcement. The media is often a large influencer of social learning. Individuals are likely to
repeat the behaviors they are exposed to in the media. This is a problem in terms of climate

Mason 6
change because the media and advertisements send messages that encourage consumers to travel
more, shop more, eat more and consume more in order to be accepted in society (Burke, 2010).
This is an issue for climate transition because consuming more, traveling more, etc increases
carbon footprints. This is the opposite of what consumers should be doing, but because of social
learning theory these behaviors are the ones they are likely to adopt. However, if the media and
advertisements sent out alternative messages, such as carpool more, grow your own produce and
make your own clothing, individuals would be likely to adopt these behaviors. The idea of this
change in media messages is very unlikely to occur considering societys fixation on
consumerism and material goods as status symbols (Kasser, 2003). There is a link between
economic growth and well-being, one that indicates how unhealthy excessive consumption really
is not only for the environment, but for an individuals mental health. One of the principal
psychological and cultural determinants of excessive consumption has been found to be feelings
of personal insecurity and vulnerability - whether about ones body shape, sensitivity to peer
judgements, or externally generated and reinforced views of self-other relations that undermine
personal or other forms of security and self-esteem. Giddens in a slightly different vein, has
written persuasively about the way in which modernity can undermine what he calls ontological
security, but does not connect this with patterns of defensive consumption - those forms of
consumption which do not add to quality of life, but are forced upon the individual as a
necessary means for them to simply protect their existing material standard of living. Ego
insecurity may therefore be viewed as a main cause of consumerism and materialism, which lead
to diminished well-being (Pelling et. al, 2011). It is a vicious cycle. Consumers consume to feel
accepted and valued in society, but in reality over consumption, which occurs often, only makes
a consumer feel worse about their worth. According to psychologist Tim Kassers work,
Materialistic people, from children to pensioners, are less satisfied with life, lack vitality, and
suffer more anxiety depression and addiction problems. Materialistic values make people more
anti-social, less empathic, more competitive and less cooperative. He points out that the U.S.
increasingly turns to money and possessions as a way of coping with distress rather than seeking
comfort and support in social interaction and community or family relationships (Kasser, 2003).
This is an issue in terms of climate change because it indicates consumerism is a vicious cycle.
People consume to trump their insecure egos, but in reality they are damaging their egos even
further. As a result consumers are less empathetic and therefore care less about preserving the

Mason 7
environment and reversing climate change for the sake of others, the well being of the Earth and
for future generations.
Consumerism is a crisis because society admires individuals who rise to the top. Those
who own yachts and mansions, rack up frequent flyer miles, eat slabs of steak for every meal,
drive gas-guzzling vehicles and outwardly display their economic status are deemed the most
valuable in society. These are also the members in society posing the most threats to our
environment. Consumerism is a major transition problem because of how much society values
material goods and because humans are social learners and will not likely change their behavior
unless the media change their messages.
Investment hurdles
Similar to other environmental issues, climate change involves an externality - the
emission of greenhouse gases damages others at no cost to the agent responsible for the
emissions. Because the agent responsible for the emission doesnt experience repercussions for
their action, they continue to go about their greenhouse-gas-emitting business, and thus
perpetuating the carbon economy (Stern, 2006). The carbon economy has transformed everyday
life touching upon our very senses of identity, which have become increasingly associated with
material consumption, and perhaps more profoundly the very systems that provide food (through
chemical fertilizers and international transport), heat and increasingly (through dealination
plants) even water for the rapidly growing and urbanizing global population (Pelling et al.,
2011). As global society continues to sink more money into vehicles, plants and buildings that
require oil, coal and gas to function, the more resistance there will be to constricting the supply
of these destructive fuels and less initiative toward making positive changes. According to
Berners-Lee, green campaigners describe the world as being addicted to fossil fuels, but yet
efforts to curb this addiction are almost entirely focused on the users of carbon, not the dealers
that produce them and bring them to to market. The companies and countries that own all the oil,
coal and gas have so far been largely ignored. The companies who own the largest fossil fuel
shares have been the most resistant to progress in the global climate change discussion. For
example, the U.S. never ratified Kyoto, a protocol drawn up to reduce their emissions of carbon
dioxide. Similarly, Canada dropped out last minute, Russia was indecisive, Australia ratified
Kyoto after years of delay and India and Venezuela strongly resisted. Considering these countries
make up several of the top fossil fuel owning countries, it is not surprising that they are the most

Mason 8
resistant to change because of their tangible assets that could be endangered should a major
global effort to reduce emissions occur (Berners-Lee, 2013).
A climate transition problem is resistance to alternatives. In order to see positive climate
change, it will take investing alternative energy sources such as wind, solar and hydro energy
(Sterner, 2006). According to Berners-Lee, the problem with this is that companies and others
heavily invested in fossil fuels have spent a ridiculously larger amount more than those
advocating alternative energy sources. Businesses and the government are more concerned with
what they have to lose from fossil fuel restrictions than they are about the actual climate change
issue. This is because they own and use many devices that depend on fossil fuels to function. In
addition, green campaigners describe the world as being addicted to fossil fuels, however, efforts
to curb the addiction are almost entirely focused on the users of the substance rather than those
that deal and produce fossil fuels. The companies and countries that own all the oil, coal and has
have so far been largely ignored when addressing transition problems. He also indicates that
fossil fuel companies have worked hard to minimize their losses by undermining public concern
about climate change (Berners-Lee, 2013). Many major fossil fuel investors have hired lobbyists
to downplay the issue of climate change so they can continue to see more coal, oil and gas
despite the science that indicates how harmful it is to our planet. One example of a global
warming skeptic organization is American Enterprise Institute. The AEI has received donations
from foundations that are established and supported by the Koch brothers, which are fossil fuel
billionaires. The AEI has attempted to undermine the credibility of climate science several times.
The institute played a key role in passing along misinformation about a manufactured scandal
involved emails stolen from climate scientists. One AEI research fellow even stated that climate
scientists are the most distrusted of occupations. The institute received more than $3 million
from ExxonMobil from 1998-2012 and more than $1 million from Koch foundations from 20042011 (Union of Concerned Scientists, 2013). The fact sneaky deals such as this go on behind the
curtains goes to show that the carbon economy itself is a climate transition.
The problem that I discussed in this paper that I have also discussed in my journalistic
work is that of the crisis consumerism. The Hurdal eco-village that I describe in my journalistic
work emphasizes a low-consumption lifestyle in addition to their sustainable values. They
encourage the villagers to grow their own food or buy produce from their village market. In
addition, buying cars and spending money on gas are discouraged. The mission of the village is

Mason 9
to lower consumption habits and in turn lower their carbon footprint. I think one of the main
takeaways from my time at the village and interviewing people is that even though they are a
small fraction of this gigantic universe, they are doing their part to lower emissions. I think I
could have done a better job describing why it is important to the village to continue their efforts
when they are such a small rock in a big pond. I have also discussed the psychological barriers in
this paper as well as a little bit in my journalistic work. Psychologists say that there couldnt be a
worse problem, but the idea of friluftsliv that I chose to explore in my journalistic work indicates
otherwise. Because I am a psychology student in addition to journalism, I found it really
interesting learning the psychological aspects of climate change. It was interesting to combat the
psychological tendency to avoid climate change with a philosophy that was completely new to
me. I feel that friluftsliv is such a common thing for Norwegians, almost so common that it is
difficult to explain to others who are new to the word what exactly it means. I think I portrayed
friluftsliv to the best of my ability considering the language barrier. The solution to these
problems I have discussed in my paper that is most appealing is found in my journalistic work. I
think that spreading knowledge about friluftsliv to other countries and encouraging better
connections between humans and their habitats will really facilitate the type of change our
environment needs to curb climate change. In order for society to quit ignoring the facts, stop
over consuming and for investors to no longer be a climate transition issue, it is of vital
importance that we get back to our roots, and that is to nature. I think that friluftsliv would open
societys mind to the grave damage we are collectively causing to our environment. I think that
helping people understand that we only have one place to live, and when its gone its gone is
important to help persuade people to break their habits. Even if society continues to ignore the
facts that climate is changing, perhaps being out in nature and appreciating it for its beauty may
cause humans as a whole to be a little more conscientious of their behaviors and how they affect
the world that we all share.

Mason 10

Works cited
Berners-Lee, M. (2013). The burning question: We cant burn half the worlds oil, coal and gas.
So how do we quit? Profile Books.
Burke, S. (2010). Understanding the psychological barrier to climate change, Australian
Psychological Society. Received from http://tinyurl.com/klm68ve.
Center for Research on Environmental Decisions (2009). The Psychology of Climate Change
Communication. Received from http://tinyurl.com/k53e772.
Holthaus, E. (2014). Fighting climate change and capitalism at the same time, Slate.
Kasser, T. (2003). The high price of materialism. A Bradford Book.
Pelling, M., Manuel-Navarrete, D., & Redclift, M. (2011). Climate change and the crisis of
capitalism: A chance to reclaim, self, society and nature. Routledge.
Spence, A., Poortinga, W, & Pidgeon, N. (2012). The psychological distance of climate
change. Risk Analysis, 32(6), 957-972.
Stern, Nicholas (2006). What is the economics of climate change? World Economic, 7(2).
Union of Concerned Scientists (2013). Global warming skeptic organizations. Received from
http://tinyurl.com/py35u9h.
Weisbrot, C. (2003). Report 5: How do we contribute to global warming? Hinkle Charitable
Foundation. Received from http://tinyurl.com/39frtx.

Mason 11

You might also like