On Tuesday, The Conversation ran a great piece by Auckland University researcher David Hall, explaining why some people are still in denial about climate change.
Dr. Hall points first to the psychology, the Freudian concept of denial as a way to repress unwelcome thoughts and feelings. “Climate change denial,” he writes, “involves glimpsing the horrible reality, but defending oneself against it.”
When you think about all the time deniers spend online, reinforcing their forced belief that there’s nothing to worry about, this makes sense. If they simply didn’t accept the science, they’d likely just ignore it and move on with their lives.
After all, there are better ways to spend one’s time than fighting the scientific establishment from their phones and blogs. But because deniers have to make a conscious effort to tell themselves it’s not true, it becomes an obsession, a daily habit of reinforcing their rejection of reality. In a way, it’s like a drug addiction, in that there is a cycle of negative feelings, the thrill of the hunt for fresh content, and then the rush of dopamine that comes from having one’s worldview reinforced.
But that’s only half the story. The other half is the fossil fuel industry’s organized denial machine. As Dr. Hall writes, when a denier’s “motivated reasoning is on the hunt for excuses, there is an industry ready to supply them.”
The industry knows its audience is hungry for bias-affirming content. And polluters know that the content doesn’t have to be particularly good, because their targets aren’t thinking critically about the issue. What matters is that there is content out there, day after day, feeding the outrage and reassurance cycle.
At the end of the piece, Dr. Hall turns to what can be done. Here, he seems to miss the mark. He suggests tailoring communications to appeal to conservative views is a way to dampen denial in that community--it’s not a bad strategy, but he seems to have forgotten the issue he just described. If we really want to bring about the end of denial, we need to stop the fossil fuel industry’s denial machine. Starving deniers of the daily dose of content they need to maintain the walls that keep out the reality of the climate crisis will, if nothing else, leave them bored and disengaged.
Hall is right that deniers are the minority, and that the overwhelming majority of people who accept the consensus of scientists should be enough to push policies through. However, as long as the fossil fuel industry can not only keep a vocal segment of conservative politician’s constituents in denial, but more importantly, directly fund political campaigns, that small group is going to stay powerful. It’s become crystal clear that no matter what public opinion says, politicians are going to serve the interests of those who keep their campaign committees flush with cash.
It’s odd, then, that Dr. Hall’s otherwise thoughtful piece neglects to mention the climate lawsuits that would, hopefully, cut off the source of organized denial by holding the fossil fuel industry accountable for its decades of spreading misinformation and opposing climate action.
Think of it as a supply and demand issue. Deniers demand regular feedings, something that no amount of carefully tailored messages will lesson. But cut off their supply, and they’ll have little choice but to sober up.
Top Climate and Clean Energy Stories: