Studies of ancient ice core samples in Antarctica indicate that global temperatures and the amount of carbon dioxide in the Earth’s atmosphere have fluctuated over millions of years. When these fluctuations involved increases of a few degrees over thousands of years, there were dramatic ecological effects, including the extinction of many species. Since the end of the last ice age, however, the Earth has seen dramatic increases in both carbon dioxide and global temperature, changes that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC, a UN task force) has concluded are related to human, not natural, causes.
Changes of this magnitude are predicted to lead to radical swings in weather patterns and sea levels, changes that are likely to be irreversible and to lead to widespread extinction of plants and animals that cannot adapt quickly enough to the changes. In fact, a recent article in Nature predicts that a quarter of all land animals and plants will be driven to extinction by climate changes over the next 50 years. Also predicted are increases in diseases, as the insects that spread them are able to survive in previously inhospitable climates. The human activities responsible for this climate change include burning fossil fuels (oil, natural gas, coal) for heat, transportation and electricity, and from deforestation by burning (which both releases carbon dioxide and reduces the number of trees available to remove CO2 from the atmosphere).
There is little scientific debate about the fact of climate change, although there is some uncertainty about the exact timeline of loss and the extent of restorative measures needed. This uncertainty has resulted in considerable political and policy debate ranging from how drastic remediation measures should be to whether climate change is occurring at all. As a result, the U.S. lags behind other industrialized countries in efforts to curb climate change, even though we produce the greatest amount of greenhouse gases. We have not ratified the Kyoto Protocol, which calls for reduction of greenhouse gas emissions below 1990 levels by 2008-2012. Further, the Bush administration’s energy plan involves increased oil dependence and little support of energy efficiency or renewable energy sources, even though a recent report released by the Sierra Club and a coalition of unions “shows that a clean energy policy would create 1.4 million new American jobs while saving consumers an average of $1,275 on their energy bills in 2025” (see http://www.redefiningprogress.org).
There are many ways that psychologists can help move the debate on climate change. In addition to cutting down on personal consumption of fossil fuels and being involved citizens by contacting elected officials, we can call attention to the way psychological processes are affecting the debate. For example, we can identify denial that occurs when people don’t want to acknowledge or think about climate change, despite the evidence that they directly experience (e.g., drought, heat waves, flooding). We can speak about despair and hopelessness that occur when a problem seems too big and one’s actions too small. We can identify cognitive errors that occur in information processing, from selective attention to illusory correlation, from cognitive dissonance to "us vs. them" thinking. And we can help people discover barriers to action, so that they can live out Helen Keller’s philosophy: “I am only one; but still I am one. I cannot do everything, but still I can do something. I will not refuse to do the something I can do.”
One of PsySR's highlghted themes for this year is "Psychological Dimensions of Climate Change." Please join us in this effort and learn more about it HERE.
Additional Resources for Learning More and Taking Action:
The Woods Hole Research Center
The Union of Concerned Scientists
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
"The Denial Syndrome" (from the New Internationalist)
The Psychology of Environmental Problems, 2nd Edition (2004) by Deborah DuNann Winter and Susan M. Koger (Lawrence Erlbaum Associates)