Helen Camakaris | Why We Ignore Climate Change
By Helen Camakaris
Humankind has much to celebrate. Our intellect has taken us to the moon, deciphered the code that defines us and created sublime works of art and music. But our intellect has also delivered us the means of our own destruction.
In the last few hundred years we have not only invented the means of exploiting fossil fuels, but we have also developed the economic and political systems that drive such technologies. We have failed to recognize the existential risks. So, why might that be?
I believe the answer is simple – evolution, by its very nature, has an Achilles’ heel; it is unable to foretell the future. Our attributes were selected long ago, during the 99% of mankind’s existence when we were hunters and gatherers. Evolution is simply a numbers game, and the imperatives that drove evolution were simply greater survival in the natural environment and leaving more descendants.
Most decision-making was intuitive; our ancestors feared the rustle in the grass, they gathered food, sought shelter close to water, and moved on when necessary. They were rarely constrained by sustainability and had no need to plan for the distant future.
Reproductive selection favored leaving a large number of descendants, and encouraged competition between males for status, a proxy for the capacity to be a good provider but the forerunner of modern-day conspicuous consumption.
Our social behaviors were directed toward parenting, forging alliances and navigating social hierarchies. Parental care and kin-based altruism were elicited in response to proximity and familiarity, but as groups grew larger, altruism extended to reciprocal cooperation, provided we could satisfy our strong desire for fairness.
Even now, altruism is constrained by familiarity, by division into “them” and “us” along national and ethnic boundaries. Within communities we are obsessed with fairness, one of the major challenges for policy.
Intelligence was a refinement of the innate drive toward “striving” that promoted exploitation of the ancestral environment, together with selection for improved navigation of the increasingly complicated social and cultural environment. However it is also skewed by our prehistory.
We still see the world through the prism of affective reasoning: we tend to ignore reason where it doesn’t support our preconceived biases and our socially constructed reality. Intuition and peer pressure generally guides the choice of whom we admire, what policies we support, and what we buy. Our capacity for rational analysis is often restricted to justifying our decisions after the event, or for difficult analytic problems.
Even our capacity for innovation is a two-edged sword. Around 10,000 years ago we discovered agriculture, and just 250 years ago we learned how to exploit fossil fuels. With the invention of capitalism and credit, economic and industrial growth skyrocketed, populations grew exponentially, consumption soared and the climate became increasingly threatened by rising emissions of
greenhouse gases.
So we are saddled with a mentality that encourages high consumption, a desire to procreate and self-interest at the expense of ‘outsiders’.
Acknowledging these shortcomings must be central in our search for solutions. We will need great wisdom, a deep understanding of our evolved strengths and weaknesses, and a strong moral compass.
Climate change requires global solutions, many of which conflict with short-term self-interest.
Effective action depends upon the beliefs and resolve of leaders, but creating responsible policy is difficult, particularly in democracies. In elections, opposing parties tend to appeal to the instinctive self-interest of the electorate, and the adversarial structure of Government exaggerates differences and
discourages consensus.
A solution that might encourage rational decision-making and the generation of consensus
for long-term issues would be election of a party that promises to establish a multiparty committee, either inside or outside government. It should be advised by non-government experts, including scientists, economists, political scientists and social psychologists, and have responsibility for recommending long-term policy. Government would need sound reasons for rejecting such
advice.
A multiparty committee could consider different ways to impose a carbon price, together with compensation or tax breaks to provide incentives and disincentives to guide behavior. Free home
audits with subsidies to correct identified deficits would also cut emissions and allow people to benefit from savings.
The committee could consider reduced working hours as an optional alternative to increased salaries as
a way to moderate consumption, ease unemployment, reduce inequity and increase leisure time.
Public education would be critical, with an important role for the media. Advertising should be used to encourage activities that add meaning to people’s lives through responsible travel, education, hobbies and the purchase of quality goods, rather than promotion of consumption and inbuilt obsolescence.
Education in schools should include critical thinking, climate science, ecology and psychology, and should nurture a view of self that encourages compassion, so that future citizens will recognize our responsibility toward those beyond our borders, and citizens of future generations. Meanwhile it is up to us.
About this Kosmos Reader:
Helen studied Science at the University of Melbourne where she obtained her Ph.D. in the Department of Microbiology in 1975. She stayed in the same Department for several decades studying how bacteria regulate genes in response to their environment. She simultaneously developed her general research skills in other areas of science, particularly as seen from an evolutionary perspective. Since she retired from active research in 2008 she has devoted all her time to studying and writing in interdisciplinary areas that relate to sustainability and climate change, evolution and psychology. She has been writing popular science articles and essays and is currently working on a book. (via, The Conversation)
Thanks for this excellent piece Helen.
I would though note the peer-reviewed paper that I recently lead-authored, which draws on wide research to argue that ‘carbon pricing’ itself may not be an appropriate framework for the great transition to decarbonised living:
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/17583004.2015.1021563#page=2
I would hope that such multiparty committees might also consider the proposed alternatives to carbon pricing, if we are to build a better future.
Best,
Shaun