Summary of “The Dragons of Inaction” In the article, The Dragons of Inaction: Psychological Barriers That Limit Climate Change Mitigation and Adaption, Robert Gifford explores and elaborates upon the psychological mechanisms that impede proenvironmental behavior. Gifford introduces seven groups that encompass the 29 “dragons of inaction”. The seven groups include limited cognition, ideologies, social comparison, sunk costs, discredence, perceived risks, and limited behavior (Gifford, 2011). Gifford introduces these psychological barriers, and then identifies their specific manifestation. Gifford’s eloquent explanations provide readers with a solid foundation for addressing and understanding the psychological mechanisms that interfere with …show more content…
The next issue is comparison with others which consists of social comparison, social norms and networks, and perceived inequity. These mechanisms are also examples of how belief systems, culture, and self-justification influence climate change mitigation. In addition to these issues, Gifford goes in depth about sunk costs. Sunk costs contribute to financial investments which may impede someone from engaging in proenvironmental behavior that interferes with their investment. Gifford includes a brief explanation of cognitive dissonance and touches on the notion that it is easier to reduce dissonance by “changing one’s mind” (Gifford, 2011). He also includes extensive information regarding behavioral momentum which encompasses “resistance to change” (Gifford, 2011). To wrap up the conversation about sunk costs, Gifford addresses conflicting values, goals, and aspirations, and lack of place attachment. Both of these dragons are associated with lack of proenvironmental behavior. Next, Gifford asserts that discredence encompasses mistrust, perceived program inadequacy, denial, and reactance. Mistrust and perceived program inadequacy contribute directly to climate change denial in that people who don’t trust the system addressing climate change, will likely not believe in the threat of climate change (Giffford, 2011). Also, “ample evidence suggests that many people distrust messages
Climate change is one of today’s most hotly debated topic. Scientists for many decades have made supposed claims that current energy creation and reliance on fossil fuels will lead to inevitable changes to the planet. Today, climate change denial is still a popular to most of the world despite the mounds of evidence to support that it exists. The climate change issue suffers from being mismanaged by various parties through focusing on the wrong issues and the lack of true commitment from the general public, according to Sandra Steingraber.
In his essay titled “Climate of Denial”, Al Gore, a well known environmental advocate and former vice president, verifies the reality of climate change and global warming. The piece is an attack on corrupt companies and news outlets that attempt to persuade the public that global warming is not a critical issue. Gore also earnestly conveys our environment’s current state and offers possible solutions that would increase awareness about global warming and begin to revert the planet back to a healthier, more sustainable state. The overarching purpose of Gore’s work is to call attention to the widespread climate change that is occurring. However, he also focuses on the corruption and bias within the media, and their attempts to conceal the truth about global warming. Writing to those who are conflicted about who to believe, he makes a valid argument that defends the beliefs of he and his fellow activists and encourages others to become more active in the climate change issue.
Video “Here be Dragons” by Brian Dunning (6/30/16). What does the title really mean are dragons even real? Advertisements tend to just tell us what we want to hear in order to make a profit. How do we know when they are telling the truth? In Brian Dunning video he goes through the “Red Flags” the warning sign that something is a pseudoscience. Pseudoscience is the idea that claims to be real but are not supported by facts or evidence. The “Red Flags” he mentions are; appeal to authority, ancient wisdom, confirmation bias, red heritage, proof by verbosity, mystical energy, suppression by authorities, all natural, and ideological support. Appeal authority is the use of appearance to gain credulity of a product. Any example of this is when
As a kid who has cared about nature his entire life, and an avid modern environmentalist for four years and counting, this issue has been at the center of my psyche for quite some time. I have seen public perspective on this issue change before my eyes. From the original rejection of Al Gore’s Inconvenient Truth movie on “global warming” to personally marching alongside 300,000 people in our nation's capital to raise awareness on climate change. However, despite all of these avenues the issue is still spoken about as this distant idea that eventually will be a disaster. Many politicians and news networks speak of the need for slow implementation of policies and programs to right our environmental wrongs. The best way to paraphrase the common narrative of this issue would be to say, climate change is going to happen down the road, it will probably be bad and trying to fix it in the near future would be a good idea. That weak call to action shoves climate change onto the long to-do list of the leaders of our world. Not only does it not create the urgency needed to actually curb the effects of our environmental ignorance, but it does not accurately describe the threat of a changing climate. Treating this like a political issue will not allow for the rigorous changes needed to address such a problem in the timely manner that is required.
Climate change is the long term shift in global climate patterns attributed mainly to the use of fossil fuels. Many people are aware of this issue, however, there has been an increase in the amount of people who deny climate change. 23 percent of Americans (compared to last year’s 16 percent) believe that climate change is not a problem (Atkin). To conclude that people do not accept climate change because they do not understand it or need to be educated about it, is reasonable. However, I believe that it isn’t skepticism driving this denial. Rather, it is the phenomenon of reaffirming one’s identity. Instead of analyzing the evidence, it is intentionally interpreted in such a way as to maintain a pre-existing belief.
The problem that the pro- global warming theorists have created is that of social standing and little else. While there may be scientific backing to support some of the theory, the media presents the problem with great sensationalism. Global warming and energy conservation has thus become a trend and losses some of its validity through this. The scare tactics used by the media to “promote awareness” are just that, a linguistic ploy to gain favor. “Awareness of this global threat reinforced public concern and environmental problems and thereby provided environmental activists, scientists, and policy makers with new momentum in their efforts to promote environmental protection.” (McCright, 2000) This statement draws line to the potential benefits that would be received if the pro-global warming theorists were to draw enough attention to the issue. Driven by social empowerment and conviction to environmental protection, these activists misrepresent the actual threat and paint it as being much more
In Michael Pollan’s article “Why Bother?”, he addresses the issue of climate change and the inner reasoning behind those who don’t acknowledge or bother with the crisis. Pollan intertwines a discussion of the rising danger of global warming with a psychological discussion of personal virtue. He emphasis his main point of climate crisis by providing examples and data stating, “we have only ten years left to start cutting—not just slowing—the amount of carbon we’re emitting…So:eight years left and a great deal to do.” (117). His discussion of personal reasoning to the problem of people not responding to global warming is intertwined through the direct question that is the title and by other experiences such as Wendell Berry’s comments on the
With today’s broad spectrum of opposing political ideals, climate change is one of the most polarizing and argued points. In an article entitled “Why Some Conservatives Can’t Accept That Climate Change Is Real” by Carolyn Gregoire, we are presented the supposed thought process and biases held by modern conservatives. The author, Carolyn Gregoire, serves as a senior science and health writer at The Huffington Post. Though challenging competency is a common attack used on both sides of the political isle, this piece sidesteps petty mudslinging and instead takes root in the psychological differences between liberals and conservatives. Inherently, as a political piece, this article criticizes the conservative thought camp. In doing so, this article (like a majority of articles on the Huffington Post) is written towards a sympathetic, liberal audience. Pertaining mainly to psychology, there is no doubt logos is the appeal used by the author. Furthermore, with logos often comes strong, inductive reasoning. As we delve deeper into this article, we also will examine and explore several fallacies implemented by the author. Also
In Michael Pollan's article “Why Bother?” he discusses how climate change is a serious threat to humanity and needs to be addressed immediately. Pollan begins to discuss possible solutions but also realizes that these “solutions” may not be easily achieved. There is no way to eliminate people who make a conscious effort to help the advancement of climate change, but it is still important for others to attempt to make changes to help save the environment.
Matt Patterson argues in “Global Warming – The Great Delusion” that the alleged scientific consensus surrounding the theory of global warming is based not on fact, but rather on a web of mass hysteria and deceit. Patterson contends that “In fact, global warming is the most widespread mass hysteria in our species’ history”, and that the beliefs of global warming proponents are the result of their own delusional imaginations and a subconscious apocalyptic yearning toward which masses of people tend to subject themselves. While Patterson worries that what he perceives to be the
That is a really deep question. For this paper, I wanted to understand the climate change issue better. I wanted to understand how humans acknowledge (or even deny) climate change, still yet do nothing to remedy the problem. Most people are guilty of this. I, myself am guilty of this. As Nordhaus and Shellenberger state in their article, the problem seems to be a thing that will only be a priority once it is in our faces. Rust says that these films create an awareness that is somewhat being lost in this postmodern globalization. The Day After Tomorrow, Soylent Green, and The Mist all send a message that could get us thinking about cutting back to prevent climate change. But as my topic has illustrated, it seems a bit farfetched that change would actually
Around the world, humans are aware of the environmental crisis going on, yet, the issue is brushed under the rug and ignored. This issue is ignored due to the fact that some people are unwilling to change their lifestyles, it is expensive to be environmentally friendly, and there is a lack of effort towards change worldwide. Scientific evidence has proven that there is a crisis happening, but people show disinterest in it. Some people feel helpless because there is no way that the individual effort that is made can possibly make a global difference.
With the rise of calamitous news regarding extremists groups taking over certain states, countries threatening to go to war, and viruses spreading throughout the world; the outlook of humanity does not look good. In addition to these dire headlines is the matter of climate change, which, unfortunately, is not as alarming to the public eye. Nonetheless, climate change is a pressing matter as it will impact every facet of society from economy to even human survival. Perhaps the general public find climate change as a vapid subject because of its nature to react belatedly to human activity, and how it is often represented with numbers, graphs, and projections; things that are not compelling to those that do not understand its importance. Even
Despite the rising community skepticism about global warming, it was found to have added support than antagonism for a policy to put limits on carbon emissions.
This article critically examines the ways in which individuals could help reduce the impacts of global warming. The author challenges that every individual could significantly minimise the effects of global warming by adopting to a more responsible lifestyle.