Climate Change Apathy: Why Don’t We Care About the Environment?

Written by Nikhil Nalam

Edited by Tabitha Kahn

Design by Emily Huang

Introduction

At this point in history, it’s no secret that we’re struggling with one of the most threatening issues life on earth has ever faced: climate change. We know the issue all too well –- year after year, new headlines spell impending doom in the years to come. At first, it was twenty years until we could no longer combat global warming. Then it became fifteen. Now, according to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)’s 2018 special report, we have only about seven years to avoid potentially irreversible climate disruption. Instead of sparking action, however, the mounting pressure has strangely caused a growing feeling of indifference that scientists define as climate change apathy. Climate change apathy is a state of emotional disconnection towards the subject, characterized by a lack of concern, motivation, or belief in the severity of the problem that leads to inaction or disengagement from efforts to address it. This apathy is widespread – according to a June 2023 study by Pews Research Centre, a massive 46% of Americans don’t even believe climate change is a serious issue. Why is this the case? Psychology may hold the answers. Evidence suggests that a mix of human cognitive biases including, but not limited to, loss aversion, optimism bias, and temporal discounting are primarily responsible for denial and unresponsiveness towards the issue of climate change. 

Temporal Discounting

The first psychological factor that contributes to apathy is temporal discounting. Temporal discounting, also referred to as present bias, is the tendency to focus more on the current situation than the future when making decisions, often manifesting as choices that are beneficial at the moment but detrimental in the long term. It seems paradoxical that we would knowingly make decisions that’ll come back to bite us, but it comes down to how our brains are programmed to react to threats. Daniel Gilbert, a professor of psychology at Harvard, explained this phenomenon perfectly in his talk at Harvard Thinks Big 2010. “Our brain is essentially a get-out-of-the-way machine … a very small part of our brain is responsible for thinking about the future and a very large part is responsible for getting the hell out of the way of a baseball.” This preference towards imminent threats means climate change takes a back seat while more immediate concerns occupy us. According to a September 2022 survey by Ipsos, climate change is just the seventh biggest worry, trumped by issues like unemployment, with a global average of just 18% listing it as a concern. Another October 2023 study by Epson that surveyed Gen Z individuals found that the generation sees rising prices as a more pressing concern than climate change. This data, coupled with the fact that most of us feel the effects of increasing prices or unemployment more directly and immediately than climate change, suggests problems with instant ramifications are perceived as more urgent than issues with even worse consequences down the line – a clear manifestation of present bias.

Optimism Bias

The second significant psychological factor would be optimism bias. Optimism bias, also referred to as ‘having positive illusions’, is the tendency to overestimate the probability of positive outcomes and underestimate the probability of unfavourable outcomes – despite evidence that we’re wrong. We do it all the time, believing a relationship will last longer than it realistically will or that we’ll magically finish a project sooner than we know we actually will. Biologists have theorized that this optimism bias is almost like a vestigial feature of the brain, wherein it may have once been useful to heighten combat performance or bluff out an opponent but is now nothing more than an evolutionary remnant that clouds the rationality of human beings. In the case of the environment, optimism bias makes humans more likely to overestimate their ability to prevent environmental degradation, the likelihood that they will be directly impacted by it, and their capacity to control events—even when something goes wrong. To further complicate the issue, positive illusions have been observed by experimental psychologists to occur more frequently in circumstances involving uncertainty, a lack of feedback, or a threat – and climate change, to some degree, has all three of these. Global warming predictions are highly ambiguous and significant feedback will only be seen after years, plus, the threat is on the rise. Climate change’s possession of all three catalysts associated with optimism bias coupled with the fact that denialist viewpoints reflect precisely the viewpoints associated with optimism bias is a troubling sign that positive illusions are a troubling and very real issue.

Loss Aversion

The final notable psychological factor is loss aversion. It’s a phenomenon where a real or potential gain is perceived by individuals as emotionally or psychologically less significant than an equivalent loss. Some behavioural scientists have theorised that the origin of loss aversion is our ancestral environment, where the absence of a realistic way of saving resources for the future meant abundant gain was not as significant as a minor loss, resulting in a cognitive bias that made people disproportionately value the two. Loss aversion becomes consequential when discussing energy, as when purchasing sustainable technologies such as energy-efficient light bulbs or alternative fuel vehicles, the higher upfront costs associated with these technologies are perceived as losses. This perception applies not just to consumer choices but also to any form of policymaking that involves short-term sacrifices for long-term benefits. A 2019 study found that projections for metrics such as carbon emissions diffusion of renewable and highly efficient heating technologies are impacted dramatically when loss aversion’s effect on decision-making was factored in. A simulation conducted as part of this study discovered that without this cognitive bias, under the current technological trajectory without additional policies, renewables’ market share is projected to autonomously increase to 39% by 2050 from 9% in 2015. With loss aversion accounted for, this projection decreases to 22%. Several investigations into climate-related consumer choices have yielded similar results – a 2018 study that included loss aversion into a regression-based model of passenger car uptake in Germany found that loss-averse consumers buy, on average, less fuel-efficient cars than rational ones. The clear link between loss aversion and climate-related consumer choices reveals a significant psychological barrier to change in the right direction.

Conclusion

All in all, climate change apathy and denial are deeply rooted in psychology, with three primitive cognitive biases being primarily responsible for society’s failure to address the Various data points demonstrate that without apathy, policies become significantly more effective, and people are more likely to act for the benefit of the environment. With how dangerously close humanity is to setting off the ticking time bomb climate change is and only seven years until the harm mankind has done becomes irreversible, resolving this issue is crucial.

Bibliography

1. Harman, Greg. “Your Brain on Climate Change: Why the Threat Produces Apathy, Not Action.” The Guardian, 25 Aug. 2021, www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/2014/nov/10/brain-climate-change-science-psychology-environment-elections.

2. “Only 11 Years Left to Prevent Irreversible Damage From Climate Change, Speakers Warn During General Assembly High-Level Meeting | UN Press.” UN Press, 28 Mar. 2019,

3. https://press.un.org/en/2019/ga12131.doc.htm#:~:text=Citing%20the%20Intergovernmental%20Panel%20on,23%20September%20with%20concrete%2C%20realistic.

4. Tyson, Alec, et al. “Americans’ Views of Climate Change in 8 Charts | Pew Research Center.” Pew Research Center, 9 Aug. 2023, www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2023/08/09/what-the-data-says-about-americans-views-of-climate-change.

5. Gilbert, Daniel. “Harvard Thinks Big 2010 - Daniel Gilbert - 'Global Warming and Psychology'.” Vimeo, 16 Oct. 2023, vimeo.com/10324258.

6. Hitchcock, Joe. “Present Bias – Everything You Need to Know.” InsideBE, 12 Feb. 2023, insidebe.com/articles/present-bias.

7. Gebrekal, Teodros. “What worries the world - September 2022.” Ipsos, 22 Sep. 2022, https://www.ipsos.com/en-uk/what-worries-world-september-2022.

8. “Optimism Bias - the Decision Lab.” The Decision Lab, thedecisionlab.com/biases/optimism-bias.

9. “Epson’s 2023 Climate Reality Barometer.” Epson, 19 Oct. 2023, blog.epson.com/epson-insights/epson-2023-climate-reality-barometer.

10. Tsipursky, Gleb. “Loss Aversion and Cognitive Bias: How It Plays a Role in Our Decision Making.” Psych Central, 9 May 2022, psychcentral.com/health/loss-aversion-how-to-avoid-losing-at-life.

11. Knobloch, Florian, et al. “Modelling the Effectiveness of Climate Policies: How Important Is Loss Aversion by Consumers?” Renewable & Sustainable Energy Reviews, vol. 116, Dec. 2019, p. 109419. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2019.109419.

12. Safarzyńska, Karolina, and Jeroen C.J.M. Van Den Bergh. “A Higher Rebound Effect Under Bounded Rationality: Interactions Between Car Mobility and Electricity Generation.” Energy Economics, vol. 74, Aug. 2018, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eneco.2018.06.006.

13. “What Is a Positive Illusion?” Scribbr, 30 Jan. 2023, www.scribbr.com/frequently-asked-questions/what-is-a-positive-illusion/#:~:text=The%20most%20common%20positive%20illusions,(also%20called%20optimism%20bias).

14. Johnson, Dominic D. P. Overconfidence and War. Harvard UP, 2004.

15. Johnson, Dominic, et al. “Is Military Incompetence Adaptive?” Evolution and Human Behavior, vol. 23, no. 4, July 2002, https://doi.org/10.1016/s1090-5138(01)00087-3.