Introduction
Environment refers to the external surroundings which are around us. In other words, the environment represents the ecosystem in which we live. We as a species derive all our means of survival from the resources that are in our respective ecosystems therefore if we fail to take care of our environment our survival is at stake. In the recent past, there has been a great debate concerning our environment because our collective actions are leading to its destruction at unprecedented rates. Pollution is the order of the day and there is a need to curb it to enhance our survival at present as well as the well-being of the next generations.
Pollution refers to the introduction of foreign bodies into the environment and these bodies destroy the equilibrium that exists between the occupants of the ecosystem threatening their existence. Pollution can be classified into the air, water, soil, noise, thermal pollution among others. Greenhouse gases have been outlined as the major pollutants leading to global warming. Global warming refers to the continuous increase in the average temperatures on earth’s surface air as well as in the oceans. This essay is going to address global warming from a psychological point of view with an emphasis on the psychological and social reasons that make it important to tackle this problem which is threatening the survival of the entire species.
Discussion
Global warming can be interchanged with climatic change and the whole discussion on global warming is not lost. There are various reasons which make people either to be alarmed or not to be worried about global warming. The majority of these reasons have a lot to do with our psyche as I am going to highlight in this discussion. To begin with, there are real changes in our environment that can be attributed to global warming. Lischak (2006) gives some of the reason which includes: ‘slowing of the Thermohaline Ocean current, glaciers in Greenland are retreating, and sea ice in the Arctic Ocean is disappearing during the summer.’ In addition, ice cover in the world is decreasing day in day out and sea level is also rising.
These facts have been brown out of proportion and they are driving the global debate on tackling global warming. This topic is gaining prominence because of the fear that has been instilled in us. This fear has been propagated through the un-even reporting of facts relating to global warming. The proponents of this debate know very well that humankind is driven by fear of the unknown and they have capitalized on it to keep the war on cutting green gases emissions in the world. Governments are also panicking and are continuously drafting various laws which are aimed at curbing climate change
Religion which gives us a platform for addressing issues beyond human comprehension has not helped the debate either. Instead of giving us a soft landing ground to deal with fear caused by this debate religion and Christianity to be specific are creating an environment that gives room for panic. For example, Luke 21: 25-26 states that ‘and there shall be signs in the sun, and the moon, and the stars; and upon the earth distress of nations, with perplexity; the sea and the waves roaring; men hearts failing them for fear, and for looking after those things which are coming on the earth: for the powers of heaven shall be shaken’ NKJV. This kind of teaching raises fear among the Christians forcing them to join the debate aimed at cracking global warming.
Not all governments and individuals are alarmed by global warming. This does not imply that people opposed to global warming are ignorant. This is because their behaviors towards risk perception are a little bit different from the majority. Their perception of the risk that global warming is posing on the survival of humankind is very minimal thus they are not compelled to make radical decisions that aim at dealing with the problem.
For a very long time, global warming topics have gained prominence in economic and physical sciences who continuously ask questions that are never answered/ dealt with fully. The policymakers on the other hand draft their policies in such a way that can be assumed to be in response to the questions raised by the preceding/the other groups. Thus a psychological aspect of the debate is left unattended. Ignorance of the psychological dimension of global warming is very dangerous because it put us out of pace with human behaviors which are very critical in drafting and implementing environmental policies. Human behavior affects the perception of risks thus it has radiation effects on our behavior change processes and decision making in all topics touching on global warming.
It is important to note that in countries where public concern on global warming is very high e.g. In Europe and America this does not translate into support of environmental policies developed by the government. This discrepancy can only be explained by behavioral scientists. Global warming concern at the personal reveal is very different from the opinion shared by the public. Very few people are known to be concerned with the issue at the family and the local community level. Arguing along the same point Oppenheimer et al (2006) asserts that ‘people are likely to act on decisions derived from affective feelings and personal experience but not on decisions from statistical descriptions of risks.’ Statistical descriptions are derived through scientific methods and are used by policymakers as reliable sources of information that form the pillar of their policies.
In addition, this difference between public and private or personal opinion makes it very difficult for policymakers to come up with effective policies and laws aimed at curbing global warming. This argument also gives us the reason which makes the public support government interventions that do not affect them one on one while they shot down policies that affect the individual’s behavior directly. Therefore it is understandable to claim that the public is overly concerned by the threats posed by global warming but they are not moved at all by these threats.
Decision biases at a personal level are known to be a hindering factor in implementing environmental policies. These biases become more pronounced when they are supplemented by inadequate knowledge of both political and scientific facts. Therefore ‘wariness about global warming can reflect narrow concerns about local temperatures rather than reasoning about large scale consequences, (Oppenheimer et al 2006, p. 5). We all agree that temperature is just one of the constituents of the environment therefore if public opinion and government policies are driven by concerns about rising temperatures while ignoring all the other environmental constituents such as storms and ice then the war on global warming loses direction.
Another concern on tackling global warming is posed by the fact that human beings are compelled to act on an issue once a disaster happens. It is clear in our mind that once a disaster strikes the issue then becomes obvious and personal and we have to act. Thus earlier regulatory concerns initiated by the governments are ignored. These two facts then make it easy for us to keep on experiencing surprises that are very predictable yet we do not act in time. Moreover, these concerns make it extremely difficult for the government to draft and implement specific policies which can reduce global warming. Amidst this confusion, there is a way out.
Oppenheimer et al (2006, p. 6) point out that we should start by ‘experts interpreting abstract global challenges into languages of local consequences. Once the abstract challenges are broken down into local languages then people will understand them easily and they are bound to start tackling the problem at a personal level. This in turn with lays the foundation of behavioral change at the individual level. For example, citizens will find it reasonable to buy cars that do not use a lot of fuel and in the process, fuel guzzlers are removed from our roads. At home, citizens will start using energy-saving bulbs and these small changes in people’s lifestyles may cut across government policies. At the end of the day, global warming is significantly reduced.
At the same time, the body polity also failure us in the war against global warming. This failure can be attributed to the over-emphasis of economic losses in tackling global warming without looking at the public psychological concerns. More often than not the public is divided along with their political parties and their decisions at times are not sound because they are geared towards punishing and defeating the political opponent. Thus the policymakers end up ignoring the bigger picture and dwell on petty issues making it difficult to realize the correct path to follow. There we need to have a very strong and critical body polity if we are going to win the war on global warming.
Everyone agrees that we have a moral obligation toward enhancing the survival of our species today and in the future. Therefore we are called upon to take care of our environment so that we can give future generations a chance to enjoy a very green environment. Houghton (2004, p. 200) asserts that ‘it is a basic instinct that we wish to see our children and our grandchildren well set up in the world, therefore, it is our greatest desire to make sure that our children’s inherit from us an environment that is not destroyed at all. At the same time, we want our children to live in a more comfortable environment than we have lived to make environmental conservation mandatory today. This call has reached a good number of us and this makes it easier for the majority in the society to join hand is in fighting global warming from a moralist point of view.
As members of a given society, we also have shared values that compel us to take care of the environment. These shared values enhance our survival in the environment and they make sure that at the back of our mind we have future generations in considerations thus our actions today must not curtail the well-being of future generations. These values can be divided into natural and cultural values. Natural values ensure that we respect the natural environment while cultural values encompass social values which help ass co-exist in an ecosystem.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the war on global warming cannot be won if we neglect the contribution of psychology. This argument is added weight by the premise that our human behaviors can be a cause and a solution to the global warming problem. To tackle this challenge we have to change our behavior and psychologist agree that human behavior change can only take place if we understand the magnitude of the problem at an individual level. Therefore to win this war we have to make sure that all individuals understand this problem and explanations have to be given using very plain language to enhance our understanding. Policymakers should also deal with the problem from a very diverse point of view to capture the biggest and critical issues in the debate.
References
- Houghton, J. T. (2004): Global warming: The complete briefing, 3rd ed. London: Cambridge university press, pp. 200-2005
- Lanza, F., euli, E., and Caserini, S. (2008): Climate information, Between negation and alarm. Sixth international conference on Ethics and environmental Issues, Padova, pp. 23-25
- Lischak, G. N. (2006): Global warming: Reason for alarm? The Real Truth Magazine, 2006 edition
- Millennium Ecosystems Assessment (2006): Ecosystems and Human well being. Vol. 1, New York: Island publishers, pp.370-390
- Oppenheimer, M. and Todorov, A. (2006): Global Warming: The Psychology of long term risk. Princeton: Princeton university press, pp. 1-6
- Schneider, S. H. (1989): Global Warming: Are we Entering the Green House Century. Cambridge: Cjames Clarke and Company. Lutherworth press ltd