Denial as a key obstacle to solving the
environmental crisis
By Dr Haydn Washington, Visiting Fellow,
The Institute of Environmental Studies, UNSW
Fenner Conference, 2013
The evolution of humanity?
Australopithecus
Homo habilis
Homo sapiens?
or
Homo denialensis?
Not just a river in Egypt …
Denial is arguably the greatest problem in the human psyche
Four elephants in the room
Population
Consumption
Climate Change
The Growth economy
Which elephant is bigger?
Which is more dangerous?
Ignored or denied – ‘undiscussables’
‘The best way to disrupt moral behaviour’ notes
political theorist C. Fred Alford ‘is not to discuss it
and not to discuss not discussing it’. ‘Don’t talk
about ethical issues’ he facetiously proposes ‘and
don’t talk about our not talking about ethical
issues’. As moral beings we cannot keep nondiscussing ‘undiscussables’. Breaking this insidious
cycle of denial calls for an open discussion of the
very phenomenon of undiscussability.
Zerubavel (2006)
Denier = denialist = contrarian
I use ‘denier’ as it accepts how common
denial actually is. We don’t need to
create a new word ‘denialist’ for
something so common in humanity =
denial
What is denial? Is it skepticism?
• The
Oxford English Dictionary definition of a
skeptic is:
‘A seeker after truth; an inquirer who has not yet
arrived at definite conclusions’
• Genuine skepticism in science is one of the ways
that science progresses
• Denying multiple coherent sources of research
is not skepticism but denial
• Denial and skepticism are really opposites –
skeptics seek the truth, deniers run away from it.
Denial is common
• Cohen (2001) notes this unexplained phenomenon
is a ‘product of the sheer complexity of our
emotional, linguistic, moral and intellectual lives’
• We deny some things as they force us to confront
change. We deny others as they are just too painful
• Zerubavel (2006) says denial is inherently delusional
and inevitably distorts one’s sense of reality
• People get upset when their self-delusional view of
the world is challenged. Many indeed cherish their
‘right to be an ostrich’.
The long history of denial
 No problem with destruction of wilderness (‘Wise
Use’ movement)
 No problem with increasing population
 No problem with DDT and other chlorinated
hydrocarbon pesticides
 No problem with nuclear winter
 No problem with tobacco
 No problem with acid rain
 No problem with hole in ozone layer
 No problem with biodiversity crisis
 No problem with climate change
DO YOU SEE A TREND?
What is going on?
 In Norway, the percentage saying they were ‘very
much worried’ about climate change declined
steadily from 40% in 1989 to less than 10% in 2001
 In Australia in 2007 the Lowy Institute reported that
75% of those surveyed thought climate change was
very important. In 2009 it was 56%, in 2011 it was
46%
Science getting more certain, but belief less.
 How can this be?
Do we let denial prosper?
• Fear of change. Conservatism is negatively related to
pro-environmental attitudes, especially among political
elites
• 75% of US Democrats believe humans cause climate
change, but among Republicans it is only 19%
• Conservative ideological view is free market = liberty
and environmental regulation = attack on liberty
• Failure in environmental ethics and values – e.g.
regarding intrinsic value of nature
• Fixation on economics/ society and not ecosystems
• The media – loves controversy, and ‘balance as bias’.
Psychological types of denial
• Literal denial - The assertion that something is not
true – e.g. claims by fossil fuel companies that climate
change is not happening
• Interpretive denial - Facts not denied but given
different interpretation. Jargon used to confuse –
‘Collateral damage’ rather than killing civilians. Political
‘spin’ is one type of interpretive denial
• Implicatory denial - Not denying climate change
per se, rather a failure to transform it into social action.
People have access to information, accept it as true, yet
choose to ignore it.
(Cohen, 2001)
Implicatory denial – how we delude ourselves
 Most common in the public
 Issues such as climate change are accepted but fail to be
converted into action
 ‘Distraction’ an everyday form of denial. We worry, ‘switch
off’ and shift our attention to something else
 We can ‘de-problematise’ problems by rationalising that
‘humanity has solved these sort of problems before’
 We can ‘distance ourselves’ by rationalising ‘it’s a long way
off’
 We can ‘Blame-shift’, where we blame others, such as the
US, industry, or the Developing World. (Hamilton, 2010)
Ignored population
‘More is better’ – the mantra of the past
Population ecologist Meyerson (see Hartmann et al, 2008) notes:
Conservatives are often against sex education,
contraception and abortion and they like growth –
both in population and in the economy. Liberals
usually support individual human rights above all
else and fear the coercion label and therefore avoid
discussion of population growth and stabilisation.
The combination is a tragic stalemate that leads to
more population growth.
Consumerism and the growth economy
• Challenging consumerism is seen as challenging the
growth economy – a key myth or ‘given truth’ of
modern society
• Consumption has become the meaning of life, the
‘chief sacred’, the ‘mystery before which one bows’
(Ellul, 1975).
• Tacey (2000) points out that consumers in Western
society are spiritually empty, so shopping
temporarily fills this void. Mass consumption
requires consumer demand to remain insatiable
(Westra, 2008). We can never have enough.
Population solutions
(Engelman, 2012)
•
•
•
•
•
•
Assure access to contraceptives
Guarantee education in secondary school (especially girls)
Eradicate gender bias from laws and culture
Offer age-appropriate sexuality education for all students
End all policies that reward parents for more children
Integrate teaching about population, consumption and
environment into school curricula at all levels
• Put prices on environment costs and impacts
• Adjust to population ageing rather than boost birth-rates
• Convince leaders to commit to ending population growth
through the exercise of human rights/ development
Iran was able to halve its population growth rate from 1987 to 1994
(Brown, 2011). Population Media (www.populationmedia.org) has
success promoting the above.
Dealing with ‘shop till you drop!’
• Consumerism was deliberately constructed after
WW II. It needs to be deliberately deconstructed
• Introduce a tax on advertising (Daly, 2008)
• Ban ‘planned obsolescence’ and make ‘cradle to cradle’
products mandatory
• Enact ‘minimum packaging’ laws
• Education about the ethics of living simply = thriftiness
• Consumption that undermines well-being has to be
discouraged (e.g. ‘choice editing’)
• Replace private consumption of goods with public
consumption of services (e.g. libraries, public transport)
(Assadourian, 2010)
Move to a green and steady state economy
• Adopt a low carbon and low material use ‘green’
economy (UNEP) immediately
• Then move to a steady state economy where
population and throughput of energy and materials
are stable and sustainable (Daly, 1991)
• This will need to involve degrowth of developed
countries to allow some further growth of
developing countries (due to equity considerations)
• Overall, throughput must be much lower than today
(e.g. Factor Five)
5 characteristics of denial arguments
• Cherry picking
• Fake Experts
• Impossible
Expectations
• Misrepresentations
& logical fallacies
• Conspiracy Theories
So assess denial arguments
(Diethelm & McKee, 2007)
Tips to rebut Climate Change Deniers
•
Focus on those genuinely confused. It is almost impossible
to change those in strong denial. Lord Molson stated: ‘I
will look at any additional evidence to confirm the opinion
to which I have already come’ (Tavris and Aronson, 2007)
•
Lead with positive facts
•
Supply a narrative of how the denial argument misleads
•
Explain that every Academy of Science and 97.5% of
practicing climate scientists are saying the same thing
•
Explain we need to apply the Precautionary Principle to
protect future generations. Australia is at major risk from
climate change.
Solutions – see the elephants!
All the elephants in the room cause the
environmental crisis, and all must be seen.
Break the denial dam! Accept we have
problems to be solved.
Control population and bringing it to a stable
and ecologically sustainable level
Control consumerism and over-consumption
Move to a steady state economy
Decarbonise our society and solve climate
change.
In Summary
 Denial is common, a very human trait, but it is a delusion
 When it threatens ecosystems/ society it is a pathology
 We need to acknowledge the elephants in the room.
 If we confront denial, the elephants will shrink and
disappear
 ‘We the people’ are part of the problem so we need to be
part of the solution
The environmental crisis can be solved, it’s not
‘hopeless’, but society needs to stop denying
the problem now.