Three scientists asked 2,000 Norwegian adults their feelings about the climate crisis. They got an earful about anger, sadness, fear, guilt and hope. Their paper, "The strength and content of climate anger," takes a deep look at how people's emotions drive their reaction to the climate crisis. Of the three outcomes they studied — activism, policy support and individual action — they found anger drove activism, such as joining a climate demonstration, but not much else. Guilt predicted policy support. Hope drove both individual behaviors and policy support. Only fear consistently made people engage in all three. So, is simply communicating fear the key to amping up our climate response? I'm not so sure. Research shows the links between how we feel and how we act are not clear cut. It's also impossible to draw conclusions from just one study, especially one limited to Norway and that measured intentions rather than direct action. But one clue, I think, is that respondents who were primarily angry at "external actors," such as politicians or industries, reported no increase in activism, policy support or individual action, the authors found. People who directed their anger at society's apathy, inaction or denial of global warming, as well as damage to ecosystems and people, reported engaging in more climate action. There's no shortage of blame to go around: politicians, companies and a system that reinforces the power of both. But I suspect that if we believe that all the solutions are truly "external," then we're likely to remain passive (or apathetic) bystanders, no matter how angry we are. |
No comments:
Post a Comment