What We Think About When We Try Not To Think About Global Warming: Toward a New Psychology of Climate Action

by Per Espen Stoknes, Jørgen Randers (Foreword)

Why does knowing more mean believing—and doing—less? A prescription for change

The more facts that pile up about global warming, the greater the resistance to them grows, making it harder to enact measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and prepare communities for the inevitable change ahead.

It is a catch-22 that starts, says psychologist and economist Per Espen Stoknes, from an inadequate understanding of the way most humans think, act, and live in the world around them. With dozens of examples—from the private sector to government agencies—Stoknes shows how to retell the story of climate change and, at the same time, create positive, meaningful actions that can be supported even by deniers.

In What We Think About When We Try Not To Think About Global Warming, Stoknes not only masterfully identifies the five main psychological barriers to climate action, but addresses them with five strategies for how to talk about global warming in a way that creates action and solutions, not further inaction and despair.

These strategies work with, rather than against, human nature. They are social, positive, and simple—making climate-friendly behaviors easy and convenient. They are also story-based, to help add meaning and create community, and include the use of signals, or indicators, to gauge feedback and be constantly responsive.

Whether you are working on the front lines of the climate issue, immersed in the science, trying to make policy or educate the public, or just an average person trying to make sense of the cognitive dissonance or grapple with frustration over this looming issue, What We Think About When We Try Not To Think About Global Warming moves beyond the psychological barriers that block progress and opens new doorways to social and personal transformation.

Genres: Nonfiction, Climate Change, Psychology, Environment, Science, Sustainability, Education

409 pages, Kindle Edition

First published April 3, 2015

Reviews

[John Kaufmann · Rating 4 out of 5]

Excellent book, borderline 5-star. The book is about how people respond to messages about global warming, not the facts themselves. The author's goal is not on what facts about climate science the climate deniers and contrarians reject (i.e., he believes that even most conservatives fundamentally accept the science, but react to the implications on their value systems and deep-seated beliefs). Rather, his goal is on how to frame messages to avoid stirring some of the negative psychological reactions, and appealing instead to the psychological mechanisms to which they may be receptive.

The author brings his experience and expertise in psychology to the analysis, using ideas from the various disciplines such as cognitive psychology, evolutionary psychology, social psychology, and depth psychology. I've read other analyses of why so many people (esp. American conservatives) are climate contrarians/deniers, all of which make some amount of sense. But this book was the best - in large part because it relies upon cognitive sciences to help solidify his thesis.

I think the author's analysis is very perceptive. However, his prescriptions on what to do going forward remain, in my mind, relatively weak. I thought his basic strategic framework makes sense. However, when he got down to applying those principles with some concrete examples, I couldn't help thinking how insignificant they were and what little difference each would make. Maybe if his prescriptions and others were all applied comprehensively, the cumulative effect would make the difference. However, the odds of all of them being implemented are very low. It highlights, for me, what an immense task we face - and that we may not succeed in meeting it. I hope the author is right and I'm wrong; the only thing to do is to try, and he offers a reasonable starting point.

[Johnham · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book is great. It asks the question why - now that we have an overwhelming amount of evidence indicating that climate change is actually a thing - so many people still decline to accept the scientific consensus and act on it. Stoknes draws on several different fields of psychology (evolutionary psychology, social psychology, psychology of the mind etc.) and arrives at the conclusion that the doomsday prophets and fear-mongerers aren't helping at all. Many people who are presented with a doom narrative about our dying planet will be sent guilt-tripping and the immediate reaction is to either ignore it or be too put down to act constructively. I (being a biologist) have experienced this myself when trying to talk to friends and family about it. Stoknes claims it is only human to react that way when being talked to in that tone, and says that we must change the way that we talk about climate change to get other people on board and get something done about it. He gives several specific examples for what we can do. For instance, we can start to talk about investment in solutions against climate change as a sort of insurance in much the same way we have insurance in case our house should burn down. It might not be 100 % certain that your house will burn down anytime soon, but it comes very much in handy to have an insurance if it actually does.

The main underlying thesis appears to be that it does not work beating people over the head with information they don't understand. Those who know and understand what climate change is about must talk about it in a way that is easily understandable and engaging to those that do not know.

I'm not nearly as good as Stoknes at putting the case forward so I really recommend you to pick up this book. It is written in a sincere and tidy but funny and warm way.

(The book is also available in paperback though I can only find the Kindle edition here on goodreads. I bought the paperback.)

[Nahid Naghshbandi · Rating 5 out of 5]

وقتی سریال تاج و تخت را می‌بینیم چیزی که از همه بیشتر نگران آن هستیم زمستانی است که در راه است. زمستانی که با خود مرگ را به همراه می‌آورد و آن وقت است که می‌خواهیم بر سر تمام ملکه‌ها و ‍پادشاهان و هر آنکه به دنبال کسب قدرت است فریاد بکشیم که دست از سر اهداف احمقانتان بردارید، فرقی ندارد کدامتان بر روی آن تخت لعنتی آهنین بنشینید وقتی که مرگ به سوی شما می‌آید. برای ما تماشاگران که مرده‌های متحرک را در شمال دیوار دیده‌ایم ضروریت مقابله با مرده‌ها چنان مشخص و عیان است که باورمان نمی‌شود سرسی لنیستر حتی پس از دیدن نمونه‌ای از این مرده‌ها به فکر سلطه خود است و اینکه دشمنانش را به دست این مرده‌ها بسپرد و خودش حکومت کند. به نظر می آید چشمهایش با مشکلات و طمع‌ها و بلندپروازی‌هایش کور شده که با وجود هوش سرشارش آنچه که در پیش رو است را نمی‌بیند. و نمی‌بیند در برابر زمستانی که در راه است دوست و دشمن هیچ معنایی ندارد و تنها مفاهیمی که باقی می‌مانند زنده‌ها و مرده‌ها هستند. انگار حالا ما هم در چنین وضعی گیر افتاده‌ایم دانشمندان از گرمایش زمین و تغییرات آب و هوایی می‌گویند. و ما به فکر جنگ‌های احمقانه هر روزه‌مان هستیم به دنبال موفقیت‌های کوچکمان دنبال یک قران را دو قران کردند دنبال زندگی‌های بهتر. البته که همه این‌ها حقیقت انسان هستند ولی با وجود اینکه خشکی‌ها سیل‌ها طوفان‌ها و آب شدن یخ‌ها را میبینیم فکر می‌کنیم هنوز هم فرصت هست و زمستان اول سراغ شمالی‌ها می‌آید و تا آن‌ها برای زندگیشان می‌جنگند ما به قدرت می‌رسیم و برای خواسته‌های روزمره‌مان می‌جنگیم. اگر تماشاگری به فیلم ما نگاه کند لابد همان فکری را می‌کند که وقتی ما بازی تاج و تخت را می‌بینیم. ولی آگاهی به اعمالمان به اینکه چرا انقدر بی‌تفاوتیم به اینکه چرا به گرمایش زمین فکر نمیکنیم هم کار ساده‌ای نیست و استوکنس در این کتاب به این پرداخته که چرا بشر این چیزها را نفی می‌کند. چرا مشکلات بزرگتر را نمی‌بیند. درست است که دیکتاتورها بر سر کار هستند درست است که هر روز برای اینکه امروز را به فردایمان برسانیم میجنگیم و درست است که بی عدالتی را آن‌هایی که در قدرت و ثروت هستند به ما اعمال می‌کنند و حالا آنقدر درگیری و مشکلات بر سرمان ریخته که وقتی برای فکر کردن به فردایمان نداریم و ذهنمان هم جایی برای دغدغه جدید ندارد. اما گیرم که عدالت برپا شد. گیرم که مادر اژدهاها بر تخت نشست و بردگی و ظلم تمام شد و عدالت به جای خود نشست و حقوق زن و مرد و کودک را به آن‌ها برگرداند گیرم که کارگر و نویسنده و هنرمند و معلم و ... به آزادی و حقوق خود رسیدند آن وقت کجا قرار است نفس بکشند؟ یعنی نمیبینیم که این جنگ جنگ مرده ها و زنده‌ها است؟ که همه این مسائل دربرابر زمستانی که در راهمان است با تمام دردهایشان هیچ هستند؟ لابد نمیبینیم! نمیخواهیم ببینیم. آنقدر بزرگ است که جایی برایش نداریم و فرار می‌کنیم گاهی حتی بهتر است باورش نکنیم اینطور لااقل کمتر گوشه ذهنمان را قلقلک می‌دهد. این‌ها را همه استوکنس از لحاظ روانشناسی بررسی می‌کند آنچنان دقیق و آنچنان با زبان صمیمی و راحت که یکهو به خودمان می‌آییم و میبینیم ای داد بیداد چقدر بیخیال بوده‌ایم و چه کلاه بزرگی سر خودمان گذاشتیم. نویسنده این کتاب چشم بندی که گذاششته‌ایم روی چشمهایمان را برمی‌دارد می‌گذارد بیشتر به خودمان به عنوان انسان آگاه شویم بیشتر خودمان را بشناسیم چه در رابطه با زمین و چه در رابطه با بشر و هرچیز دیگری و آنگاه راه حل میدهد ومی‌گذارد که خودت را دوباره پیدا کنی و نشانت می‌دهد که پنجره دیگری هم برای دیدن هست. پنجره‌ای بزرگتر برای دیدن بشر روی این کره خاکی. پنجره ای که در آن ما دیگر صاحبان زمین نیستیم و تنها بخشی کوچک از این دنیای بیکرانیم. برای من خواندن این کتاب مثل تنگری بود که به خودم بیایم و سعی کنم بیشتر به بودنم در این دنیا جایگاهم و وظایفم فکر کنم. کتابی که من را نه تنها با گرمایش زمین و تغییرات آب و هوایی بلکه با خود من درگیر کرد.

[Andrea Beko · Rating 5 out of 5]

My favorite advice from the book was “act as social citizens, not individuals”. I also really liked that the author talked about how blaming big corporations and not taking responsibility is also a way of distancing yourself from climate change and isn’t productive

[Gustė · Rating 5 out of 5]

Such an enlightening and wonderfully written book. I loved it.

‘More often than not, it is actually behavior that determines attitudes, not the other way around. If our lifestyles are far from climate-friendly, then our attitutes tend to follow.’

[Erik · Rating 3 out of 5]

Stoknes's point about being positive instead of negative in communicating about climate change is part of an ongoing debate. Do you need to scare people about melting ice caps, wildfires, and coastal storms? Or is scaring people counterproductive?

Much ink has been spilled to argue both sides. "What We Think about When We Try Not to Think about Global Warming" won't end the debate, but if offers some good ideas if you're willing to try a positive approach.

After watching his TED talk I hoped this book would be more accessible for a wider audience and rely more on storytelling than on exposition. Now, having read the book, its use of psychological concepts and some jargon makes Stoknes's text of primary interest to professional climate communicators rather than a lay audience.

Unless you work for a university, foundation or environmental activist group, you can probably get the core of Stoknes's argument on how to overcome mental barriers to climate action from the TED talk:

https://www.ted.com/talks/per_espen_s...

[Snorre Lothar von Gohren Edwin · Rating 4 out of 5]

Its lots of good thoughts on how to think about climate change. It is from a good psychological perspective that is worth reading about. Only reason it did not get a 5 is because it could become a bit heavy at times, because of the complex thoughts. Existential thoughts

[Joyce · Rating 4 out of 5]

This book started a little clinical for me but by the end I was reading through it faster and faster. The change in how we frame the story and tell the story is crucial. As is the grounded optimism. Although he might not know it, much of his thinking is echoed from other directions, so this is another data point, coming from a scientific viewpoint, articulating the importance of changing how we look at our world. No blame, no name calling, just a call to think beyond the boundaries we have been taught to see.

[Kelsey · Rating 4 out of 5]

Fantastic - and quite mindful - book on the psychology of climate change denial, how we might actually make some traction on minimizing climate change/disruption, and reasons for what the author calls “grounded hope.”

[Nina · Rating 4 out of 5]

3.5

[Valeria · Rating 5 out of 5]

The last chapter alone deserves 5 stars. As a whole species, as humanity, we are in a crucial point in our history where asking ourselves who we are could enlighten us to realize that we can only ~be~ within nature.

[C.S. Malerich · Rating 4 out of 5]

A good read indeed. Occasionally helpful, occasionally frustrating, ultimately validating.

Are humans psychologically capable of comprehending the scale of climate change? And responding? Stoknes wants to say "yes" to both, while admitting that the odds are stacked against us. The author is a psychologist by training, and sets out to apply the insights of his field to the need for a global human response to a human-caused global problem.

PART 1 describes psychological barriers which keep the average [Western, I think] person from fully accepting the reality of climate change, and then taking political action in line with that reality. [For Stoknes, "political action" seems to mean voting or supporting policies such as a carbon tax, and perhaps also participating in movement activities like marches and demonstrations.]

He comes to this task from a variety of frameworks in successive chapters, including evolutionary psychology, which had me raising my eyebrows. But other chapters seem to have more validity, including the application of cognitive dissonance. A person's attitude, he writes, includes not only what they know (or believe to be true) about a topic, but also how they feel and how they [can] behave relative to that topic. To avoid psychological distress, we're all constantly trying to align what we do, feel, and believe. When our behavior is misaligned with what we believe or how we feel, we experience "cognitive dissonance," i.e. psychological discomfort, which the average person will go to great lengths to avoid. It might mean a change in behavior, e.g., I believe other animals experience pain. I feel guilty when I cause animals to be harmed. Therefore I am becoming a vegan instead of using animals for meat or dairy.

Alas behavior, as Stoknes points out, is often the most difficult aspect of an attitude to change. It's far easier to change a belief and rationalize a feeling: I keep eating meat and dairy. Because I don't know if other animals really experience pain. I won't feel bad because I'm probably not hurting anyone. Beliefs can be maintained even when contradictory evidence is presented, which is what Stoknes thinks is happening inside most climate deniers. Presenting more scientific studies does nothing to change the denier's attitude because it's their behavior that actually needs changing, not their intellectual grasp of the subject. Even people who accept the science of global warming will justify and feel only mild connection to the topic when the behavior that's asked of them feels too difficult, risky, or prone to failure.

Indeed, maintaining an attitude of denial or apathy is often socially safer. As Stoknes quotes Ezra Klein:

Nothing any ordinary member of the public personally believes about the existence, causes, or likely consequences of global warming will affect the risk that climate change poses to her, or to anyone or anything she cares about. However, if she forms the wrong position on climate change relative to the one that people with whom she has a close affinity--and on whose high regard and support she depends...in myriad ways in her daily life--she could suffer extremely unpleasant consequences, from shunning to the loss of employment.

In a nutshell, because we humans are a social species who depend on our relationships with one another for our well-being, we align our attitudes not only with our psychological need to avoid dissonance, but with the attitudes of our social groups. Asking someone to change their attitude alone among their peers threatens them with isolation. If you invite me to a Green-New-Deal phone bank this weekend, but my friends and co-workers are home watching Stranger Things, guess what I'm more likely to do! It's even worse if you're asking someone to align themself with their friends' enemies. Because the environment is relegated (rightly or wrongly) to a list of vaguely left or progressive causes, asking your cousin to change their thinking on climate change might also be asking them to align themself with the liberals whom their conservative friends like to mock. No one wants that.

Because of the human brain's skill in justifying and psychically protecting us from cognitive dissonance, even getting people to take individual, small actions is not necessarily helpful to the planet. "Sometimes doing a little bit--like cutting down on plastic bag usage--simply serves to relieve cognitive dissonance for larger excesses, like an extra plane trip to Thailand." The idea I'm already making a lot of sacrifices and doing my part can cover a lot of inaction in other arenas (arenas which might be socially unpopular, but more impactful in the long-run).

In PART 2, Stoknes begins to offer some practical ways to handle this psychological resistance. To make climate-friendly behavior easier, he suggests that organizations and institutions use opt-out v. opt-in strategies (e.g., make vegetarian the main meal at catered events, and the meat dish the "special request"). This makes the desirable behavior the social norm, so no one feels isolated for following it; and once people are acting more sustainably, they can start feeling and believing more sustainably as well, since their minds aren't primed to defend their climate-harming behavior.

Which seems like a fine strategy, to the extent that we have the authority to set these kind of opt-in policies.

He also suggests re-framing climate arguments to appeal to people with different priorities. An insurance framing, for example:

Modern countries do not keep a military defense because it is profitable or has a low cost. Quite the opposite. We do not believe that there will be a military invasion soon. Still, the logic springs from the recognition that large wars could happen again. ... We must build a climate defense today so we can avoid the climate declaring war on us in the future. ... Around the world, we pay taxes to maintain armies...at the level of 2 to 3 percent of global GDP. We also pay 3.5 percent...to the insurance industry against risks such as theft and fire. ...then why not pay even a 1 percent premium to protect against catastrophic climate disruptions?

When friends and relatives argue that combating global warming is too expensive, or not profitable enough, it might be helpful to remind them that we take lots of just-in-case actions already that are also expensive; and going without this kind of insurance is likely to lead to massive financial losses in the future. Indeed, the real-world insurance industry is already calculating the costs of climate-related disasters, and factoring these into the cost of policies.

[I was not surprised to learn that Henry Paulson (the former U.S. Treasury Secretary and former Goldman Sachs CEO) has championed this type of framing. Of course investors want to be properly apprised of how climate change will affect various industries, in order to manage their risk exposure. Great. It seems to me that this framing reinforces individualistic and capitalist priorities as a social norm -- problematic for a finite planet that's demanding a collective response to warming.]

Stoknes also suggests public health framing (cleaner air, better for people to bike v. drive, eat plants v. meat) and an ethical framework: everyone should model behavior they want to see in others, thus using social pressure to move in a more collective, sharing direction. He quotes none other than John Maynard Keynes:

When the accumulation of wealth is no longer of high social importance, there will be great changes in the code of morals. ...The love of money as a possession--as distinguished from the love of money as a means to the enjoyments and realities of life-- will be recognized for what it is, a somewhat disgusting morbidity, one of those semi-criminal, semi-pathological propensities which one hands over with a shudder to the specialists in mental disease. All kinds of social customs and economic practices...we shall then be free, at last, to discard.

Stoknes suggests we begin by discarding GDP as the global metric of success, in favor of other metrics what would better indicate ecological health and human happiness.

To this end, new storytelling is needed. Rather than accepting the religious narrative that the earth, and the plants and animals upon it, exist for the wealth-making of humankind, there is Pope Francis arguing,

But when we exploit Creation we destroy the sign of God's love for us, in destroying Creation we are saying to God: 'I don't like it! This is not good!'

Though not a Christian, Stoknes is optimistic about the number of churchgoers who are embracing, like Francis, a stewardship model of their faith, which emphasizes caring for God's Creation instead of exploiting it.

By the end of PART 2, I was weary of this can-do attitude: Stoknes seemed to be saying that all that needs to happen is already underway; that the psychological barriers to a genuinely global climate movement are already being overcome in all the important ways, by significant sectors of society. In PART 3, he lets down his guard.

In what I think is the most valuable section of the book, Stoknes delves into "eco anxiety," his own and that of so many others. Although the term may not be commonly used, feelings of anxiety, depression, and hopelessness brought on by climate change are epidemic. Instead of dismissing these feelings and pointing the reader back at the positive, action-oriented PART 2, Stoknes asks that the reader fully embrace and experience their fears--in part so that when opportunities for action do arise, we can meet them without raw nerves and un-processed pain.

Even that insight and gravity I am grateful for, but the author goes further and asks what our eco pain tells us about our place in the universe: human beings are not discreet, even that our species as a whole cannot exist unaffected by all the other lives and more-than-human elements around us. He bids us not try to locate our despair inside ourselves in some internal malfunction, as if with the right course of therapy and medication we could blithely stomach the destruction of whole ecosystems.

The psychotherapist Jerome Bernstein developed the "Borderland" hypothesis to describe the space where human consciousness merges with the landscapes around us. As Stoknes describes, Bernstein began theorizing when a patient named "Hannah" came into a session distressed about cows being taken to slaughter.

'I pursued the standard approach of suggesting that she was projecting onto the cows, i.e. how she saw her life circumstance in the plight of these cows.'

Yet the patient returned again and again to the feelings of the animals, a separate sensation from anything arising within her: "'But it's the cows!'" he was repeatedly told. In other words, Hannah made Bernstein acknowledge that feelings could come from other-than-human beings, and be communicated to us, a fact confirmed by his indigenous co-workers and neighbors.

Stoknes uses this insight to critique psychoanalysis--a critique which works equally as a response to invocations of "self-care" popular in some of my own circles.

As if it is possible to sort out your childhood and your personal relationships, then go back to a lifestyle and job that kills off the ecology as we know it, and feel good about yourself. But it does not make much sense to keep working on your own self-development if your employment and society wipe out what therapy tries to rescue: a sense of belonging, meaning, safety, sanity, stability, and connectedness.

In contrast, Stoknes highlights the work of eco-psychologists like James Hillman who,

encourages a therapeutic move from the mirror to the window. ...away from staring into the mirror of introverted self-reflection to open out to the world. It is not just our own soul that individuates; it is the soul of the world, too.

Extrapolating from the effect of the ecosystem on the psyche, Stoknes asks readers to re-frame our notion of consciousness itself: to think of animals, plants, and indeed the very air we breath as loci of agency and meaning.

Like mainstream psychology, climate science has made the basic assumption that only human minds inside brains have some intelligence, have something to say. Ever since the Enlightenment, the air has been viewed as nothing more than inert dead gases. But ... By delivering typhoons and droughts and scaring scientists with methane burps and blowholes, like rewakening an ancient dragon's breath, the air is creating anxiety.

If the air itself is working on human beings--at the same time the acknowledgment of global warming forces us to notice the working of human beings on air--then we have a chance of shifting ourselves and our way of life into a more harmonic and healthy relationship.

This will feel ridiculously mystical and hokey to some readers, as it sometimes does to me. Yet, lacking a religiosity or god-filled framework, I nevertheless felt better about both the necessity and the long-odds of climate action after reading these chapters. My own pain wasn't dismissed, it was embraced and made important, and validated as a sign that the planet itself is asking for action and a course correction. If this is genuinely the truth of our situation, how can I not respond? My pysche may be urging me to look away for my own [short-term] good, but another, grander, long-living soul is urging me not to.

This is ultimately what Stoknes is trying to activate: the knowledge that failure is likely, and the resolution to wholeheartedly try anyway.

[Molly · Rating 5 out of 5]

I highly recommend this book to anyone who is frustrated in this era of "alternative facts." The book dives deep into the psychology behind those who dispute the existence of climate change, and or believe in it but neglect to take action. It also presents practical solutions for how to talk about climate change in a way that better resonates with different audiences.

I do think the last third of the book doesn't quite fit with the rest of it; it's interesting, but doesn't belong here.

[Mark Valentine · Rating 5 out of 5]

Stoknes organizes his book into three sections lifted straight from Aristotle: Thinking (theoria), Doing (praxis) and Being (poeisis). From there, it could be any number of books--it could be a socio-psychological study of climate deniers; it could be an inspirational [no pun intended] book for reclaiming the vision and sensation of being a fulfilled organism; it could be an action plan on how to enact the changes that need to be made; it could be a textbook for studying responses to this complex issue that threatens, well, civilization (maybe something we don't deserve).

For all of this, Stoknes never condescends, never harangues. He uplifts, inspires [again, no pun intended], and narrates personal stories. I found it the right book to be reading now (isn't it cool when this happens! I hope you experience this too!)

Finally, and most importantly, step back (he writes) and learn from deniers; much of the resistance stems from fear and anger (a response from fear) from having to surrender low-cost fossil fuel. The chaos amidst this transition might be a reason to shut down but this is the opposite response Stoknes advocates. He advises greater vigilance.

Well worth the reading. A book to grow by.

[Anna Isotalo · Rating 4 out of 5]

I very much enjoyed the first two parts of the book, but the third existential part was (for me) honestly a struggle to read through.

Yet all in all the book is an excellent guide on how to communicate better about climate change.

[Duncan Noble · Rating 4 out of 5]

Finished reading this last summer. Very good. I'll try to post more later.

[Emily · Rating 4 out of 5]

Many people think that books about climate change are only going to remind them of the grim facts of climate change to make them feel guilty and potentially suggest some basic individual-level solutions to help them alleviate that guilt. I myself was one of these people, not that long ago. Stoknes' book has helped me realise that the guilt narrative is not the only narrative in climate change literature. What We Think About When We Try Not to Think About Global Warming outlines causes that are deeply rooted in human psychology for why the human race has still not solved climate change and suggests some ways of hijacking our psychological tendencies for solving climate change instead. It made me feel less guilty for not always having climate change at the top of my mind! The solutions were also useful, as someone trying to communicate about climate change in a way that is effective. I have not given this book five stars though because Stoknes is a bit too fond of generalisations and rambling. Don't let that stop you from reading this though - it's an important contribution to climate change literature.

[Kelly · Rating 4 out of 5]

This was my in the car book to read during kids practices this summer. I flew through the first two sections and even took notes. The third section was a bog that I struggled through.
The examination of the roots of climate denialism and barriers to action fascinated me. I have always been so numbers/facts driven that I couldn’t understand why/how people could not see the overwhelming evidence that we are fucked. That we have fucked our kids lives too. Part 1 of this book made me realize that factual evidence doesn’t matter to these people, and that we need to reframe our discussions with them to fit whatever worldview it was they were working from was a big part of part 2 of the book.
Part 3 was over my head. It involved reimagining ourselves as part of the Earth, something something.
The part on depression and despair as being a good and necessary I kind of understood. But none of the rest really. Maybe I am too Americanized for this- the American way is if you don’t like something you fight for change. I plan to do that.

[Diana · Rating 4 out of 5]

Interesting read for everyone who wants to act on climate change and is frustrated by the deniers

This book uses psychology to explain why most people do not take the necessary actions to prevent climate change and why the common way of communication about climate change and the related risks is not effective. The book also suggests how to do this differently and suggests severy approaches to more effective communication. Finally the third section of the book discusses the role of our world views. What I liked about this part is the suggestion to embrace and accept the fears asscociated with climate change and its future impacts as a first step before moving to the action mode. And that, while positivism is important, it is also important to take a balanced look, which the author calls “active scepticism”.
“The active skeptic gives up the attachment to optimistic hope and simply does what seems called for”, which is very much how I try to approach this myself.

[Brett · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is an excellent discussion of the psychology of climate change and strategies to,overcome denial and/or depression about the climate. The first section explains why there is so much resistance to accepting the reality. The author usefully examines insights from four psychological perspectives:evolutionary, cognitive, social, and identity. Summarizes with 5 psychological Barriers. Section two outlines strategies for overcoming these. Using Social networks, reframing, et. Section three takes a more spiritual approach. All three sections contain stimulating and challenging ideas about how we can better talk about climate change with deniers and how we can better deal with our own emotions. I look forward to discussing the book with the MN350 book group.

[Pam Kennedy · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is the book anyone concerned almost as much about many folks' attitudes ( ranging from distancing to denial) regarding climate change as about climate change itself! The author clearly describes the all to human reactions that make communicating - even with our cherished family members and closest friends - about global warming, the escalating changes in the climate and ecosystem and the role of humans in this, so difficult. He gives strategies for reframing how information is presented and possible solutions are suggested so that it is accessible and positive. The last section is a lovely ode to nature and our integral relationship with the wonderful, fragile world.

[Einat Gavish · Rating 5 out of 5]

Really excellent analysis of the challenges of climate change action, a good look at denial (and a useful categorization of causes for denials) as well as a look at how to inspire action, followed by a perspective on how to exist as a person in the climate. A very interesting analysis that we have to feel more fully the depression and sadness associated with climate disruption instead of distracting ourselves from it.

[Dani Scott · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is a fantastic book. Well researched and full of clear information on the psychology of climate change denial. If you have anyone in your life that is a "nonbeliever", this book will do you a world of good. As the author says: If the current way we present climate change research is not working, let's change gear!

[CM · Rating 2 out of 5]

Exploring various subfields of psychology to explain why people are not working on this one big issue of our time. It can be a 3- or 4- star read if you do not come from a psychology background. The last of the three parts, "Being" can be quite an unusual addition to readers less accustomed to the existential school in psychology.

[Rosaly Byrd · Rating 5 out of 5]

A great read for any climate communicators. Really helpful and useful information that has completely changed the way I discuss and communicate issues of sustainability and climate change. Definitely recommend it!

[Nicole Conlan · Rating 4 out of 5]

Really interesting points about talking to people who don't believe in climate change. The last chapter was pretty philosophical and a little over my head, but I'm gonna give it another go. Would have liked more of Part 2 and less of Part 3.

[Jwf · Rating 2 out of 5]

I feel bad giving this book only 2 stars, I am completely onside with the author's concerns about the environment, his recognition of some of the failures in presenting the climate crisis to society, and his proposed solutions; simply put, the writing style of this book just never engaged me.

[HM · Rating 4 out of 5]

I used this book as "guidance" for creating an interactive conference workshop. Good outline of the psychological barriers, and how we may start to overcome them.

[Marienbooks · Rating 4 out of 5]

i give the book a 3.5 however it is an easy read and an important book everyone should read

[Lindsay Smith-Munoz · Rating 5 out of 5]

Even if you are not feeling confused despair about the prevalence of climate change denialism, this is an interesting read.