By Thomas Neuburger
This is a note that supplements our recent coverage ("Jonesing on Carbon") of the role of the hyper-rich in humanity's carbon footprint. (Spoiler alert: It's huge and disproportionate to their numbers.)
What motivates people to be engaged in the climate struggle? The Guardian has the answer via a Norwegian study:
Anger is most powerful emotion by far for spurring climate action, study finds
Anger is by far the most powerful emotional predictor of whether somebody plans to take part in a climate protest, research suggests. The study, which asked 2,000 Norwegian adults how they felt about the climate crisis, found the link to activism was seven times stronger for anger than it was for hope. The effects were smaller for other actions, but fear and guilt were the best predictors of policy support, while sadness, fear and hope were the best predictors of behavioural change. [emphasis added]
The climate communications world has been split, and not evenly, between the few who try to cause fear of horrific climate results (yours truly among them), and the far more numerous who are afraid to use fear. The latter group fears that fear will frighten too much; that people will hide their heads and do nothing at all.
It may also be true that, when one appeals to fear, the response is critical from both the right — for “climate alarmism” — and the fossil-fuel-pacifying “left” who run the joint. Another cause for caution by communicators, this time personal. They may fear being shunned by their peers and those who lead their party. Or maybe not — the human heart is a mystery to us all.
Note also the distinction between fear and guilt as predictors of policy support, versus sadness, fear and hope as predictors of behavioral change. Different goals. Note also that avoiding the feeling of powerlessness is important: "[M]essages that make people angry can also push others to shut down, particularly if they feel powerless." Which increases the importance of actions that can have an effect.
But note the problem again: Anger that leads to effective action is almost certainly disruptive. A no-no for a status-quo supporting people (read the comments to this tweet):
And a status-quo supporting party:
The problem with the above graphic is ... it's true. Nothing as fundamentally changed. How's a climate-loving activists supposed to act, if not angry and disruptive?