There appear to be three main strategies for attempting to motivate citizens to take action on climate change. The terminology by which this state of affairs is referred to is beginning to reflect the essence of the different strategies - Climate Change, Climate Crisis, Climate Emergency, a Decarbonized World.
One strategy is to scare the hell out of people in motivating them to take action. This is currently reflected by Greta and previously by former U.S. Vice President Al Gore. This approach has been directed to both leaders and citizens. One benefit of this "scare-the-hell-out-of-them" approach is that it educates people on the severity of the real situation as presented by climate data and observation. It attempts to get this issue into the current political discussion. Education can be included here as a subset of the overall strategy. Being educated as to the reality of climate change should scare the hell out of people. Many campaigns to involve people have education as a key objective.
Another strategy is to appeal to the financial self-interest of people. Responding to climate change is good for business. There are many opportunities to be taken advantage of such as in the manufacture of solar panels or electric automobiles. This approach is reflected in the writings of Paul Hawkin and L.Hunter Lovins among others. This approach is directed mostly to business people in encouraging them to take action and in reducing their resistance to necessary actions. The benefit of this approach is that it has led to a trend where businesses are beginning to pursue climate change solutions. It is bringing down the cost of renewable energy. This approach is particularly helpful where political leaders are not taking sufficient action. In the end, the business world can drive action in the political sphere.
The downside to this approach is that the results can tend to be piecemeal - never offering an encompassing solution to a systemic issue. Also, appealing to financial self-interest is an extrinsic motivator which research has shown tends to overshadow an individual's intrinsic motivation.
A third strategy is to develop a vision of a desirable end state where climate change solutions have been enacted, a new economy has been put in place and people are flourishing. This vision can embody the principles governing what life will be like in this new state and how we got there. This approach has been reflected by the Prince of Wales, Marjorie Kelly and Donella Meadows as well as a number of active communities. The benefit of this approach is that it does not elicit emotions of denial, resistance, decreased energy, depression and apathy. Instead it increases energy, provides citizens a destination to move toward, informs the kinds of actions that may be necessary and can offer a systemic view. Since this represents an intrinsic motivator, it may go deeper into the psyche of people.
The downside is that this may be a slower approach to unfold as a critical mass in society is built. It does not directly produce policy or business enactments though it will in the long term. People may dismiss this approach as a Cinderella story - not part of the real world. The rejoinder is that this is an improvement over not moving at all. Having a positive vision is now an accepted part of athletic pursuits as well as business endeavors. Martin Luther King, Jr.'s "I have a dream" speech is a powerful illustration of this approach.
A possible fourth approach is reflected where legislative enactments and government policies more directly move climate change solutions forward and in time impact the behavior of citizens. However, in a democratic society this still requires a recognizable mandate running from motivated citizens to elected officials which is stronger than the influence of special interests. In a democratic society, a charismatic political leader can help to move this along. Former U.S. President, Teddy Roosevelt is an example of this.
As may be clear from this discussion, each approach requires one's mind and emotions to react differently and this may result in internal conflicts when more than one approach is used at the same time.
For example, the '"suppression" effect," points out that "the activation of the extrinsic value of financial success leads people to orient away from more intrinsic values such as generosity and caring for others." Further, "studies have found that people who prioritize extrinsic values care less about the environment and other species, whereas intrinsic values promote more ecologically sustainable attitudes and behaviors." (Tim Kasser, "A values-based set of solutions for the next generation.")
Since we cannot control the world around us in terms of who is using what approach, perhaps, the best we can do is to be aware of when we are asking people to both be afraid of what may happen to them and positive and affirmative in developing their desirable vision for the future. A previously used theory of change management says that we should first unfreeze people (e.g. help them realize how bad things are) before we help them move towards the future. People may differ as to the efficacy of this theory.
In the end, which approach is used may depend on the competencies and objectives of the user. Greta, for example, is competent to speak about the threat to her generation and their parents and grandparents but not about business opportunities. She is charismatic and is a good speaker. As with Al Gore, one of her objectives is the education of global citizens. She also does want to scare politicians to take action.
Can you think of other approaches to add to this list and examples of how they have been used?
Comments