Even people who say they believe in climate change may be in denial — the same kind of denial that allows us to ignore our own mortality.
This tendency to turn away from disturbing facts manifests itself not in what people say but what they do. In one recent study, for example, many people in hurricane-prone regions failed to take basic precautions to protect their homes, whether or not they recognized that climate change was putting them in increased danger.
Denial of that sort might be embedded in our DNA. Some scientists think it's the primary trait that distinguishes humans from other animals. We know we are going to die, so we develop beliefs in an afterlife, or we just don't think about it at all. And in a similar way, we don't dwell on the fact that human activity has changed the atmosphere, and that conditions could get very bad in the near future.
In a controversial essay published in the New Yorker last month — "What if We Stopped Pretending?" — novelist Jonathan Franzen made a connection between denial of death and climate change. "Despite the outrageous fact that I'll soon be dead forever, I live in the present, not the future. Given a choice between an alarming abstraction (death) and the reassuring evidence of my senses (breakfast!), my mind prefers to focus on the latter."
The planet, too, is still "basically normal," he observed. Many of us are experiencing familiar seasonal weather patterns, even as our television screens show others in more vulnerable areas battling catastrophic floods, fires and storms.
The piece generated some outrage, especially from scientists, for expressing doubt that people will be able to reduce emissions enough to keep global temperatures from rising more than 2 degrees Celsius — a goal set by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change several years ago. Some also disagreed with Franzen's alarming contention that warming over 2 degrees will trigger the collapse of civilization. If 2 degrees ends the world, there's no point in trying to keep it from getting even warmer, but scientists generally agree that 2 degrees will be less destructive than 2.5 degrees, and both are preferable to 3 degrees.
But the essay's value is not in anything Franzen says about climate, but what he says about the human psyche. Scientists are obligated to be precise. Artists, on the other hand, stir emotions.
And scientists, too, are applying themselves to understand the way the human psyche is contending with climate change. Something of that was revealed, for example, in that recent study on hurricane preparedness. There, a collaboration of engineers and political scientists from the University of Notre Dame used survey data from 662 respondents in North Carolina's Hanover County — part of so-called hurricane alley.