Opinion: Reframing Attitudes Could Help Us Escape the Gridlock

By Cadence Price
Despite the fact that we as a planet are nearing the temperature of no return, it is deeply concerning that climate policies are still not taken seriously. In fact, the current political climate allows for only a small fraction of the climate legislation to be even heard, with many critical proposals being caught in political gridlock along the way. Society as a whole has grown tired of the climate crisis, and, to some extent, it is now perceived as old news. The issue of climate change itself needs to be looked at through a different lens to truly change attitudes towards policy because, quite frankly, we are stuck. The proposed solutions are oftentimes divisive, impractical, and do not adequately account for the urgency of the situation. The issue, and solution I propose, is twofold. This gap in understanding is where the problem lies, and it is crucial to address it before it’s too late. First is the deep polarization experienced between liberals and conservatives, and the messages that climate activists are using. The second is the growth-dependent paradigm that prioritizes economic growth over environmental sustainability. 

We have had attempts to combat or mitigate climate change using strategies such as the Kyoto Protocol, but they have been mostly ineffective. For instance, the Kyoto Protocol was designed in such a way that it focused on allowing economic growth to continue on unimpeded while still trying to diminish the irreversible. The framework and implementation strategies of the Protocol were inherently flawed because they didn't sufficiently challenge the foundational assumption that economic growth should remain the priority. We have worked hard to create a solution that attempts to allow for the conservative party to maintain their sights on economic growth in the face of irreversible climate damage, while still attempting to minimize how many degrees the planet warms or how many tons of carbon are emitted. To all this we have mostly failed. The planet is headed for changes that will be irreversible on centennial to millennial time scales according to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s Sixth Assessment Report. This means we face an inevitable future of altered ecosystems, extreme weather events, and rising sea levels. We must tackle the situation by changing attitudes, and not just towards the reality of climate change, but towards the solutions proposed.

To change attitudes towards sustainability, experts in the field strongly suggest framing the issue differently. Currently, climate change deniers fall into six categories: literal denial, neo-skeptism, techno-optimism, individualism, market fundamentalism, and green growthism. Each of these categories presents a barrier to progress, and a deepening understanding of them is key to moving forward. To view the climate crisis without a market-based lens or an individualist lens would allow for a degrowth-centered strategy to form, which, in turn, could help in eliminating the two most polarized viewpoints. This would pave the way for more unified, actionable solutions. In the article “Reconceptualizing  Climate Change Denial: Ideological Denialism Misdiagnoses Climate Change and Limits Effective Action,” Petersen, Stuart, and Gunderson’s proposed solution to societal energy needs effectively accounts for a closing of the aisle and states that ”only by creating social awareness and solidarity around the need to organize society for well-being, instead of capital accumulation and continual economic growth, can we have any hope for drastically reducing climate change impacts in a socially just way.” This concept of solidarity and collective responsibility is what could help break through the political and economic impasse that we find ourselves in today.

To create these degrowth-focused policies that appeal to a larger audience, researchers at Florida State University studied responses to different types of frames. In their research, they found that framing a policy as scientific, moral without using religion as a metric, and including support for economic equity tended to produce the most favorable results. Framing policies using science and economic equity also led them to discover that ideological divides can be significantly reduced. This finding is especially important because it suggests that people from both sides of the political spectrum, when approached with the right framing, may be willing to embrace climate policies that align with both their values and the collective good. The research emphasizes that the manner in which we present these policies is just as critical as the policies themselves. This means, moving forward, we need to work on finding ways to bridge ideological divides, and this starts with adjusting how we talk about the solutions we need.

If we actually want to see meaningful progress on climate change, we need to rethink how we’re approaching both the problem and the solutions. We’ve been stuck in the same old cycle of focusing on economic growth and individualism, and that’s not working anymore. It’s clear now that what we really need is a shift toward a more collective, sustainable approach, one that prioritizes degrowth over expansion. The old strategies, which have failed us time and time again, can’t be the answer anymore. We simply can’t afford to stay divided over politics when the future of the planet is at stake. What we need is a shared vision of sustainability that puts people’s well-being at the forefront, instead of getting caught up in the political and economic gridlock that has been holding us back for far too long. To progress forward and reframe the way we talk about sustainability and policy regarding climate change could just be the solution we need to finally pull up short of that irreversible warming mark.