Over 25 years ago, the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, declared current generations responsible for preserving the resources, ecosystems, and living conditions of future generations. Though a vitally progressive stance, this is much more complex than originally anticipated. Given what is understood today about decision-making processes, achieving this goal seems highly challenging. This is largely a result of the myriad of psychological and societal factors that go into our decision making processes.
When discussing the topic of climate change, we typically hear scientists initiate the conversation, utilizing phrases such as “in the next ten years,” “by the year 2100,” and “by the time our children have grandchildren.” Then, these statements are followed by alarming information about what could happen in that far-away future, if drastic measures are not adopted today. Theoretically, these statements are a way to bring the future ramifications of climate change to life. Ironically, research suggests that using such phrases might disconnect the listener completely, as people have a limited capacity to account for events that seem far in the future, and therefore seem to discount them when making decisions. Following, if the intent is to lead decision-makers to take climate change into account, it is necessary to enhance its near-term effects, rather than its more jarring distant ones.
Of all the anxiety inducing moments I have experienced, a vivid standout is the first time walking past the Metronome in Union Square. This is not due to its distinctive patterning, gold accents or historical significance, but to the infamous “climate clock” displayed upon it. The clock ticks backwards to an inevitable date in which global warming will become irreversible. Like many people roaming the streets of New York, seeing the seconds tick on the climate clock felt like the future charging at me with full force. Examining it now, I suppose this is the exact intent of such an exhibition—to bring the future consequences of climate change into the present.
The distance between the cause: the present, and the effect: the perceived future ramifications of climate change, appears to create a deep dissonance between the urgent need for policy and behavior change, and the ability of people to fully comprehend and act upon it. It has been empirically shown that the further the negative ramifications of a decision seem in the future, the less likely we are to take them into consideration. This is theorized to be a manifestation of evolutionary needs that favored the short term over the long term, for survival purposes. Additionally, it has been shown that short-term incentives can be more influential on decision making than long term incentives. For example, taking out a loan might seem like a great short term solution, yet it has ramifications in the long term which are given far less weight in our decision making process. Similarly, climate change is seen as so far away into the future that it is difficult to theorize and accurately comprehend. Since we are already inclined not to take the future into account, when it comes to something that has not yet occurred, and can’t be drawn upon, such as the distance and abstract idea of climate change, it becomes even more difficult for many to grasp or act upon it.
As opposed to the perceived far-away world where the ramifications of climate change exist, our present world is becoming increasingly choppy and present-focused. In a society where people's attention spans are becoming shorter and shorter, fashion is becoming faster, and the thought of having the same coffee order two seasons in a row is advertised as incomprehensible, how could we possibly look 50 years into the future? This challenge extends beyond personal day to day choices to political stances and policy making. When a president is only in office for four years, it makes sense that they would be less likely to seek to create long lasting change, especially change that doesn’t reap instant rewards, or at least not instant enough to promise them another term.
Besides the distance from the future as a driving factor in making decisions, it has been understood that another important variable is one's ability to picture the issue in relation to themselves. At its basis, the idea is that, when you have already experienced something, it is much easier to draw upon it and use it as a moral compass before making a decision of similar fashion regarding the future. Following, it appears as though when making decisions, people take into account the effects of these decisions on their future selves—not on the future in general. Meaning, the selfish, survival instincts of humanity lead us to almost ignore the effects our actions could potentially have on the world around us. This is incredibly detrimental in regards to climate change, as it is typically discussed as something happening to the earth, without direct correlation to humanity: the coral reefs changing color, sea levels rising, temperatures becoming inhabitable for various animal species, etc. Based on past research, if we want people to be able to take climate change into account when making day to day decisions, then we need to illustrate its consequences in relation to the human race, and more specifically in relation to each individual.
Consequently, it has been shown that people are more inclined to take the climate into consideration, when the repercussions of climate change have direct consequences on them and their local community. Perhaps, beyond nationwide climate policies, it would be beneficial to focus on enforcing additional, smaller, community-based policies (i.e per town/city), therefore enhancing each individual's understanding of the residual effects climate change could have on their community. Thus, making it easier for individuals to integrate this information into their decision-making processes.
The debate over who is responsible for climate change has long raged, with some blaming the oil industry, others pointing to big tech, and some insistent that each individual is to be held accountable for their daily carbon emissions. One thing remains unanimous: in order to effect change, those in power must implement and enforce climate preservation policies. In an almost paradoxical way, it has been empirically shown that people in positions of power are less likely to take others into consideration when making decisions, as opposed to those without power. Following, those who hold the most ability to create change and improvement in sustainable development, are those who, psychologically, have the hardest time taking outside factors into account when making such decisions.
Addressing climate change requires connecting people’s current selves with the future implications of their actions. Whether it be on the individual or national scale, the proximity of climate impacts must be emphasized to ensure they are taken into consideration when making decisions ranging from the most miniscule ones like the method of transportation you take to work, and up to grand government energy regulations.
Globalization and new technologies can assist us in stepping outside ourselves and connecting with events happening around the world in real time. This awareness might just be the key to enabling societal change and encouraging accountability for the future of our planet. Additionally, perhaps the use of virtual technologies would be helpful in making the ramifications of climate change more near and tangible, potentially leading to more climate-conscious decisions.
While the UN's commitment to sustainable development is promising, we must take significant steps to overcome people's tendency to discount future events. It starts with making the effects of climate change feel as close and irreversible as they truly are—just as the climate clock in Union Square does.