Changes in Attitude Towards Climate Change and Transformative Learning Theory

Abstract

The author conducts in-depth interviews with individuals who describe themselves as having undergone a change in attitude with regards to climate change. Determinants of attitudinal change, and characteristics of the process, are identified and compared with those found in the literature on attitudes towards climate change. Given that changes in attitude are often linked with transformation in perspectives, the author proposes transformative learning theory as a framework with which to interpret and explain the experiences of the respondents.

Appendices

About the Author

Gherardo Girardi is a senior lecturer in economics and business strategy at London Metropolitan University, UK. His research covers, in addition to matters related to climate change, teaching and learning in higher education, and industrial economics.

Appendix: The Participants’ Narratives

D. Y.

is an American student in his late 20s studying business economics at undergraduate level. D. Y. saw Al Gore’s documentary “An Inconvenient Truth”, which “made him think” and decided to start recycling. Then sometime later he read “The State of Fear” by Michael Crighton (the author of Jurassic Park, D. Y. explained), a “fictional book”, “but it has a very good bibliography of scientific articles”. D. Y. “checked the articles”, which challenged Al Gore’s extremely worrying view. For example, said D. Y., Crighton’s book claims 90 % of global ice is in Antartica, and that the ice there is getting thicker. Now, when D. Y. hears about global warming, his attitude is one of scepticism. Nonetheless, D. Y. is still recycling, as “once you get into the habit, you see it’s not difficult”. He now feels bad about throwing in the bin what he knows he can recycle. He recycles out of a “greater sense” of the common good, not out of peer pressure, and not out of fear that the humanity will “disappear”. He regards recycling as a joyful sort of sacrifice and not very costly. He thinks that consumers (rather than governments or firms) are responsible for pollution, since demand generates supply. D. Y. thinks that there is a lot of “inequality in the world, pollution, war…we can’t fix them now, but you want to make things easier for future generations”. He thinks that “every generation wants the next one to do better than them”, and also thinks that the majority of people think this, though this is “the silent majority”. D. Y. was intending to go to a war torn country to build homes for victims of landmines.

K. T.

is a Tunisian student studying International Business at Master’s level. K. T. thinks that most people in Tunisia, independently of their social level and of the place they live in, “don’t really care about streets’ cleanliness and are not really aware about the fact that throwing away food is a bad thing”. K. T. said that where she lives in Tunisia there is a lady who works as a cleaner, collects plastic bottles from the house where she works and from her friends, and takes the bottles to a factory in return for some money. This lady pays her customers about 750 millims per kg of plastic bottles, with which one can buy about four baguettes or just under half a packet of “decent” cigarettes. K. T. said that when she went as a tourist to Germany, she was quite impressed by the extent of recycling there. Then she came to London to study for her International Business master degree, and felt indignant about the tabloids left lying on the tube. Initially she used to simply leave the papers on the tube because she believed that the underground would recycle them. When she realized that the underground was not doing so, she began collecting the papers herself. However, she felt very discouraged that she was the only one doing so; she was expecting more from people living in a “developed country” and thought the whole thing “quiet depressing if you think about a better future”. The indifference of her fellow passengers contrasted vividly with the way she had been brought up: “At home we would never throw away a jar of Nutella, we would wash it and reuse it as a recipient for rice, pasta, or any kind of food that could be kept in a glass; we would never throw away clothes, we would either give them to people in need or use the ones that couldn’t be worn as cleaning towels, for dusting or for use in the garden; we would never throw away bottles made of glass, we would rather use them to store flower essences or olive oil…and all this not because we couldn’t buy more but because it was the logical and most natural thing to do”. Ultimately she decided to stop collecting papers, otherwise, she said humorously, she would have ended up seeing a psychotherapist. However, she did not stop recycling entirely: she still did a small amount of collecting. To make things worse, the “expensive student hall” in which she lived did not separate the garbage. She recycled and told others to do the same, but in the end she “essentially gave up” recycling in her hall as she saw no point in doing it if other people did not do it, since on her own she was not going to able to “change the world”. Instead, she says, recycling is an area for government intervention. If she was the government, she’d forbid paper envelopes and fine people for littering.

M. B.

is British woman in her mid 40s and works as a manager at university. She has three children and has a background in natural sciences. M. B. used to work in the private sector and then moved to university. She accepts climate change is happening not only because of what she reads, but also because personal observations such as the fruit in her garden not maturing at the right time. M. B. was hopeful and confident about the government’s ability to tackle climate change and pollution in general when she was working in the private sector. However, since she started working in the public sector, i.e. at university, she underwent a change in perspective. This happened for two reasons. Firstly, she describes how she was shocked to discover that students were selfish and indifferent, which led her to lose faith in young people and their willingness to care for future generations (she says het her generation was more politically active). Secondly, and at the same time, a friend of hers, working in another publically funded university, explained to her that colleagues in the friend’s university doing research on the environment produced a fake report. Hence, she lost her trust in universities’ ability to perform their public duties. She became very cynical and now does not believe that things will change for the better in the future. She says that “people don’t even care about others in the present so how can we expect from them to care about the future or future generations”. The only way for things to change is if the government “hit […] people where it hurts, i.e. in their pockets”. She believes that there is no point of informing people of the harmful causes of climate change since they won’t do anything to change anyway; she argued that this phenomenon is like smoking, you know it is bad but you do it anyways, even if there are warnings on the packet itself; or like crossing the street when the traffic light is red: people know it is dangerous but they do it anyways. Even though she recycles the garbage (though not the newspapers due to there not being adequate bins), she thinks that recycling is not a solution as it is very expensive and not really effective; instead, we should curb excessive consumption and waste, which are consequences of people’s greed. Finally, she suggested that if people want to maintain the same “life style” they have today, nuclear energy could be the only solution.

C. B.

is a white British man aged 49, studying Japanese part time in the evening and unemployed for approximately a year. He is not married and has no children. He says he went from being entirely sceptical of the idea that climate change is anthropogenic, to being convinced that it’s actually true. His conviction stems from having heeded the message in the media: “I don’t like saying this, but if you repeat the same message over and over again, you’ll believe it; that’s what happened to me.” Nonetheless, C. B.’s careful use of language suggests a rational and calculating approach to climate change (though his demeanour displays a certain reserved warmth). C. B. worries about the validity of the information he reads in the media. Having said that, he says he is more comfortable believing the British media than the UN’s IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change); when asked why, he says “maybe it feels more like home”, and “perhaps just because the logic fits my mind”. He wonders how qualified he is to interpret the data he reads in the press. Then he says he does not trust the British media, instead he trusts a friend who “has an alternative way of thinking”. When asked whether his conviction that climate change is anthropogenic would lessen as a result of moving to a country where the media is less supportive of this view, he said yes, though not completely. He then manifested detachment from what the media says by saying that he has always cycled and recycled, and that if more reports of worsening climate were to reach him, his behaviour would not change (this includes minimizing waste and plastic bags usage) as “we’ve already reached the stage where things are very hard or impossible to change”. He is at ease with his level of environmental conservation, in fact he’s happy to fly by plane as he sees that as a reward for his conservation activities. He thinks that, although new technologies may be found which mean that we don’t have to cut consumption now to leave a clean planet for future generations, nonetheless we should be responsible and cut out excesses, and is in favour of government regulation like compulsory recycling. It is unlikely that we care about future generations more than about ourselves, as “everyone has a need to preserve himself”, and we all seek some level of comfort, except for rare exceptions like nuns.

F. B.

is a Brazilian 27 year old man studying for the MA in International Sustainable Tourism. He is not married and has no children, describes himself as a practising Catholic and has lived the in UK for 6 months prior to the interview. In 2005 he began reflecting on his life choices, in particular looking for ways to have a “worthwhile existence”: he began to think about “not only […] my career but choices, things that could make me feel accomplished and happy”. He wanted to influence policy, but also to make a personal contribution of sorts. At the same time, he was exposed to news on TV and in the press on environmental degradation. He responded to this message by taking practical steps such as not buying a second computer (so as to reduce industrial wastage), and by spending less time in the shower (though he also did this to reduce his energy bill). While he was effecting this transition in behaviour, a Brazilian folkloristic tale came powerfully to his mind, that of a bird which tries to put out a forest fire by dropping tiny drops of water on it, uncaring of whether he succeeds in putting out the fire or not. In the story, we don’t know whether the fire is ultimately extinguished (i.e. we don’t know the story’s ending, in a sense), instead, we appreciate that the bird’s action is important and valuable in itself. F. B. feels at a deep level that we do not own the Earth; instead, his views of life are strongly captured by the notion of “convivencia”, a word which, he says, has no exact translation in English, the closest being “co-existence”. He is passionate about the Earth’s beauty and feels a need to “apologize to the planet” for the way we have treated it. F. B. is very family rooted and maintains strong links with his relatives. He feels that he knows he’s right about his vision and purpose of life. When asked why we should care about future generations, his answer is “We are a future generation—somebody cared about us—or are we just lucky?”. Furthermore, “We have received freely, let us give freely”. Finally, he thinks it is important to affect change in teenagers, who don’t care about the future, and so we need to work on their “sensitivities”.

D. O.

is an American in his late 50s; he lectures in business and has a teaching interest in sustainability issues. When he was fifteen, he memorized the lyrics of “There goes the mountain”, a 1960s song about strip mining. He says strip mining was very important in this period. Also he remembers that Pete Seeger sang about the need to get the Hudson river cleaned up. D. O. recollects this period as one in which he was searching for identity, which he sees this as a typical teenage thing. His parents, who had a stronger religious approach to life than him, raised him with a strong sense of fairness. At this time, D. O. also sympathized with the civil rights movement and the anti-Vietnam protesters. “It was civil rights, Vietnam and the environment. It seemed plain right to be concerned about these issues”. Gradually he began to appreciate economic activity as a way of improving human welfare. As he became more involved in business issues, he began to “see good business leaders”, and his sympathy for business increased. In 2004 a major event occurred which left a mark in D. O.: he read Lomborg’s “The sceptical environmentalist”. Lomborg and others, said D. O., argued that we should select priorities based on evidence, and suggested that fighting malaria be given priority rather than climate change. This encouraged D. O. to move away from a “it’s plain right” view, to one which is “more complex” (i.e. it is not obvious that addressing climate change is a priority). This attitude has continued to this day and he sees himself “moving through arguments, and still moving through arguments” (but he is “emotional nonetheless”, with a “passion behind it”). For example on the one hand he believes that, given time, technologies will be developed to address environmental problems; on the other hand he also believes in responding quickly to problems as they arise, for example consumers should “stop buying 4by4s”, and firms should “stop making cars that go at 120mph”. His view of nature is that that there are natural “healing and adjustment processes” and so we need to allow nature to heal itself; however, “we could get out of equilibrium and not be able to get back” (i.e. there may not be a natural healing process in some circumstances), for example if the Gulf stream comes to an end (he backed this last point with reference to systems theory). Currently his professional view is that accounting systems should take into account externalities, and that genuinely green accounts would show companies making a loss. He also sympathizes with shareholder activism, whose founding figure is Bob Monks, where activists buy shares to affect companies’ actions.

S.G.

is a German citizen who has lived in the UK since late 1989. Although recycling was “big” in Germany, she took little interest in ecological matters when she lived there, describing herself as a “child of the throw-away society”. About 12 years before the interview, two friends of hers got her interested in alternative holistic medicine (such as herbal medicine), in the environment and in the idea that everything is interconnected, though she never actually adopted any particular “belief system” (she does however reject an anthropocentric view of the universe). She joined a vegetable and fruit delivery scheme and began to read widely on the environment, in a process which she describes as a “self-feeding system: once you start, it’s very hard to go back”. She said that up until this time, “it had been all for myself”, after which she “started to notice things more” in relation to other people and the environment. S.G. began to see inequality in many aspects of life, for example in terms of unequal access to freedom of expression and economic access. Since moving to the UK, she has been working in the voluntary sector, including a human rights organization which protects indigenous people in economically less developed countries. Then about a year before the interview she attended a course in criminology during which the instructor spoke about “eco-crime”. It suddenly dawned on her that this is the specific area which in the future she would like to work in. She feels that she had “needed time to come through things”, i.e. to make this discovery. When asked whether she thought she had discovered her “true preferences”, S.G. gave a resounding yes. She says that the attitude we have towards the Earth reflects the attitude we have towards ourselves. When asked whether she thought that pro-environment attitudes had to be formed or awakened, she replied “formed”. To do this, she said we should appeal to people’s survival instinct. She said that in our times it is possible to change one’s belief system in a lifetime, “unlike in the distant past”. She felt that even though “the media is not fair”, as “it is governed by who owns it”, one could overcome the problem of bias by reading both “liberal and conservative papers”. She felt that the one could trust scientists (who claim that climate change is taking place) as there have been “thirty years of long debate and controversy” before reaching that conclusion.

D. M.

is a member of staff from Mauritius and is in her 30s. She read a lot about the environment in the UK through the media, whilst in Mauritius “you never talk about these things”. She says she knows that climate change is taking place because this is confirmed by her experience in Mauritius, where “it is becoming hotter”. Her family in Mauritius share her view about climate change in Mauritius, as do other family members living in South Africa. D. M. recycles “maybe a little out of guilt for being a vibrant consumer”, but most importantly because she feels she “must do so as a responsible citizen”; also to an extent because recycling is “not too bothersome” for her, as the council “makes it easy” by placing recycling facilities within reach. However, she often does not make the connection between recycling and climate change. She says she does not feel any peer pressure to recycle, it is her conscience that puts pressure on her. She puts pressure on her husband to recycle. She thinks that a lot of the media coverage about climate change is “overblown” and “sensationalist”, opinion is often presented as fact, and fear is created. Nonetheless, she thinks there is an element of truth in it: “if it is not there, is it is usually contested” and “there’s no smoke without fire”. Also “maybe these messages [of fear] are needed to get to people”. She has become very conscious of her carbon footprint, for example she travels by air a lot less, taking the train instead. She says, with a dash of humour, that she cares more about her carbon footprint than about the environment. She thinks one could motivate people to become eco-friendly by encouraging them to make significant but inexpensive changes, and suggested a book entitled “Change the World for a Fiver”.

C. T.

is a Turkish student studying International Business at Master’s level. He is 25, single and has no children. Up until taking the course on Research Methods, C. T. had refused to read the work of Nicholas Stern and in particular he had not read the Stern Review on the Economics of Climate Change. This is because C. T. was sceptical of the work of the World Bank, the institution for which Nicholas Stern used to work. C. T. wondered whether the World Bank “was there to help rich or poor countries” and thought that Stern “was getting paid to produce this kind of report”. When taking Research Methods, C. T. had to read the Stern Review as part of the module’s compulsory reading. He also read some of the work of William Nordhaus, whose message is in many ways opposite to Nick Stern’s (Nordhaus’ message does not inspire the same sense of urgency as Stern’s). As a result of reading this material, C. T. changed his mind from being sceptical about climate change to believing that it is really happening and that it is anthropogenic. His own experience of climate change in Turkey, he says, matches the conclusion of these authors. This new perspective however has not affected his behaviour since he was “recycling even before reading the Review”. C. T. says that being a Muslim makes him socially responsible as in Islam “everybody should clean up their mess” and “must be totally environmentally friendly”. C. T. regards himself as someone who bases his views on what he reads and believes he does not blindly follow the crowd. His view is that people, if informed about climate change, will change their behaviour. Indeed he regards the diffusion of “information as the number one priority for both developed and developing countries”.

J. E.

is second year undergraduate studying finance and economics. He has lived all his life in Estonia except for the last one and a half years, during which he has been living in London. Up until 1991, Estonia had been part of the Soviet Union, after which it became an independent state. At the time when J. E. was in secondary school, every Saturday the school sent its pupils “in groups to clean the forests”, and “the monuments of soldiers who died” in the Second World War. The pupils did this for free, as part of their school duties. However, says J. E., “When we became capitalist, we stopped doing this”, so that the forests and other places are now dirty. He also says “Now everybody screams about democracy and freedom, so you cannot make them do it [the compulsory cleaning of the forests by children]. We were taught to do it, didn’t think about it, and when the area became dirty you could see the benefit of the Saturday”. Today secondary students in Estonia are not obliged to clean up, rather they are taken to landfills “to see where the garbage goes and […] speak with specialists”. J. E. went to secondary school when the education system went through this transition process, so he did the cleaning of the forests in his first year and was taken to landfills later. He approves both of compulsory cleaning (even if not counted in GDP, he says) and of visiting the landfills. At the same time, the arrival of capitalism in Estonia also presented new commercial opportunities, so J. E.’s family realized there was profit to be made by making container skips and rubbish compactors, which are used extensively in shopping malls to dispose of packaging. Now his family is making and selling such products. The sector is very competitive, and the firms in the sector (including J. E.’s family business) are putting pressure on the Estonian government to introduce policies that will make Estonian industry greener, directly through measures like taxes on the use of landfills, and indirectly by persuading Estonian manufacturers to adopt a more eco-friendly attitude (and equipment). The EU is applying a similar pressure on the Estonian government. Firms like that of J. E.’s family set the prices of their products to be just below the cost of disposing of rubbish via landfills.