Introduction: Dealing with what is

Abstract

For a long time, we ignored the warnings. At first, even most climate scientists couldn't believe the evidence, but it kept rolling in. Gradually, more and more of them were won over and started trying to persuade the rest of us, but most of us ignored the warnings. Now, virtually all the legitimate climate scientists are convinced that the Earth is sick, and we gave it the disease. Here are the basic facts: Climate scientists have published many peer-reviewed papers reporting evidence that the mean temperature of the planet is higher than at any time in recorded history; that it is rising at an unprecedented rate; and that the rising temperature is largely the result of human activity, primarily the burning of coal and oil to power electric generating plants and fuel our cars and trucks. These scientific findings have occasioned numerous reports that predict a variety of dire outcomes that society will face if the global emissions of heat-trapping greenhouse gases are not curbed. Beyond predictions of future calamities, there is evidence that climate change is already wreaking havoc in parts of the world. For example, one report claimed that human-influenced climate change, mainly by increasing flooding and draught, is causing more than 300,000 deaths and $125 billion in economic losses each year (Whiteman, 2009). This report also claimed that climate change is seriously affecting the lives of 325 million people, a number projected to double by 2030, and that more than 90% of the human and economic losses from climate change are occurring in poor countries. Although the report has been criticized for its methods and its author acknowledges that the numbers are rough estimates, he contends that “the suffering documented in this report is only the beginning” (p. 1). Despite the steady stream of scientific facts and scary warnings, many people remain unmoved. Disbelief in global warming is a common reason for inaction and is usually the product of one of the following perspectives: “How could anything we tiny humans do affect a system so vast as the Earth's climate?” or “I understand there's a great deal of disagreement among scientists on whether global warming is real.” A commonly voiced reason for inaction among people who accept the fact of global warming yet are making no changes in their behavior to reduce their contribution to it is: “I realize that if rate of greenhouse gas emissions is left unchecked, it will lead to terrible consequences. But I'm confident that scientists will come up with a solution in time to save us.” Technological breakthroughs have saved us in the past (e.g., pasteurization, polio vaccine), and they might save us from climate change. Many ideas are on the table (catching carbon before it is released, recapturing it afterwards and storing it, and discovering and harnessing totally new forms of nonpolluting energy), but no technological solutions to global warming are available now and none are on the horizon. A good example is nuclear fusion: It has been “nearly there” since the 1970s, and we are no closer to adding fusion to the energy grid today than we were 40 years ago. Everyone hopes that technological research and development will bear fruit in time, but we cannot count on it, and dare not wait. Changing the behavior of people around the world in ways that significantly reduce carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions is the only thing that might buy enough time for the scientists and engineers to come up with an effective solution. The good news is that many members of the general public, government leaders, and business owners are concerned about climate change and want to know what they can do to combat it. We agree with Kazdin (2009) that the psychological sciences can and should help in creating and maintaining a sustainable environment. One discipline within the psychological sciences that is especially well suited to help is behavior analysis.