climate change combined

Narrative 1A

Action, biomechanical issue

Narrative 1B

Action, structural issue

Narrative 2

Denial

Narrative 3

Adaptation/apocalypse

Dualistic worldviw

Nature/culture distinction
Nature as benign- giving us stuff, resources. Nature will somehow restore itself
Nature as tolerant- we can push nature to a certain level, but at some point it will tip and collapse
Nature as fragile- it is weak, it is beneficial to us, but we have to take active care of it/ cant restore itself
‘This is very western
Enlightenment made the separation between nature and man

non-dualistic

We are part of nature
We live because we breath air that trees give us
We are not separate things, but part of the whole system
deep ecology

Absurdity of double life

We have the knowledge on climate change, but we do not live by it.

Feeling trapped-

Cannot relate their private troubles to the public troubles, makes them feel trapped and out of control/like it is their own fault.
can also be seen as structural

but also- Rapid social change creates confusion and powerlessness

(Sociological) imagination

the ideaas we can think of to solve climate change
It is not just ecological, physical change to climate, but also sociological
Do we just sitch dirty for clean, or do we need structural changes
Ecological imagination= linking human actions to biophysical effects
Sociological imagination- seeing social structures producing environmental harm
Science has developed ecological imagination more strongly
Climate change demands understanding of both

Why information isn't enough

Avoid uncomfortable feelings- collectively- 
Misinformation campaigns- internationally done to protect their profits- merchants of doubt
Too much information can be overwhelming- what can i even tho if its this big of a problem

Reasons for inaction

Structural factors- industry influence, economic growth imperatives
Emotional barriers: fear, guilt, helplessness- socially organized denial
High carbon lifestyles embedded in routines and infrastructure

Climate change as imaginative resource

Catalyst for creativity
Inspires tech innovation, art, ethical reflection
Supports new social movements, new lifestyles
Flourishes in pluralism, not uniformity
Reframes climate as opportunity for re-imagining society

Hulme’s warning

Panic- risk of authoritarian or extreme responses
Hyper-urgency creates unrealistic expectations

The anthropocene

Proposed epoch we are in- where humanity is the main force of natural change
Key social system that governs our ideas about how climate change and the narratives are structured

Golden spikes in co2-

First wave (1900s)

Very worried about the extinction of species, biologically. Nature conservation, protection of reserves and species. Personal initiatives from higher up people (but also governments that protect areas/species)

Second wave (1970’s)

First green political parties. Central notion: limits to growth. Minimizing additions and withdrawals. Focusing on industrialization. Resulted in environmental agencies, laws, NGO’s.

Third wave (late 1980’s)

Global change (not so much economic growth), sustainable development. Ecological modernization, ecological reform of modern institutions around production and consumption.

Giddens’ phases

1) traditional
2) modernity
3) postmodernity

Giddens’ traditional phase

Honor old school, a lot of symbolism, honor

Giddens’ modernity

Focused on tomorrow, what can we do to make tomorrow a better day

Action narrative

“It exists and we can fix it”

4 main groups in europe

1) alarmed activists (people that are concerned and want to take action)
2) concerned
3) indecisive
4) sceptics

Ecological modernization

Both a theory and political policy. “As a systematic eco-innovation theory, an EMT is geared towards jointly achieving industrial development and environmental protection through innovation and technological development, or ‘modernity’” Environmental issues are not only challenges but also opportunities for modern societies to innovate and adapt (e.g. through green growth).

Domin@tion of nature

In the enlightenment people promoted the idea of dominating nature to improve human life, they emphasized reason, science and technology as tools for control This mindset is connected to industrialization and capitalism which intensified the exploitation of natural resources; this led to people being alienated from nature (starting to see nature as a tool)
Leiss proposes we should shift more towards sustainability and taking care of the planet, rather than taking from the world around us and not giving back. Capitalism tells us we should proceed and consume more, but this is detrimental to nature/the environment.

3 school of thought (spaargaren & mol, 1992)

1) The neo-marxist position
2) Counterproductivity theorists
3) Theories of industrial societyNeo

Neo-marxist position

Blame climate on the ‘treadmill of production” (our constant producing of new goods) that underlies the continuing disruption of the sustenance base. Capitalism is the main instigator of all issues around climate exchange (infinite consumption), keep taking from the sustenance base.

Sustenance base

Foundational elements of the natural environment that we as mankind use to support our human life. Includes resources, ecosystems and ecological processes that provide essential products/services to us as human beings (food, energy, etc.)

Counterproductivity theorists

Criticize this marxist idea, we should focus on the forces of production, the system that we created. This system is no longer supporting us as human beings.

Theories of industrial society

Industry is central feature of modern states- it supports us,
As society industrialized, we start shifting more and more to a service based economy. When we do this, we rely less on the sustenance base, and start destroying the environment less.

Green growth

Economic growth- but based on environment. We save the economy first, then fix the environmental crisis.

Decoupling

GDP decoupled from co2 emissions (Economic growth without as much CO2 emissions)
relative & absolute

Relative decoupling

economy grows faster than the pressure on the environment; co2 does not increase equally as much

Absolute decoupling

reduce
Co2 emissions while growing GDP

How to measure green growth?

Gross Domestic Product (GDP) vs. Genuine Progress Indicator (GPI). GDP is not a good measure, because it measures the production but not the negative effect on the environment. Gpi is centered around economic, environment and social measures. Countries with a very high GDP do not always have a high GPI score.

Is green growth feasible?

a) may be possible in the short term in some rich nations with strong abatement policy, but only assuming theoretical efficiency gains that may be impossible to achieve in reality;
b) is not feasible on a global scale, even under best-case scenario policy conditionsPost
c) is physically impossible to maintain in the longer term

Postmodernity

This case, mostly reflexive modernity. In modernity, we were reflexing on how to solve issues. In post modernity, we are reflexing on everything, solving one issue always creates a new one. Might lead to us giving up and doing nothing.

Risk society

The idea that we are the masters of the universe has totally collapsed and has turned into its opposite. When we start reflecting on everything, we start seeing risks everywhere. Climate change has already changed the world in which we are living, how we think about the world, the way we do politics. It changes class, not about economic wealth, it's about how far above sea level you live. Shift in political paradigms: We should talk to the people who get hit by this, not just the rulers of the world.

Eco engineering

The deliberate, large-scale manipulation of the planetary environment in order to counteract anthropogenic climate change. Example: blocking sunlight

Climate activism

Actions of individuals or groups that aim to mitigate the effects of climate change. Examples: veganism, social media activism, school strikes, lobbying, tree planting.
1) Personal/individual activism
2) Collective/policy-focused activism

Personal action

Individual action aimed at deterring climate change. Expectation: If enough people reduce their carbon footprint, climate change can be stopped

Cultural movements

“diffusely organised efforts to promote individual changes in lifestyle and consumption practices as a way to effect broader social changes”
1) lifestyle movements: solar panels, vegan, reusable bag
2) new social movements:

How do you change culture from within?

Culture as…
an enabling tool used to challenge social/political structures
a constraining force bound to those very structures (bound to norms and existing cultural codes of the structure they wish to change)

Cultural resonance

“a contingent process based on an alignment of legitimate cultural expressions, dominant ideological formations in society, and the cultural resources used by movement actors” You want to be aligned with culture to make other join (to make sense to them), while being different. 1) making demands more moderate 2) drawing on legitimate cultural expressions (e.g. christian: take care of god’s earth)

Prefigurative politics

Be the change you want to see in the world. Bringing about the future necessitates doing it in the present. Tactics (means) should mirror goals (ends). Not just an alternative lifestyle, rather a political act. Acting out your ideas to bring about your desired utopian future in the present.

Individualisation of responsibility

“understand[ing] environmental degradation as the product of individual shortcomings […] best countered by action that is staunchly individual and consumer-based” But not self evident, not everyone has capacity to change equally or are polluting equally. Today, individuals are consumers first, and citizens second, they are not “thinking institutionally”.

Should we think institutionally?

Richest 10% responsible for almost half of total lifestyle consumption emissions, poorest 50% responsible for only around 10% of total lifestyle consumption emissions. Over half of industrial emissions since human-induced climate chant was officially recognized can be traced to just 25 corporate and state producing entities. Perhaps we should consider collective responses that target political and economic structures.

Why is responsibility individualized?

1) Consumerism: consumers first, politics second. Consumption is at an individual level

2) Capitalism commodifies dissent

3) Environmental movement is often liberal. Centrifies the liberty of big corporations to make a profit, logical that with the free market its ill stabilize and the government needs to step out.

Commodify descent

Capitalism co-opts critique: eco-friendly products, greenwashing, sustainable brands. capitalism collapses without consumption and growing profits - it needs to avert gaze from political solutions to consumer-based ones. but also the interests (and disproportionate power) of capital owners to frame the crisis as individual (e.g. carbon footprint by BP)

Historical overview of the climate movement

1) Environmetnal awakening (1960’s-1970’s)

2) Institutional “responses’ (1980’s-1990’s)

3) Grassroots mobilization (2000’s-2010’s)

4) Rise of a global movement (2010’s-onwards)

Environmental awakening (1960’s-1970’s)

Growing concerns over scientists’ warnings, first environmentalist movements, concerns over unchecked growth (Club of Rome). Concerned with pollution, acid rains etc.

Institutional “responses” (1980s-1990s)

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) established, Kyoto Protocol adopted (first global treaty setting binding targets).

Grassroots mobilisation (2000s – 2010s)

Limitations of Kyoto Protocol and failure of Copenhagen Climate Summit to produce new binding agreement lead to climate (justice) movement gaining momentum. Ultimately nothing fully changed.

Rise of global movement (2010s onwards)

Greta Thunberg begins School Strikes for Climate in 2018, which becomes Fridays for Future, aDnd 2019 sees millions protesting, making the climate movement one of the biggest global movements ever.

Dutch climate movement

Extinction rebellion

Fridays for future

Nxl - scientist rebellion

Omas for future

But also ngo’s; Urgenda, Greenpeace, Fossielvrij

Policy based lobbying organizations,

What determines a movements success?

1) Framing grievances

2) Resource mobilisation

3) Political opportunity structures

Framing grievances

How do you frame what you are concerned about? Movements enact change by framing grievances in a way that resonates with people. This can change people’s minds on an issue & mobilise them to join the movement.

Framing varies based on how the problem is defined, who is argued to be at fault and how it is argued that the problem be solved.

E.g. outside-outsiders vs inside-outsiders

Resource mobilisation

What resources you have. Resources can make or break a movement

Resources can come in the form of experience, money (donations), media coverage, coalitions with (political) partners.

Resources Greenpeace vs XR

Greenpeace; more donations, more experienced workers, formalized NGO structure, decades of expertise and partners in political institutions

XR: more people in its ranks, more media attention, credibility due to nonviolence, international movement of sister organisations

Political opportunity structure

Political structure outside of movement might be more or less favorable in certain situations. Political opportunities arise when systems are unstable/vulnerable to change , there is elite conflict, there is low repression (or high enough repression for complete revolt). political alignments are unstable, etc. Political opportunities can also be created as a result of within-movement dynamics

Within-movement dynamics

the dynamics that result from interactions between, or the mere existence of, multiple SMOs within one same movement (e.g. radical flanks)

Negative radical flank effect

Radical flank’s agenda and/or actions delegitimise moderate flank by undermining the movement. Evidence for negative radical flank effects comes from: violence in protests within a nonviolent movement courtesy of reducing popular support & increasing state repression.

Positive radical flank effect

Radical flank’s agenda and/or actions legitimise moderate flank by making the moderates appear more “rational” by comparison. Evidence for positive radical flank effects comes from: the civil rights movement, the women’s rights movement & experimental settings.r

Radical flanks and political opportunities

Radical flanks can come in handy: They can make the moderate SMOs seem more rational by comparison leading to them coalescing with politicians and elites easier.

But beware! All is context-dependent: under different conditions, radical flanks can hinder a movement’s progress.

Critique of pacifism

He calls this tactical/strategic pacifism rather than moral pacifism(because it is never okay, violence is bad). Negative radical flank effect, expectation that it might exist, they might be delegitimized

Scientific vs social consensus

Scientific consensus: scientific bodies (e.g., NAS, AAAS) describe consensus on warming and human causation. The scientific case is not the main public barrier.

Social consensus: s declining/variable public belief despite strong science. Political affiliation and ideology are stronger predictors than knowledge (scientific literacy) for acceptance of climate science in the U.S (climate beliefs). Partisan media ecosystems inform perceptions about what “most scientists think,” which in turn affects policy support. Therefore, effective teaching and outreach must engage identities and group norms rather than merely “adding more facts.”

Bounded rationality

We cannot process all information, so we rely on heuristic and social cues. People use ideological filters to process complex science & group values guide whom we trust and what evidence fits

Cultural cognition

Individuals align beliefs with their cultural groups to maintain social belonging and a coherent identity

Motivated reasoning

Additional data can entrench prior beliefs if it threatens identity or moral self-concept. Motivated reasoning can harden positions when challenged.

Emotions and climate reasoning

Emotions are integral to reasoning about climate risk. Acknowledge fear, guilt, and efficacy shape whether people attent to or avoid climate information.

How do people form climate beliefs?

1) Ideological filters

2) Group values

3) Motivated reasoning

4) Emotions

Thus: engagement must address identity, not only information. Crafting messages that affirm identities can open space for learning and dialogue.

Polarization: the growing partisan divide

Since early 2000s, liberals and conservatives have diverged on climate risk. Asymmetric trend: belief that warming has begun grew on the left while declining on the right, increasing the gap.

Media ecosystems/echo chambers (e.g., partisan cable, talk radio) shape perceived scientific credibility and urgency and amplify partisan cues. In some partisan institutions, expressing doubt has become identity-congruent and politically rewarded (political litmus test: agree with us or you’re not one of us).

Result: policy windows close as culture-war logics dominate deliberation.

Not Just “Pollution”: Why Climate is Harder

No simple ‘eliminate the pollutant’ frame: carbon is integral to energy systems and everyday practices. CO₂ correlates historically with economic growth—this complicates narratives that treat it as an accidental waste only. Mitigation touches nearly every sector of the economy. Therefore interventions require broad socio-technical change, not isolated fixes, which can trigger resistance. Many interpret climate talk as personal blame (moral judgment about lifestyle), provoking defensiveness rather than problem-solving. So solutions must reframe benefits, agency, and identity.

Knowledge–Action Gap

Despite strong science, public response is muted or declining. Apathy is widespread even in wealthy, educated nations. Problem is not only skeptics; it’s also those who “know but don’t act”.

Literal denial (rejecting facts) vs implicatory denial (acknowledging facts but avoiding implications).

Denial is social and cultural, not merely individual pathology.

Explanations knowledge-action gap

1) Information deficit: public skepticism to scientific consensus stems from a lack of information. Doesn’t hold up: knowledge doesn't always drive actions

2) Political economy, media framing (media balance), industry influence

3) Pscyhology: efficacy, cognitive dissonance, helping behavior models

Wealth often correlated negatively with expressed concern

Self-efficacy

Low self-efficacy can reduce expressed concern—people avoid responsibility when solutions seem out of reach

Double reality

The coexistence of routine life with abstract awareness of crisis that feels disconnected (everyday normalcy vs. troubling climate knowledge). People “know and not know” at the same time.

Implicatory denial

Facts accepted, moral/political implications avoided. The issue is not belief in facts but aSovoidance of their demands.

Socially organized denial

1) Double reality

2) Implicatory denial

3) Denial protects positive identities and manageable emotions (People avoid fear, guilt, and helplessness)

4) Society structures what is speakable and actionable. Silences and conversational norms keep distressing topics out of public view, stabilizing the status quo. This is not about stupidity or malice; it is a patterned coping strategy with political effects.

Example; climate denial in Norwegian town

Unusually warm, low-snow winter disrupted local life. Media and residents referenced climate change, so awareness existed. Despite economic impacts (ski tourism, ice fishing), residents did not mobilize politically or socially. People limited engagement to short comments, then shifted topics to avoid emotional weight.

People managed discomfort through selective attention. Not necessarily rejecting science, but routinized avoidance.

Result: everyday routines continued largely unchanged

Selective interpretation

Aligns facts with desired emotions. People tell stock stories about nation and self (national identity narratives) to keep emotions positive (close-to-nature, egalitarian). Identity narratives buffer critique of petroleum dependence and high per-capita emissions.

Perspectival selectivity

Perspective framing minimizes responsibility (e.g., total vs. per-capita emissions comparisons) and shifts comparison (“we’re small”). Pointing to U.S. emissions redirects moral scrutiny outward. “We have suffered” reframes recent wealth and responsibility, historical hardship narratives reduce current accountability.

Claims to virtue

Portraying harmful actions as morally good by changing the evaluative frame. Actions increasing emissions reframed as climate solutions. (e.g. ‘gas plants are better than coal’ or ‘Norwegian oil is cleaner’).

Shift scale from national obligations to global market logic.These narratives legitimize continued fossil development (normalize expansion) amid stated climate concern.

Thought communities

SCocialization shapes cognitive boundaries of relevance (teach what to notice and what to ignore).

Cultural denial: norms of attention, emotion and talk

1) Thought communtiies

2) Spatial norms

3) Temporal nroms

4) emotion rules

5) conversational repertoires

Spatial norms

Spatial norms localize events, muting global connections. Local focus can depoliticize anomalies by disconnecting them from global drivers.

Temporal norms

Temporal norms keep futures out of everyday talk. Short time horizons prevent linking present anomalies to future risks.

Emotion rules

Emotion rules discourage ‘heavy’ topics in public. Feeling rules define what emotions are appropriate, keeping anxiety and grief private.

Conversational repertoires

Conversation repertoires shift away from climate quickly. Conversational techniques (jokes, topic shifts) maintain normalcy and avoid conflict.