THE VERDICT ON THIS ASSUMPTION: Mixed Bag
The most significant and threatening impacts associated with climate change are shown in future scenarios and model projections. These projections have target dates between the mid and end of the 21st century. This creates low risk perception since the public believes climate change will primarily be a concern in the future. Behavioral economists have found that people generally are averse to taking action today that could help avoid future risks — and that this aversion is particularly prevalent in American culture. This research finds that people tend to give less value to (‘discount’) both future benefits and future risks; people tend to count environmental and financial consequences as less important with every year they are delayed. In one experiment, for example, respondents appeared to have no preference between 21 days of clean air in the present or 35 days of clean air in a year. People tend to perceive immediate threats and benefits as much more relevant and compelling than the same — or worsening — threats and risks in the future 1 . We prefer to delay costs or obligations, when possible, because we expect to have more free time and potentially more financial flexibility at a future date 2 . In addition, individuals tend to exhibit “Optimism Bias” when thinking about the future or their own individual vulnerabilities to threats 3 .
Frames Associated with This Assumption:
These findings have clear implications for climate advocates, as most policies require a present reduction of fossil fuel use with the promise of future benefits (less carbon pollution, mitigation of escalating climate impacts, etc.). Nationally, individuals still do not believe climate change is impacting their communities, families, or themselves1 . In order to make the issue tangible (Assumption 2), and foster efficacy (Assumption 14), we need to communicate how climate change is impacting individuals now, and the benefits of taking action now 2 .
One technique to encourage people to make decisions that involve a present-day sacrifice for the sake of a future benefit is to focus on positive thinking, asking people to first consider the potential benefits of cutting fossil fuel consumption today, before considering potential consequences of cutting consumption 3 . Other research suggests the threat of future costs may mobilize more people than the potential for future benefits, as people discount future benefits far more than future costs 4 . Additionally, concrete representations of potential future risks and benefits (e.g. “sea levels will rise in North Carolina by 1 foot by the year 2100”) appear to be discounted less than abstract representations of the same consequences (“the climate will be disrupted, resulting in a variety of negative consequences”) 5 . The following is specific wording from the Climate Access Preparation Guide that illustrates this type of framing: “The headlines are clear that the U.S. is facing more extreme weather than ever. Many communities are still recovering from events like Super Sandy, which left tens of thousands of people homeless for over a year. There are things we can do now to prepare for these types of events and save money and lives before it is too late. For example, every dollar spent on preparing now saves at least $4 down the road if disaster strikes again.”
However, some sociologists have found that short and long-term risk perception can be significantly influenced by social and cultural conditioning 6 . Demographics of our audience, including age, gender, and socio-economic status call all affect how receptive your audience is to short versus long-term thinking 7 . Research shows that younger people, particularly those with a strong environmental ethos, are highly-motivated to protect both their and subsequent generations’ future access to a safe, healthy planet. Other research shows that mothers and grandparents also tend to be concerned about ensuring long-term benefits and minimizing long-term risks. Mothers and grandparents are successfully mobilizing their networks to build support for climate action at the state and federal, like the house party-driven Mothers Out Front campaign in Massachusetts 8 . We should not write off people’s capacity to think long-term nor presume all people are exclusively concerned about short-term benefits.
- While Americans have been found to systematically discount future benefits (and costs), it is also important to recognize that our predisposition to act in this way is shaped by developmental age, social and cultural forces and is therefore malleable 9 .
- There is evidence to support the tendency Americans have for favoring short-term benefits and devaluing long-term benefits and risks, based largely on our reliance on experiential data to drive concern and actions 10 .
- Psychosocial researchers have identified anxiety and anticipatory loss as a factor in how people discount future costs and benefits as a coping mechanism. Therefore, be sensitive to the emotional and affective contexts, and employ tools such as creating safe spaces, acknowledgement and the use of dialogue 11 .
