THE VERDICT ON THIS ASSUMPTION: True
While little research has explicitly explored if or how moral concerns motivate public support for climate policy 1 , some research suggests that people’s concern over the moral and ethical aspects of climate change is a key motivator for acting to address climate change and protecting developing countries 2 .
A 2005 study found that while only 14% of people identified a moral dimension (injustices, abuse of nature, selfishness, greed, and modern way-of-life) as a cause of climate change 3 , 61% of people “claim to feel a moral obligation to do something about the issue.” Morality was also found to be important in explaining why people found the issue to be important to them personally. Such research suggests that the public understanding of climate change is not limited to the processing of discrete scientific facts about physical processes but instead often includes a moral dimension that involves responsibility and social justice 4 .
Frames Associated with This Assumption:
Climate change policy advisers and negotiators have also reported that their views were shaped not only by their countries’ diplomatic goals but also by ethical concerns 1 .
Among many religious communities, the moral dimensions of climate change appear to be highly influential, signaling new opportunities for engaging these communities. Nearly half of North American Christians report that their clergy address environmental issues 2 . Survey research indicates that most US Christians support strict environmental regulations, even if it would cost jobs or result in higher prices 3 . When it comes to voting, however, concerns over the economy and terrorism seem to take precedence for these communities (see Assumption 10) 4 .
While moral dimensions continue to be associated with climate change, it is not yet clear how broad these associations are or whether these concerns translate into greater support for climate policies. In fact, some researchers have suggested that unlike acts of terrorism, climate change does not register emotionally as a "wrong" that demands to be righted, because it is abstract, cognitively complex, and distant in time and space (see Assumptions 2 and 4) 5 . Other researchers argue that we distance ourselves from the ethical and moral implications of these distressing issues, because the burden is too much to bear, and we are unable to effectively manage our anxieties and sense of helplessness 6 .
- 1Lange et al. 2007, Reisinger and Larsen 2010
- 2Pew Forum 2006
- 3Green, J.C., 2004. The American Religious Landscape and Political Attitudes: A Baseline for 2004. The Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life, Washington, DC; Green, J.C., 2008. Fifth National Survey of Religion and Politics: A Baseline for the 2008 Presidential Election. Ray C. Bliss Institute of Applied Politics, University of Akron, Akron
- 4Pew Forum 2004
- 5Markowitz and Sharif 2012
- 6Hoggett 2012; Seu 2009
- Highlight the burdens for future generations – not from a place of shame or blame (which can trigger defensiveness), but rather as an opportunity to be proactive.
- Link action on climate change to positive moral emotions such as gratitude, pride and improvements in one’s own wellbeing.
- Highlight consequences of not acting on climate, like the sanctity of the natural world.
- Emphasis of our role as stewards can dial into moral imperatives.
- Highlight the positive behaviors that people are taking and communicate social expectations regarding desired behaviors (i.e. the "right" thing to do).
