The Fear Factor

If we really want to lick this global warming problem, then we need to be scared straight, says an Australian ethics professor:

There is a view we should not scare people because it makes them go down their burrows and close the door but I think the situation is so serious that although people are afraid they are not fearful enough given the science. Personally I cannot see any alternative to ramping up the fear factor.

A lot of smart people who are concerned about global warming believe this in their hearts–that fear is the best (and possibly only) motivating tool. But absent the kind of visceral connection that gets ordinary people worried about the environment, real mass concern remains elusive. Hence the temptation by many climate advocates to play up fearsome links between individual weather disasters, like a flood or wildfire, and climate change.

Do environmental ethicists have anything to say about this political strategy?

5 Responses to “The Fear Factor”

  1. Ben Hale says:

    You’re a hound dog, Keith.  I’ll get on this, but probably not right away.  Suddenly I’m awash in things to write about.  Who knew that starting a blog would result in a sudden proliferation of material?

  2. Keith Kloor says:

    Thanks, Ben. I’ll be patient. I’m glad you’ve joined this big blog party. Lots of folks make direct and indirect ethical arguments when it comes to environmental issues. It’s good to have an actual environmental ethicist provide some perspective.

  3. John Fleck says:

    Not to overburden the scholars in Keith’s audience, but I’d also like to know what the communication scholars’ data shows about the effectiveness of fear.

  4. Like Ben, I am an env. ethicist (and philosopher of science). What struck me was the absence of empirical evidence that fear causes action as opposed to any other reaction. A priori, as a hypothesis, it is just as reasonable to suppose that the claims of GCC suggest that the problem is so large and individuals have so little an effect that action is pointless. So, without any empirical data, it is just speculation.

  5. Steve Bloom says:

    The key to this is meaningful participation.  A problem like reducing the global carbon footprint may well be seen by many individuals as so overwhelming that their contribution to solving it is essentially meaningless, but reducing the footprint of themselves, their household, their workplace and their communitiy (at various levels from neighborhood up to state/province) generally will not be.  There’s a lot of relevant real-world experience in the recycling field, although I’m not sure about the scholarship.  

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *