Implicatory Denial Of Climate Change

Climate change is the largest threat to life on Earth that we currently face. Despite the overwhelming scientific consensus on the issue, only half of Americans believe that climate change is human-caused. Without a vast majority of the world’s population expressing concern about climate change and working to enact societal reform, little can be done to effectively address this extremely time-sensitive issue. In this paper, I will explore the main contributing factors to both literal and implicatory denial of climate change in the United States, and how to best combat it through political psychology, ecofeminism, and liberalism. Knowledge of human-caused climate change is nothing new; in 1896, the Swedish chemist Svante Arrhenius noticed
One major and overarching cause of climate denial is explained by the system justification theory. According to this theory, “our evaluations of social systems and institutions are influenced by epistemic needs to maintain a sense of certainty and stability.” In other words, people tend to justify the status quo rather than make efforts to enact systemic change. This is especially true among those who are advantaged by the system, who tend to engage in system justification “more enthusiastically then those who are disadvantaged.” For example, people in countries with high per-capita levels of carbon emissions are less worried about climate change than people from countries with lower carbon emissions. Why would someone benefitting from a highly industrialized, polluting society speak out against it? Another example of system justification theory influencing climate change can be seen in the disparities between gender and climate anxieties. Across age groups and countries, women tend to be more worried about climate change. This is due to the fact that men are significantly more advantaged by the status-quo than women. Climate change is a hot-button issue because it isn’t a threat from an external source; the structure of our society brought about the problem, and now we must re-examine the status quo.
The role that government plays in climate denial is detrimental to the massive societal shifts needed to address the problem. Since “conservatism at its root is about the preservation of established customs”, and society is fixed on perpetual growth, there is little room for environmental progress. This is painfully evident in the realist Trump administration. Scott Pruitt, Trump’s picks to head the Environmental Protection Agency, is both a climate denier and an ally of the fossil fuel industry. He vows to cut “unnecessary EPA regulations” to restore more money into the economy and promote growth. By idolizing time before environmental regulations and climate science knowledge, Pruitt engages in both literal denial and the system justification theory. Although Pruitt is only one cog in the Trump administration, his role as the head of the EPA places the health of the land, water, and air of the United States in the hands of a climate science denier and harsh critic of the department he will soon