Why Don’t Americans Believe in Climate Change?
By: Liz Vincento
Tags: Comparative Politics, Global Warming, United States, World, Climate Change

In a study by the European Investment Bank, 79% of Americans reported that they think climate change will have an effect on their children, with only 42% believing it certainly will. This is compared to the 90% and 98% from Europe and China respectively who believe that climate change will have a future impact.

The numbers reflect the way Americans live their lives versus the rest of the world. Americans maintain an extremely high standard of living which has not been sacrificed in the name of combating climate change. While Europeans drive small, energy efficient cars, utilize public and alternative transportation, hang dry clothes, and locally source food; Americans are more likely to view these changes as an inconvenience, rather than a necessary mitigation effort.

Part of the reason Americans are so hesitant to change their habits is because many are unconvinced there is any reason to. The United States, unlike the rest of the world, has effectively been able to deny 97% of scientists who have told us that global warming is in fact happening.

America’s path to denial is complex and non-linear, but rather a cocktail of free enterprise lobbyists, a polarized political environment, and a highly individualistic value system, that contributed to our pseudo-reality where climate change is not a pressing issue.

Free Enterprise Lobbyists

Big business has long had an interest in denying climate change. Environmental protections meant more regulations which were seemingly a threat to their bottom line. Instead of researching ways to be both climate conscious and profitable, American corporations began looking for ways to stonewall the problem.

Drawing on strategies from the tobacco industry in the 1970s, corporations set up “independent” think tanks to thwart the climate change narrative which was justifying government regulation. By both pushing out counter-data and funding legislators who would support their cause, they kept the climate denial movement alive.

Former Vice President Al Gore called out Exxon Mobile in his book The Assault on Reason, stating that the corporation was looking to skew the data to manipulate the public. He writes:

Wealthy right-wing ideologues have joined with the most cynical and irresponsible companies in the oil, coal, and mining industries to contribute large sums of money to finance pseudoscientific front groups that specialize in sowing confusion in the public’s mind about global warming. They issue one misleading ‘report’ after another, pretending that there is a significant disagreement in the legitimate scientific community in areas where there is actually a broad-based consensus.

Corporations who saw climate change as an economic threat continued to fund candidates in the hopes that their agendas would be respected. In 2012, Mitt Romney received over $4 million dollars from the fossil fuel industry compared to the $710,277 that Obama received. In 2020, President Trump received over $10 million from one fundraiser alone hosted by an oil pipeline businesswoman.

Corporate support for an anti-climate narrative in politics helped to push the message to question science and encouraged politicians to support their message by funding their campaigns, but it was not the whole story. Their message worked so well because the recipients maintained an ideology that was highly susceptible to rejecting measures which called for more government.

Political Polarization

Denying climate change has become part of the litmus test in conservative circles, along with illegal immigration, abortion, and lower taxes. In the 2012 primary, Mitt Romney who had been active on climate policy in his term as Governor of Massachusetts, actively distanced himself from climate groups, like the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative, in order to secure the nomination.

Congress now has about 130 members who deny climate change, with a wide partisan gap where Republicans are more likely to reject climate change science.

The climate change denial movement has been highly attractive to small government conservatives and libertarians in the Republican party because it allows them to continue to push their message of reducing government intervention. If climate change were to be acknowledged, conservatives would also have to rationalize their need to mitigate global warming with their interest in deregulation. Instead, denying climate change is a far more efficient way to push their economic and political agendas.

Tying climate change to an ideology, conservatives have been able to sell the anti-science rhetoric by exploiting typical conservative fears. Republican leaders are quick to use phrases fraught with controversy like “environmental socialism” and speak to the ills of big government intervention.

During the 2020 Democratic primaries, Republican leaders readily critiqued the Democratic contenders, saying they would take take away your jobs, your cars, limit your right to eat meat, and ban travel on an airplane. Donald Trump often spoke at rallies about how he would bring back jobs to coal miners, while Joe Biden would actively try to take them away.

By doing so, they not only push a message that the science is questionable, but they create a story that is about individual freedom, personal liberty, and individual safety, suddenly aligning climate change denial with one’s values making it easier to deny.

A Country of Individualists

The United States was founded on ideals of individualism. The ‘American Dream’ rests on the idea that if you work hard enough, you can be successful and climb the social ladder. At no point does the American Dream speak about receiving help from your neighbor.

But combating climate change policy is going to require a multilateral approach where every individual and business small and large contribute to mitigate its damage. Americans will have to work collectively and rely on one another to achieve the goal of a healthier planet, even when the benefits are not immediately felt on an individual level.

For countries that embody a more collectivist mindset, this is easier to set in. Scandinavian countries, for example, are not new to the idea that one individual’s contribution goes toward a societal good like healthcare, education, or the environment.

But denial can be easier than accepting a truth which requires action inconsistent with your worldview.

Some Americans have been able to rely on their own cognitive dissonance and accept that which aligns with their pre-existing beliefs of how the world should be. This means engaging with the anti-science message that more easily lines up with a value system based on individualism, personal freedom, and small government.

And the information is out there for the taking. It has been funded by large corporations, spread by politicians and lobbyists, and absorbed by those looking to rationalize their political beliefs against mounting scientific evidence. All together, the combination has resulted in a significant portion of the electorate, public officials, and businesses that subscribes to climate change denial.