Our polarization could create rebounds in climate action

At the start of the COVID-19 pandemic, many governments introduced policies that temporarily restricted individual freedoms to bring transmission rates down. The combination of things shutting down or at least being less crowded, masking, and vaccination rates brought rates down. But, this created a reduced understanding of risk. The perception by some was that rates of illness and death fell so clearly the protections weren’t necessary and were government overreach. This created a rebound effect which saw, not just individuals but groups and in some cases like my own province some governments, rebel against the restrictions and create plans like “the best summer ever.” This was a political campaign by the Alberta provincial government in reaction to restrictions from the “overreaching” federal government. Of course, in addition to the rates of infection and death climbing as a response, this also resulted in the polarization that already existed flying to the surface. All of a sudden, people were being yelled at for masking and that was just the beginning. So, how does polarization play into how we respond to swift action from high level government?

Perri and colleagues (2024) asked this question in relation to climate action. What they found was that progress on combatting climate change may face the same rebounds as we saw in the pandemic. If a government creates top down policies such as significant renewable energy investments and support, the emission rates would fall. But this will decrease the perceived risk. As a result, the rebellion against these policies such as reinvesting in fossil fuels could swiftly make things worse than they were before. Polarization will make the resultant swings worse.

In the article, Perri and colleagues argue that this means we need a multi-level approach. Action needs to be led by many different groups rather than relying on top-down rulings. I would add that we also need to find a way to move beyond our current polarization. I hear it all the time in my classes. People want things to be different but are convinced that they are in the minority. As a result, they don’t believe change can happen. But there is research that shows that we actually agree a lot more than we think we do.

The difficult conversations lab at Columbia University is one place where researchers are focused on how to change the conversation. I really like Amanda Ripley’s article about how journalists contribute to the polarization and how they could change. The short version is, we need to recognize how complex the issues are.

There are no simple answers. Transitioning away from fossil fuels isn’t just about reducing greenhouse gas emissions, it’s also about making sure that every worker in the industry can still feed their family, put their kids through school, and live a fulfilling life. You can’t pay more for ethically made clothing if you don’t have more money to spend. And before we forbid eating food from outside of a 100 miles we need to consider the cultural loss that will happen for people living far from where their culturally appropriate food is available. We need to recognize and talk about the complexity of the challenges we are facing.

Perri and colleagues suggest that these types of considerations need to be included in climate modelling. And this would be good. But I also think we need to look at how we can respond. How can we use what we know to reduce the polarization that causes these rebounds or oscillations?