IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/kcs/wpaper/39.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

The Politics of Human-induced Climate Change Denial and Cognitive Bias in Risk Assessment

Author

Listed:
  • Hiroyuki TOSA

    (Graduate School of International Cooperation Studies, Kobe University)

Abstract

This short essay aims to summarize issues related to the politics of human-induces climate change denial under the condition of high degree of uncertainty, which we notice in the United States, some European countries and even in Japan, from the viewpoint of cognitive psychology addressing cognitive bias problems. In addition, we scrutinize how the politics of climate change denial relates to the rightwing populism by focusing on the relation between cognitive bias and identity politics including belief-systems as well as campaigns operated by vested interest groups such as petroleum industry. In other words, the explanation that ideological aspects of right-wing populism are connected to climate change denial has significant overlap with the idea of cognitive bias, whereby inconvenient truths or facts that do not align with individual belief systems are rejected. This extreme form of cognitive bias also plays a role in the formation of conspiracy theories, which right-wing populism is often keen to embrace. Conspiracy theories cast environmentalists who advocate action on climate change as closet socialists plotting to turn the country Communist under the pretense of environmental protection. The natural environment of the homeland is of aesthetic, symbolic, and material value and thus worthy of being protected to the chauvinists, whereas the climate problem is a transnational phenomenon different in kind from the national landscape, and actors who attempt to solve the problem of climate change are, based on their cosmopolitan orientation, adversaries seeking to undermine their foundation of national sovereignty.

Suggested Citation

  • Hiroyuki TOSA, 2021. "The Politics of Human-induced Climate Change Denial and Cognitive Bias in Risk Assessment," GSICS Working Paper Series 39, Graduate School of International Cooperation Studies, Kobe University.
    • Handle: RePEc:kcs:wpaper:39
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.research.kobe-u.ac.jp/gsics-publication/gwps/2021-39.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. David Vogel & Michael Toffel & Diahanna Post & Nazli Uludere Aragon, 2012. "Environmental Federalism in the European Union and the United States," Chapters, in: Frank Wijen & Kees Zoeteman & Jan Pieters & Paul van Seters (ed.), A Handbook of Globalisation and Environmental Policy, Second Edition, chapter 11, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    2. Robert Brulle, 2014. "Institutionalizing delay: foundation funding and the creation of U.S. climate change counter-movement organizations," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 122(4), pages 681-694, February.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Kertcher, Zack & Venkatraman, Rohan & Coslor, Erica, 2020. "Pleasingly parallel: Early cross-disciplinary work for innovation diffusion across boundaries in grid computing," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 116(C), pages 581-594.
    2. Peter Frumhoff & Richard Heede & Naomi Oreskes, 2015. "The climate responsibilities of industrial carbon producers," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 132(2), pages 157-171, September.
    3. Mireille Chiroleu‐Assouline & Thomas P. Lyon, 2020. "Merchants of doubt: Corporate political action when NGO credibility is uncertain," Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 29(2), pages 439-461, April.
    4. Jeremiah Bohr, 2017. "Is it hot in here or is it just me? Temperature anomalies and political polarization over global warming in the American public," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 142(1), pages 271-285, May.
    5. Hamish van der Ven & Yixian Sun, 2021. "Varieties of Crises: Comparing the Politics of COVID-19 and Climate Change," Global Environmental Politics, MIT Press, vol. 21(1), pages 13-22, Winter.
    6. Oliver Lazarus & Sonali McDermid & Jennifer Jacquet, 2021. "The climate responsibilities of industrial meat and dairy producers," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 165(1), pages 1-21, March.
    7. Sam Crawley & Hilde Coffé & Ralph Chapman, 2022. "Climate Belief and Issue Salience: Comparing Two Dimensions of Public Opinion on Climate Change in the EU," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 162(1), pages 307-325, July.
    8. Ivan Bozhikin & Nikolay Dentchev, 2018. "Discovering a Wilderness of Regulatory Mechanisms for Corporate Social Responsibility: Literature Review," Economic Alternatives, University of National and World Economy, Sofia, Bulgaria, issue 2, pages 145-174, June.
    9. Saatvika Rai, 2020. "Policy Adoption and Policy Intensity: Emergence of Climate Adaptation Planning in U.S. States," Review of Policy Research, Policy Studies Organization, vol. 37(4), pages 444-463, July.
    10. Stephen Fox & Janne Kauttio & Yusuf Mubarak & Hannu Niemisto, 2017. "Determinants in Competition between Cross-Sector Alliances," Administrative Sciences, MDPI, vol. 7(3), pages 1-15, August.
    11. Céline Gainet, 2010. "Exploring the Impact of Legal Systems and Financial Structure on Corporate Responsibility," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 95(2), pages 195-222, September.
    12. Brett Aho, 2017. "Disrupting regulation: understanding industry engagement on endocrine-disrupting chemicals," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 44(5), pages 698-706.
    13. Kjell Hausken, 2019. "Principal–Agent Theory, Game Theory, and the Precautionary Principle," Decision Analysis, INFORMS, vol. 16(2), pages 105-127, June.
    14. Sugandha Srivastav & Ryan Rafaty, 2023. "Political Strategies to Overcome Climate Policy Obstructionism," Papers 2304.14960, arXiv.org.
    15. Joost Moor, 2022. "Prioritizing adaptation and mitigation in the climate movement: evidence from a cross-national protest survey of the Global Climate Strike, 2019," Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, Springer, vol. 27(6), pages 1-19, August.
    16. Ötsch, Walter & Pühringer, Stephan, 2019. "The anti-democratic logic of right-wing populism and neoliberal market-fundamentalism," Working Paper Series Ök-48, Cusanus Hochschule für Gesellschaftsgestaltung, Institut für Ökonomie.
    17. Matthew C. Nowlin, 2022. "Who should “do more” about climate change? Cultural theory, polycentricity, and public support for climate change actions across actors and governments," Review of Policy Research, Policy Studies Organization, vol. 39(4), pages 468-485, July.
    18. Plehwe, Dieter, 2021. "Think tanks and the politics of climate change," EconStor Open Access Articles and Book Chapters, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, pages 150-165.
    19. Srivastav, Sugandha & Rafaty, Ryan, 2021. "Five Worlds of Political Strategy in the Climate Movement," INET Oxford Working Papers 2021-07, Institute for New Economic Thinking at the Oxford Martin School, University of Oxford.
    20. Shawn Olson Hazboun & Hilary Schaffer Boudet, 2020. "Public Preferences in a Shifting Energy Future: Comparing Public Views of Eight Energy Sources in North America’s Pacific Northwest," Energies, MDPI, vol. 13(8), pages 1-21, April.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    climate change denial; right-wing populism; cognitive bias; vested interests; belief systems; uncertainty;
    All these keywords.

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:kcs:wpaper:39. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: GSICS Library (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/ddkobjp.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.