Climate change is one of the greatest threats facing humanity. Despite the world having the necessary facts, technology and policy solutions to address climate change, the lack of effective climate response can be attributed to psychological reasons (Stoknes, 2015). One of the most pressing challenges is getting people to act, which oftentimes requires altering habits, norms, attitudes, or incentives (Castree, 2016).
Creating systems of incentives that are intended to alter human behaviour is perhaps the most common approach for tackling this problem. For decades, the climate movement has relied on ethical reasoning as the primary incentive for climate action, where facts and data are intended to appeal to the human motivation to ‘do the right thing’ (Stoknes, 2015). However, one can argue that this strategy has not been the most effective at evoking the necessary widespread action required to address climate change.
Aligning systems of incentives with individual self-interest may be a more practical approach. After all, mainstream economic systems are driven by “rational behaviour in service of economic self-interest” (Nelson, 2019, p. 115). This approach continues to gain traction within the climate discourse as it has been widely accepted on the international stage (Worland, 2022). In fact, Christiana Figueres, the former United Nations climate chief, credited the success of COP21 to the acknowledgment that taking climate action is in the economic self-interest of nations (Nelson, 2019). The triumph of COP21 in adopting the Paris Agreement highlights the persuasive nature of self-interest incentives.
Nonetheless, the world continues to fall short of its climate goals (Climate Action Tracker, 2023). While self-interest may be a powerful motivator, growing evidence suggests that it may actually hinder international cooperation. Current economic models assume that humans are rational, autonomous, and self-interested, and that creating incentives that appeal to our self-interested nature can help us make the right decisions to solve climate change (Nelson, 2019). However, research suggests that “designing mechanisms to harness self-interest may actually encourage selfishness” (Nelson, 2019, p. 117).
While climate policy continues to rely on self-interest as a primary motivator, growing evidence suggests that self-interest may actually hinder international cooperation. Based on the widely assumed theory that humans are rational, autonomous and self-interested, current economic models hold self-interest as the force that makes the world spin (Nelson, 2019). This theory assumes that by creating incentives that appeal to our self-interested nature, humans are able to make the right decisions to solve climate change. However, researchers are beginning to rediscover the social nature of human by finding that “designing mechanisms to harness self-interest may actually serve to encourage selfishness” (Nelson, 2019, p. 117).
For example, when countries are incentivized to pursue actions that are in their best interest, they may prioritize certain actions that only benefit them over actions that would benefit other nations as well. Therefore, by creating environments that encourage selfishness, we may be unintentionally creating a system that punishes cooperation. This is particularly problematic when it comes to climate action, as solving climate change requires cooperation from every country around the world.
Due to the interconnected nature of climate change, promoting ethical motivations may be more effective at enacting change due to humans’ cooperative instincts. Humans’ success throughout history can be attributed to our willingness to cooperate with others outside of our social group (Jiang, 2021). While the idea that humans are intrinsically selfish has been widely accepted among most economists, research suggests that humans are instinctively cooperative. When testing different decision-making circumstances, studies found that humans are more likely to cooperate when acting on impulse, while more likely to be selfish when thinking about their decisions (Jiang, 2021).
These findings can be explained by the dual-systems theory of decision-making, which states that our decisions are governed by two opposing cognitive systems: 1) the intuitive system, which functions as a fast and automatic way to process information, and 2) the deliberative reasoning system, which involves a slower process of conscious thought and deliberation (Roberts, et al., 2021). By appealing to the intuitive system, one may be able to activate instinctive responses that lead to more cooperative actions.
A useful way of understanding the interaction between the two systems is to think about the intuitive system as an elephant, and the deliberative reasoning system as a person riding the elephant (Roberts, et al., 2021). Because of how big and powerful the elephant is, the rider is unable to control the elephant, which results in the rider going wherever the elephant chooses to go. However, because the rider is a logical being that needs to be in control, the rider ends up rationalizing the elephant’s choices. Therefore, while the elephant is in control of the direction they travel, the rider rationalizes journey to make it appear like it was the correct one all along (Roberts, et al., 2021).
While the logical, self-interested business case may seem practical within current economic systems, its overall results can be counterproductive by reducing cooperation among relevant parties. An effective, alternative approach is to appeal to the human cooperative instinct that guides us towards collaboration as a means of survival. By creating systems of incentives driven by cooperative motivations, we can expect higher levels of engagement that can build a more just future.
References
Castree, N. (2016). Broaden research on the human dimensions of climate change. Nature Climate Change, 6(8), 731–731. https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate3078
Climate Action Tracker. (2023, April 12). Countries. Climate Action Tracker. https://climateactiontracker.org/countries/
Jiang, T. (2021, April 21)Are We Innately Selfish? What the Science Has to Say. The Decision Lab. https://thedecisionlab.com/insights/society/are-we-innately-selfish-what-the-science-has-to-say
Nelson, J.A. (2019). Chapter 6: Climate change and economic self-interest. In Kanbur, R., & Shue, H. (Eds.). Climate justice: Integrating economics and philosophy. Oxford University Press. (pp. 113- 122).
Roberts, F. E., De Meyer, K., & Hubble-Rose, L. (2021). Communicating climate risk: A handbook [Preprint]. Earth and Environmental Sciences. https://doi.org/10.33774/coe-2021-kc83n
Stoknes, P., E. (2015). What we think about when we try not to think about global warming: Toward a new psychology of climate action. Chelsea Green Publishing.
Worland, J. (2022, October 27). The selfish case for climate justice. Time. https://time.com/6225469/climate-justice-inequity-self-interest/