Diep1

Matthew Diep

Professor Oventile

English 1A

November 25, 2014

The Anthropocene: An Era of Denial

Earths inhabitants have entered a new age known as the anthropocene in which the

human race is contributing to the decay of the natural world in epic proportions. Scientists

around the world have presented evidence for the deterioration of Earths natural order for many

years, beginning with the concern of climate change. There is irrefutable evidence that proves

Earths climate is changing; however, people are still in denial about climate change and the

ways that they contribute to the problem. Climate change denial is detrimental because it

prevents people from mitigating climate change and improving Earths ecological state. By

focusing on denial as defined in the field of psychology, ecopsychologists can motivate the

average individual to accept the reality of climate change as well as their responsibility to

mitigate it. The relatively new field of ecopsychology has never been more relevant as

psychologists have the opportunity to create awareness of earths ecological mesh, the

unavoidable interconnectedness of earth and all of its inhabitants (Morton 15). Awareness of the

irreversible damage that has been done to this planet is necessary for making collective efforts to

restore and sustain what is left of the natural world.

The consequences of careless human activity on earth are now becoming evident in this

new era deemed the anthropocene by Paul J. Crutzen. Crutzen chose this name to emphasize the

central role of mankind in geology and ecology (17). Humans have become so central to earths

geological and ecological structures because of the enormous expansion of human activity that
 Diep2

has taken place since the 1950s. The International Geosphere-Biosphere Programme has named

this phenomenon the Great Acceleration. During the Great Acceleration, the world population

has rapidly increased from six hundred million to more than seven billion people living on Earth.

A lack of ecological awareness has allowed the growing masses of mankind to expand their

territories while depleting the earth of its resources as deforestation, marine life exploitation, loss

of biodiversity, river damming, water consumption, and ozone depletion have increased at a rate

much faster than at any other point in human history (Great Acceleration). Additionally,

mankinds global dependence on oil production is leading to the exhaustion of fossil fuels, a

natural resource that can only be renewed after being generated [for] over [a] several hundred

million years (Crutzen 17). Mass consumption of this finite resource for the sake of oil is

contributing to an excessively large release of carbon dioxide. The atmospheric concentration of

carbon dioxide has increased from three hundred parts per million in the 1950s to a current three

hundred ninety-six parts per million (Keeling). This concentration of atmospheric carbon dioxide

is so alarming to scientists because it has been reached at a rate faster than at any other time in

the last four hundred and twenty thousand years (Great Acceleration). The atmospheric

concentration of carbon dioxide is commonly used by scientists to examine the Great

Acceleration because of the domino effect that it has on all of earths systems. Agricultural

biodiversity is affected as increased concentrations of carbon dioxide can modify some plants to

be more water efficient than others, allowing them to thrive while others are outgrown (Great

Acceleration). The biodiversity of marine wildlife is also affected as many species are dying

because the heightened concentration of atmospheric carbon dioxide is increasing the acidity of

the water that they inhabit. The domino effect of the increased atmospheric carbon dioxide
 Diep3

concentration can be observed in almost any part of earths ecological mesh; however, the most

widespread and concerning of all is the effect that it has had in changing the planets climate.

Climate change is an anthropogenic issue that has been driven by the uncontrolled release

of greenhouse gases. Greenhouse gases are ones that tend to trap solar energy, [consequently]

heating the Earth (Tucker 837). There are many types of greenhouse gases that perpetuate

climate change including carbon dioxide, methane, [...] halocarbons, [...] nitrous oxide [...] and

ozone (Tucker 837). Carbon dioxide is especially alarming of all the greenhouse gases because

it is so widespread through its production from the burning of fossil fuels for energy. The

increasing rate of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is trapping larger amounts of solar energy,

which inevitably causes earths climate to get warmer. This has been proven by the surface

thermometer record which shows that global surface air temperature rose 0.7 degrees Celsius

during the twentieth century up until 1950, when temperatures rose twice as much in shorter

periods of time; between 1979 and 2004, global temperatures rose up to 0.19 degrees Celsius

each decade (Tucker 839). An abundance of solar energy from this global warming is allowing

for more extreme extra-tropical cyclone windstorms [...] [and] the most severe supercell

thunderstorms (4.4.1). These enhanced thunderstorms are sending water vapor high into the

stratosphere through a process called convective injection where its reactions with other

chemicals destroy the ozone layer (Ravishankara 809). The future implications of the loss of the

protective ozone layer is increased exposure to ultraviolet rays which could lead to the extinction

of more species as well as higher rates of skin cancer. These consequences arise from just one of

the many ecological disasters caused by climate change, and they do not even account for the

additional effects of other disasters such as the melting glacial caps in Greenland and Antarctica,

prolonged droughts in Australia and the Western United States, and rising sea temperatures
 Diep4

worldwide (Tucker 833). Scientific observations have clearly confirmed the calamitous effects of

climate change and it is the responsibility of the human race to use their free will to mitigate the

problem before the ecological damage that has been done to the mesh becomes irreversible.

Climate change denial is evident because the problem has gotten progressively worse

even though evidence of global warming has been around for nearly two centuries. Denial was

defined by the renowned psychoanalyst Sigmund Freud as a psychological defense mechanism

that ones mind uses to protect them from conflict or anxiety in the case that they refuse to

admit that something unpleasant is happening (Wade 41). Denial is used as one of the minds

coping strategies; however, it becomes dangerous when a reality such as climate change is

denied because it poses a threat to everyone living in the ecological mesh. Mathematician Joseph

Fourier first presented his essay Acadmie Royale des Science in Paris in 1824 that established

the concept of the greenhouse effect, which states that atmospheric gases trap heat from solar

energy. A Swedish chemist named Svante Arrhenius later proved in the late 1800s that carbon

dioxide was the most dangerous greenhouse gas by mathematically demonstrating a global

temperature decrease of five degrees Celsius should the atmospheric rate of carbon dioxide be

cut in half (Tucker 838). Additionally, a former student of the Scripps Institution of

Oceanography named Charles Keeling even tracked the levels of carbon dioxide in the

atmosphere and showed that it has been rising at an increasing rate since the late 1950s to the

present (Keeling). These studies have succeeded in establishing the reality of climate change, but

they have failed to promote significant mitigation efforts as humans continue to perpetuate

climate change.

Denial about climate change exists primarily because it threatens peoples comfortable

lifestyles. There are many different types of denial, but the two that are most common in climate
 Diep5

change deniers are literal and implicatory denial. Literal denial is the straightforward assertion

that something did not happen or is not true (Cohen 7). In other words, people in literal denial

completely refuse to accept the validity of a claim because it is unpleasant as it challenges

knowledge that they have previously accepted. One may utilize literal denial to reassure that they

are correct even when they are wrong because of a genuine lack of knowledge or a desire to

deceive. Interpretive denial, on the other hand, happens when someone acknowledges a claim but

they change its apparent meaning so that it is perceived differently (Cohen 8). This type of

denial occurs when someone uses different diction to describe something unpleasant in a way

that sounds less threatening. This is dangerous because these people negate the mental burden of

an unpleasant experience by choosing to deceive how it may harm themselves as well as others.

People in these forms of denial about climate change must come to a realization that this

unpleasant situation is real and effective action must be taken to mitigate the problem because

the consequences are far worse than sacrificing the luxuries of ones lifestyle.

Literal and interpretive denial can be observed in a situation involving Virginia Attorney

General Ken Cuccinelli who tried to silence a professor of meteorology, Michael E. Mann, for

his own political agenda. Mann had challenged the authenticity of a paper from the Wall Street

Journal named Climate Research, which was written by Willie Soon and Sallie Baliunas in 2003,

because it claimed that global warming at the time was not unusual even though vast amounts of

scientific research had already proved otherwise (Michael E. Mann 4). Furthermore, Mann felt

it necessary to question the credibility of this paper because it was a fossil fuel industry-funded

study (Michael E. Mann 4). Manns doubts were justified because the fossil fuel industry is

responsible for the most carbon emissions, giving them motive to bribe the journal into

misinforming the public. The content of this paper is an example of interpretive denial because
 Diep6

the journal acknowledged that earths temperature was rising; however, they interpreted it with

false evidence to downplay the seriousness of climate change and making it sound natural. Mann

responded by urging his colleagues to cease their contributions to the Wall Street Journal

because it valued profit enough to publish a paper that denounced the dangerous implications of

climate change. In April 2010, Attorney General Cuccinelli demanded that Manns emails to his

colleagues be revealed in an investigation that he took all the way to the Virginia Supreme Court.

His case was subsequently dismissed because his court filings against Mann and the other

climate change scientists were comprised of conspiracy theories and misinformation from fossil

fuel industry front groups (Mann). Fossil fuel industry front groups deny climate change by

providing false information so that their business can continue to thrive. Cuccinelli disregarded

this fact when he tried to attack Mann in court even though he holds an office of the judicial

branch of the United States government, one that accounts for justice. True justice would be

served if Cuccinelli launched investigations against fossil fuels and their front group tactics so

that people would not be misinformed about climate change. Instead, he attacked Mann in court

with literal denial by challenging solid evidence of climate change with biased information that

he most likely presented on behalf of his biggest donors, including coal producer Consol Energy

and oil giant Koch Industries (Mann). Soon and Baliunas blasphemous research and

Cuccinellis charade of justice were used to deny climate change to avoid the unpleasant reality

of losing a profit. This is just one of the many examples in which big businesses around the

world, like the fossil fuel industry, bribe mass media and government leaders to abuse their

authority and spread climate change denial by misinforming the public. Ecopsychologists

venture to end this pattern by creating awareness of the mesh so that people will realize the

significance of their existence during the anthropocene.

 Diep7

The growing field of ecopsychology is extremely important in creating ecological

awareness and achieving individual efforts to mitigate climate change. Ecopsychologists

approach climate change denial as an act of extraordinary self-harm as well as an act of harm

and aggression directed at others (Thomas 2). This is because climate change deniers contribute

to the destruction of earths systems, which causes harm to every living creature on earth.

Therefore, environmentalist groups must avoid using shame tactics to create climate change

awareness, such as the Campaign Against Climate Changes Sceptics Hall of Shame. Tactics

like these will only cause deniers to feel even more ashamed about the harm they are brining

upon earth and its inhabitants. This can result in hostility, which makes the deniers targets for

antienvironmentalist groups who direct their anger against the shaming environmentalist to

thwart mitigation efforts (Roszack 1). Ecopsychologists can negate climate change denial much

more effectively by helping patients realize their disconnect with the ecological mesh. The

Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) somewhat addresses this

disconnect as a mental illness known as separation anxiety disorder, an excessive anxiety

concerning separation from home (Roszack 1). Modern society is separated from their most

important home, the earth itself, as the average individual is constantly surrounded by buildings,

freeways, and office cubicles rather than lush forests, flowing rivers, and grandeur plains.

Furthermore, it is clear that the current mental health system itself needs to focus on the human

and non-human relationship because the DSM does not list a distinct disorder that describes

separation anxiety with the ecological world. Ecopsychologists would recommend for people to

seek treatment for their separation anxiety from the mesh by spending time in the organic world,

whether they take a hike in the mountains or meditate at the beach. This type of treatment is

extremely efficient as it is inexpensive and easily accessible for anyone living on earth. Climate
 Diep8

change deniers must reconnect their responsibilities to the ecological mesh so that they can begin

to make amends for the immense damage that has already been done to all of earths systems.

Governments and their respective citizens can make collective efforts to effectively

mitigate climate change once denial is overcome. The government can better inform the public

by providing climate projections, impact studies, and assessment of potential responses

(Dessler 119). Studies such as these would make people anticipate future changes caused by

climate change instead of slowly reacting to its current consequences. This information must also

be made accessible and easy to interpret so that anyone who reads it is able to understand its

implications. Furthermore, governments can use their regulatory authority [] to reduce

[citizens] vulnerability (Dessler 119). For example, a government could set legal limits on

carbon dioxide emissions and force companies to pay enormous penalties for exceeding them.

Likewise, the government can give tax breaks or grants to companies who are able to keep their

carbon dioxide emissions at an even lower set limit so that businesses have another incentive to

cut their carbon dioxide emissions. A few things that people can consider to largely reduce their

carbon emissions are transportation, food consumption, and energy use. Fuel-efficient and

electric powered cars should be driven rather than cars that consume more because each gallon

of gas is responsible for twenty-five pounds of heat-trapping gases in the atmosphere ("Ten

Personal Solutions"). Furthermore, pork and chicken should be eaten in place of red meat

because raising cattle for red meat causes deforestation because they require land for grazing.

Choosing chicken over beef would reduce the pressure of deforestation, which is responsible for

about forty-five percent of the heat-trapping gasses ("Ten Personal Solutions"). Finally, electric

appliances should only be bought if they have the EPAs energy star label on it as they have been

proven to be the most energy-efficient. Within their lifetime, these energy star products can
 Diep9

reduce greenhouse gas emissions by about 130,000 pounds ("What You Can Do"). These

strategies for mitigating climate change must be directed and strengthened by governments, but it

is ultimately the individuals job to lead climate change mitigation through the choices they make

in their daily lives.

The anthropocene is a crucial era in which humans must accept their interdependence

with earth and its inhabitants before the widespread ecological destruction that they are causing

becomes irreversible. Climate change is one of the most dangerous forces being caused by

human activity on earth; however, people are still in denial of this global crisis despite data and

research that reveals the increasing rate of greenhouse gas emissions that perpetuate climate

change. Climate change denial stems from humanitys disconnect with earth and its inhabitants,

which has led to the loss of biodiversity, deforestation, and more frequent natural disasters due to

rising global temperatures. Ecopsychology focuses on reestablishing this lost connection

between humans and their awareness of the ecological mesh to treat mental health problems

rather than focusing on healing the individual as an independent being. This crucial branch of

psychology will create ecological awareness by overcoming problems like climate change denial

and allowing the worlds governments and their citizens to make effective mitigation efforts. The

growing field of ecopsychology is part of an environmental movement that many humans are

leading to acknowledge the role of every profession amidst the anthropocene. This era may seem

like a daunting time for humanity as earths systems are being destroyed by humans at an

alarming rate; however, this trial can be overcome so long as humanity continues to advocate

awareness of the ecological mesh and its demand for rehabilitation and preservation.
 Diep10

Works Cited

"4.4.1 Biogeochemical Cycles and Biotic Feedback." 4.4.1 Biogeochemical Cycles and Biotic

Feedback. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, n.d. Web. 20 Nov. 2014.

Cohen, Stanley. States of Denial: Knowing about Atrocities and Suffering. Cambridge, UK:

Polity, 2001. Print.

Crutzen, Paul J. "Have We Entered the "Anthropocene"?" - IGBP. International Geosphere-

Biosphere Programme, n.d. Web. 17 Nov. 2014.

Dessler, Andrew Emory., and Edward Parson. The Science and Politics of Global Climate

Change: A Guide to the Debate. 2nd ed. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge UP, 2006. Print.

"Great Acceleration." - IGBP. International Geosphere-Biosphere Programme, n.d. Web. 19 Nov.

2014.

Keeling, Charles. The Keeling Curve. The Keeling Curve. Scripps Institution of

Oceanography, n.d. Web. 22 Nov. 2014.

Mann, Michael E. "Ken Cuccinelli's Cloudy Judgment." The Huffington Post.

TheHuffingtonPost.com, 04 Feb. 2013. Web. 22 Nov. 2014.

Michael E. Mann: A Scientist In The Crosshairs Of Climate-Change Denial. Bulletin Of The

Atomic Scientists 66.6 (2010): 1-7. Academic Search Premier. Web. 25 Nov. 2014

Morton, Timothy. The Ecological Thought. Cambridge, MA: Harvard UP, 2010. Print.

Ravishankara, A. R. "Water Vapor in the Lower Stratosphere." Science 337.6096 (2012): 809-10.

Web.

Roszak, Theodore. "The Nature of Sanity." Psychology Today: Health, Help, Happiness + Find

a Therapist. Sussex Publishers, 1 Jan. 1996. Web. 25 Nov. 2014.

 Diep11

"'Sceptics' Hall of Shame." Campaign against Climate Change. Campaign against Climate

Change, n.d. Web. 25 Nov. 2014.

"Ten Personal Solutions to Global Warming." Union of Concerned Scientists. UCSUSA, n.d.

Web. 25 Nov. 2014.

Thomas, Pat. "How to Beat Denial -- a 12-Step Plan." Ecologist. 37 (2007). Print.

Tucker, William C. Deceitful Tongues: Is Climate Change Denial A Crime?. Ecology Law

Quarterly 39.3 (2012): 831-894. Academic Search Premier. Web. 25 Nov. 2014.

Wade, Carole, and Carol Tavris. Invitation to Psychology. 5th ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ:

Pearson/Prentice Hall, 2005. Print.

"What You Can Do At Home." EPA. Environmental Protection Agency, n.d. Web. 22 Nov. 2014.