This is an edited version of a letter written by Charles Le Feuvre and Carol Ride to the Quarterly Essay, in response to Joelle Gergis’ current essay titled “Highway to Hell.”
****
In the current Quarterly Essay, award winning climate scientist and writer, Joëlle Gergis, provides an excellent account of the climate reality and the current political response in Australia. In this article, as in her recent book “Humanity’s Moment”, she shows passionate and emotional involvement with the issues. As a psychiatrist and psychotherapist actively involved in climate psychology over the last 15 years, I will explore the political reality from a psychological perspective.
“How do they sleep at night?” This question – aimed squarely at the government – was articulated by a politician Gergis spoke to – and it’s this question that stuck with me. It’s an excellent question, deserving some thought. One way to approach it is through the psychological lens of denial and other psychological defence mechanisms.
Firstly, to put the question in context, there is an assumption in some circles that the era of climate change denial is over. Unfortunately, climate denial is very much still with us. Furthermore, many people seem to accept that the climate is warming, but remain in denial about the urgency of the unfolding crisis.
Psychoanalytic thinking about denial goes back to Freud. In his view, denial can be seen as an unconscious way of protecting oneself from anxiety – either by complete denial (blindness) or by disavowal (turning a blind eye, that is, knowing and not knowing at the same time). Completely denying the reality of anthropogenic climate change will probably not affect your sleep, but turning a blind eye is more likely to.
Denial can be seen as an unconscious way of protecting oneself from anxiety.
Another view of denial came from the sociologist Stanley Cohen, who looked at three types of denial: literal, interpretive and implicatory. These can be conscious or unconscious or both. All three terms were originally used by him in relation to human atrocities, though can equally be applied to the consequences of our failure to respond to the scale of the climate crisis.
Literal denial is denial of anthropogenic climate change per se. Interpretive denial is not accepting the scientific interpretation such as the severity and urgency of the climate crisis. Implicatory denial is not accepting the moral, political and psychological implications.
It should also be highlighted that any denial may be influenced by denialism, which is the conscious and active attempt to distort and undermine climate science, as seen in decades of campaigns by fossil fuel companies.
Dogged insistence on promoting nuclear power is an example of interpretive denial, as it avoids highlighting the need for urgent action. It could also represent denialism.
In its plans for a rapid move to renewable energy, the Australian government seems to accept climate science and the political implications of the need for immediate action At the same time, for political reasons, the government continues to allow new fossil fuel projects, subsidises fossil fuel companies, exports a vast amount of fossil fuels and supports unviable carbon storage and dubious carbon offsets. In doing so the government is turning a blind eye to the implications of the worsening crisis and rationalising their position in economic and political terms. Surely economics should be about looking after our home, not destroying it.
Implicatory denial is not accepting the moral, political and psychological implications.
The moral implications relate to climate justice – including our duty of care for young people and future generations. The Climate Change Amendment (Duty of Care and Intergenerational Climate Equity) Bill 2023 aimed to ensure assessment of the impact of any new fossil fuel projects on children’s health and wellbeing. It was not supported by a Senate inquiry.he truth is that every new fossil fuel project has a deleterious effect on children’s health and wellbeing. Again, such moral considerations can be rationalised and ignored by turning a blind eye. Protecting the economy is of little value if our planet becomes unliveable for young people and future generations.
As Joëlle Gergis says, “The destruction [of the natural world] we are witnessing is the culmination of corporate disregard for the very essence of what makes us human, and government refusal to properly regulate polluting industries. It’s a moral failure of colossal proportions”
The psychological implications of the climate crisis include climate distress which covers such feelings as fear, grief, powerlessness, shame, anger, and anxiety. This distress can definitely affect sleep. As readers of this newsletter know, Psychology for a Safe Climate has extensive experience in responding to the emotional implications of the climate crisis with people across Australia, including conversations with politicians.
Young people particularly are well aware of the desperate situation facing humanity. They understand the implications and want the government to act on them urgently.
In their despair and powerlessness, they have spoken of feeling betrayed by the government.
When confronted with difficult situations, many people cut off (repress or dissociate) their feelings because they cannot bear them. Faced with relentless news about the climate crisis, this response can arise partly because of despair at the lack of political action commensurate with the climate crisis. On the other hand, some may be in denial about the implications of climate change because it threatens comfortable lifestyles.
Many people cut off (repress or dissociate) their feelings because they cannot bear them.
The current global economic model has created what Sally Weintrobe calls ‘the culture of uncare’, driven by our society’s excessive consumption patterns, hyper individualism, and common belief in our exceptionalism. On this basis, the Australian government and many individuals collude in denying the implications of the climate crisis.
The climate emergency is not something to be faced alone. Climate Cafes and workshops can help people face and share their feelings in a safe space with others. That helps them to build openness, hope, emotional resilience, and support for climate action. Communities also need emotional support, to accept the implications of the climate crisis, and focus on what they can do, together, to strengthen local resilience.
In discussion with politicians, some have said they believe honest conversations with their colleagues about how they feel about the climate situation would be helpful.
As Joëlle Gergis highlights in Humanity’s Moment, our emotional responses are critical to the change we need. “When we are finally willing to accept feelings of intense loss-for ourselves, the planet, and every child’s future- we can use the intensity of our emotional response to finally propel us into action. We must have the heart and the courage to be moved by what we see”.
*****
Dr Charles Le Feuvre is a psychiatrist and psychotherapist in private practice in Melbourne. He has been a Consultant Psychiatrist at The Royal Melbourne Hospital and Chair of The Section of Psychotherapy of the Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Psychiatrists. He joined PSC over ten years ago, is currently on the PSC Board, and has facilitated PSC workshops and written and spoken about the climate and ecological crisis for PSC.
Carol Ride is a psychologist, as a therapist, supervisor and trainer. Her shift to work in the field of climate change was motivated by the urgent need to contribute to engaging and supporting people psychologically in responding to the unfolding climate crisis. Carol is the Founder of Psychology for a Safe Climate, and held the role of President, then Director, until late 2023. She regularly facilitates workshops for PSC and speaks publicly on climate psychology.
