The Concept of Climate Change as a Hyperobject
Could this be why climate change is not as widely accepted or believed?
Typically, when we think of climate change, many will automatically visualize a familiar scene or theme, whether it’s regarding drought, wildfires, pollution, etc. Many of us are aware of the causes and effects of human- or anthropogenic influenced climate change, but why do we still have people who refuse to believe that current evidence supports what is physically shown out in the real world? Climate change is a challenging subject to address, since it can leave individuals feeling vulnerable or guilty about their past actions or decisions. It is a complex topic with various factors intermeshed within a single definition.
From a theoretical and physical perspective, we can consider the concept of climate change to be a “hyperobject.” Timothy Morton explains this term throughout his book Hyperobjects: Philosophy and Ecology after the End of the World, as objects that take up a large quantity of both time and space in comparison to humans and human consciousness (1). Hyperobjects, like climate change, have specific qualities that interconnect them to humanity. Hyperobjects have a specific “stickiness” to them, not in terms of sticking to other items, but instead, we as humans are entangled in them and their effects both physically and emotionally (1). Relating this to climate change, we don’t have a clear or definite picture that shows climate change. Instead, we see its effects, whether it be glacial ice melting, deforestation, or species extinction, to name a few. We are already a participant within our environment, and therefore also experience the effects of climate change and are, in a sense, unable to avoid it.
Hyperobjects are also considered nonlocal, meaning there isn’t a single defining feature that indicates climate change (1). I cannot point at a single definable object and state that it is climate change. I can only describe or point to various components whether local or global, that collectively makeup climate change. However, hyperobjects are also considered finite, especially in terms of how much space they take up (1). Earth, for example, takes a specific amount of space, and climate change takes up a finite amount of space within Earth and found nowhere else (1). Both are still massive in relation to humans, but we can only see small fragments of climate change effects throughout time and space because the object appears to be nowhere specifically (1). With this in mind, we can also explain how these fragments of climate change also can be physically evident or randomly appear throughout an immense amount of time (1). Typically, this is shown through graphical data collected via the geologic time scale, showing the natural rise and fall of global temperature throughout millennia and a rapid increase recently in global temperatures due to human related activities.
The issue at hand with this concept of hyperobjectivity is that it can bring up emotional responses and questions about human existence, vulnerability, and privilege within the universe (1). We end up being confronted by hyperobjects like climate change, altering how we perceive the world (1). This may be why we see certain socio-demographics reject or disagree with the science that describes climate change impacts. Since we cannot define a single entity as “climate change.” Along with the fact that there isn’t as much of an immediate response to delay current impacts globally from political leaders. Perhaps this is due to similar reasons? Climate-based communication methods not thoroughly explaining concepts on a deeper level may be another reason why there are confusing terms and generalized assumptions about climate change.
The word climate change has collected multiple meanings of both causes and effects over time, which developed into a massive political bottleneck (2). Alongside the fact that most of humanity treats it as a “business-as-usual” type response until they’re directly affected by climate change. The typical way we approach climate change by merely throwing out facts and expecting people to shift their opinions immediately is completely flawed and ineffective. People tend to think and respond based on their instilled beliefs and values, even if it contradicts evidence shown to them (2). It is important to include context regarding comprehension of science-backed evidence (2). Not only this, but climate-related information can bring up intense emotional reactions for some because it can leave individuals feeling guilty, vulnerable, or trapped because of the size and severity of the issue and the inability to fix it immediately (2). There is always a level of uncertainty within science, but this can lead to conversations regarding climate change being completely shut down and disregarded because it is not 100% certain, which creates an excuse to ignore the evidence (3). We tend to ignore the facts after an intense natural disaster or event because there is a collective feeling of need to return to a normal-like state and push off larger concepts like climate change to a later date (3). Another reason why such a complex idea like climate change is ignored is that individuals impacted by the effects of climate change have perception shifts throughout the event due to an individual’s coping mechanisms and collective emotions shared with others affected (3).
Cognitive biases primarily influence human decisions; these biases allow us to convert experiences into new information to steer our beliefs (3). This is most effective for short-term or day-to-day-based decisions but can create confusion or issues the more complicated or long-term a decision becomes (3). The threats resulting from climate change lead to uncertain impacts that are difficult to accept or take the initiative because most natural disasters or events are accepted within everyday life (3). Leading to society accepting rather than resisting and therefore ignoring the underlying causes (3). For instance, take the weather; it could be almost hurricane-like weather for days and suddenly shifts back into sunnier and warmer weather, allowing recent experiences with shifting weather patterns to determine future decisions, which can be misleading to the overall problem at hand (3). Climate change also appears not to have the same familiarity as extreme weather events might, which can lead to those that are not as inclined to believe in climate change, thinking it’s exaggerated by climate change believers (3). The human brain is poorly developed to deal with long-term and unforeseeable threats that the brain tricks us into making the issue more distant in time to visualize it in a rational manner (3).
With all of this in mind, it is easy to see why most of humanity is lax about the evident threat of climate change or simply denies it altogether. With research projecting most global temperature increase to occur decades from now, most people react with a neutral response. Although some individuals prioritize addressing the imminent threats of climate change, most people do not wake up in the morning to think about the newly projected research on global temperature rise, increased flooding, etc. If it is not directly at their doorstep, most will not react to climate change impacts. The need for more comprehensive and effective science communication tools and how we explain the threats of climate change is crucial if we are to collectively agree as a society to make more remarkable strides in delaying future impacts of climate change.
References:
Daves, Seth. “Hyletic Phenomenology and Hyperobjects.” Open Philosophy, vol. 2, no. 1, 2019, pp. 525–538., doi:10.1515/opphil-2019-0036.
Boulton, Elizabeth. “Climate Change as a ‘Hyperobject’: a Critical Review of Timothy Morton's Reframing Narrative.” Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change, vol. 7, no. 5, 2016, pp. 772–785., doi:10.1002/wcc.410.
Marshall, George. Don't Even Think about It: Why Our Brains Are Wired to Ignore Climate Change. Bloomsbury, 2015.