State of Fear: Climate Change Denial as a Means to Protect Freedom and Belonging
Originally written for ENGL 102 at the Community College of Philadelphia
Introduction
The American public is deeply divided on a range of issues. From bodily autonomy to immigration, there seems to be little on which the political left and right can agree. Even when it comes to matters of science, where the evidence is clear and there may be a broad consensus among experts, polarization is just as present, if not more so. Climate change is one such issue. In the United States, there is a significant portion of the electorate that in some way rejects the scientific position on climate change, including how serious it is, whether humans are responsible for it, and even whether it is occurring at all. But the science, in this case, is unambiguous: Climate change is real, human activity is the cause, and it is already having and will continue to have a wide range of negative effects. Indeed, climate change is a global threat and so will not spare those who “believe” in it or only affect those who deny it. However, certain groups are already being affected and will continue to be affected in unique ways, such as coastal communities as sea levels rise. Polarization stymies any meaningful climate action. Although the US alone cannot stop climate change, we can play a significant role: Currently one of the top emitters of greenhouse gasses, we could dramatically reduce global emissions if we moved away from fossil fuels, and we could lead the way toward a more sustainable future. At the very least, we could invest in mitigation — build more resilient infrastructure, for example — but even this is forestalled by polarization, further placing those most affected at risk.
Understanding the origins of climate change denial is crucial if we are to address it. Since the early 1990s, conservative thinktanks have waged an all-out climate change denial campaign with the help of conservative media and politicians, exacerbating the issue of political polarization. Social scientists have since sought to understand and explain the psychological underpinnings of climate change denial among the general public. They have proposed that a lack of knowledge, poor reasoning, or a commitment to political identity — or simply an aversion to science in general — underlies such denial. While there is undoubtedly some truth to all of these, the dismissal of climate change deniers as simply being “antiscience” discounts the extent to which the public values science as a means of understanding the world, a public that in no small part simultaneously doubts the scientific consensus on climate change. This fact must be taken into account in any explanation of climate change denial among the general public. Accordingly, I argue that climate change denial among the American public is not rooted in antiscience attitudes per se but rather ideology- and identity-based fears of change in lifestyle and loss of individual freedom and group belonging stoked by conservative thinktanks, media, and politicians, whose financial interests lie in delaying action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
Unpacking denial, in historical context
Until about 1991, Democrats and Republicans expressed similar amounts of worry about global warming, but by 1997, concern had dropped sharply among Republicans. Since then, this polarization has only intensified, as climate change has become a thoroughly politicized issue exploited by conservative media and politicians (Egan and Mullin 217–9). Not surprisingly, then, political affiliation and ideology are the most evident demographic correlates of belief in climate change (Hornsey et al. 626). On this, at least, most Americans would likely agree on an intuitive level: Liberals and Democrats tend to believe in climate change, while conservatives and Republicans tend to be skeptical of or outright deny climate change. But why is this the case? If the evidence is so clear and scientists are so united in agreement, why is there such disagreement among the general public?
Proposed explanations for the phenomenon of climate change denial have largely revolved around three main points of focus: knowledge, cognition, and identity. In other words, it is argued that people simply do not have the necessary information to understand and accept the reality of climate change, or they are engaging in faulty reasoning, or else they deny or claim to deny the reality of climate change because such a position aligns with their social or political identity (Kovaka 2355). An implicit assumption in many discussions on climate change denial is that those who engage in it must be in some way antiscience. However, the fact is that there are many who reject the reality of climate change while simultaneously considering themselves to be proscience — that is, they believe that science is beneficial to society and value scientific evidence as a basis for determining what is true (Kovaka 2357–8). There must therefore be other factors that these individuals consider more important, or by which they are more significantly motivated, than their positive evaluation of science.
In the case of elite actors, their motivations seem clear. Fossil fuel companies literally have a financial interest to prevent any sort of government action, such as regulation, that may interfere with their continued ability to profit off of the emission of greenhouse gases that is inherent to their business models. On the other hand, there seems to be a true ideological commitment, regardless of its economic sense, to free markets and the so-called “American way of life” on the part of conservatives, in addition to the financial support, in the form of campaign contributions, that many elected officials enjoy (Collomb 1–12). In order to maintain the status quo that financially benefits them and prevent any governmental efforts that might disrupt this state of affairs, these actors stoke fear among conservative voters by painting any attempt to respond to climate change as a threat to what these voters value, such as individual freedom and the “American way of life.”
Indeed, this is just what happened in the 1990s, when, in response to the environmentalist claim that the deleterious effects of climate change show how modern lifestyles are not sustainable in the long run, the countermovement, led by conservative thinktanks, argued that environmentalism itself was a threat to progress and the “American way of life” (Jacques et al. 352). Learning from its opponents, the countermovement also came to recognize the value of incorporating scientific rationale into its own propaganda. The solution was a deference to “skepticism,” which sought to undermine environmental science by declaring it to be “junk science,” as well as the promotion of contrarian scientists, who oppose the consensus on climate change yet nonetheless confer a degree of scientific credibility to the campaign (Dunlap and McCright 243, 248). These facts further demonstrate that those who deny climate change, at least among the general public, do not do so out of some opposition to science. Their appreciation for science runs deep — so deep, in fact, that they are not inclined to so quickly dismiss the scientific consensus on climate change without the approval of those with some level of expertise (even if not in the field of climatology). The appeal to science may serve to rationalize a preferred belief with a semblance of legitimacy, but it is a genuine appeal nonetheless.
In addition to raising alarm around supposed threats to conservative ideals, these elite actors obfuscate their own fearmongering through projection. They accuse environmentalists of fearmongering themselves, of creating panic over an issue that does not exist — and if it does exist, it is not that serious. Although it is true that fear appeals are not uncommon in climate change communications (O’Neill and Nicholson-Cole 358), this has no bearing on the science, which is the crux of denialists’ supposed issue with climate change (that it is “junk science”). However, the result of this projection is that it reinforces skepticism, as if an appeal to fear per se is reason enough to doubt a claim, and the sense that deniers in fact know better than their opponents.
Again, however, beyond merely inculcating skepticism of the science, denialists specifically arouse fear surrounding issues that feel innate to the conservative identity, such as individual and, more broadly, economic freedom — what they call the “American way of life.” Denying the reality of climate change thus becomes so integral to conservative identity that to do otherwise — to believe in climate change, to concede to the science that demonstrates that it’s happening and why it’s happening — is akin to sacrificing one’s values or otherwise betraying the movement. To accept the reality of climate change is akin to no longer being “conservative.” This notion triggers a much deeper fear than that of losing certain freedoms, those things that conservatives claim to value. It triggers a fear of being cast out, of losing a sense of belonging to something larger than oneself, and this arguably motivates denial more than anything else, especially any supposed antiscience attitude.
The idea of losing group belonging is perhaps the most immediate concern. It is difficult for many, even those who believe in climate change, to appreciate it as a threat, especially if one has not had the misfortune of directly experiencing its effects, such as extreme heatwaves or rising sea levels. Conversely, it is easier to imagine an immediate change in lifestyle or loss of freedom effectuated in response to a distant, abstract threat. (The COVID-19 pandemic, for example, shows how quickly lives can change in response to policy.) It is even easier still to imagine how any deviation from “acceptable thought” can jeopardize personal relationships. Most people have likely experienced that fear, or at least uncertainty, of voicing a certain political opinion if it deviates in some way from the expectations of their social circle. In turn, the primary concern is to do whatever it takes to preserve personal relationships and maintain one’s place with the group. The consequences of doing anything else simply feel far too real even to consider.
Addressing denial
It is crucial to understand the origins of and mechanisms behind climate change denial if we are to address it. Believing denial to be the result of a “deficit” of information, climate communicators have long relied on summarizing the data and highlighting the consensus among experts in an effort to bridge this supposed knowledge gap (Ebrahimi 53). After nearly four decades of climate change being in the public spotlight, Americans are arguably more familiar than ever with the basic facts of the issue (whether or not they believe them to be true), and yet denial persists and polarization has only intensified. If anything, increased understanding of climate change has potentially diminished belief in and concern about it among conservatives and Republicans (McCright and Dunlap 174–5). An alternate approach may therefore be necessary, namely one that is sensitive to the ideology- and identity-based fears surrounding an acknowledgement and acceptance of the reality of climate change.
First, we should not rely on appeals to fear in order to stimulate concern for climate change. There is ongoing debate among climate communicators as to the effectiveness of such tactics (O’Neill and Nicholson-Cole 355). On the whole, there is conflicting evidence as to their effectiveness on individuals, but they should arguably be avoided in any case simply on ethical grounds for being manipulative (Bilfinger et al. 2, 7). Describing the deleterious effects of climate change is not exactly akin to lying, because there is truth to them on account of both lived experience and evidence-based projections, but it is similar in that doing it in such a way as to arouse fear creates psychological distress in a person in order to impel them to act in a way they might not otherwise be inclined to. Furthermore, it only provides ammunition for elites to fearmonger themselves regarding the motivations and intentions of environmentalists — environmentalists are so desperate to take away your “freedom” that they are manipulating you into believing something that’s not true. It would, in other words, just play into the hands of denialists. We should of course be able to discuss the effects of climate change in the long run (otherwise, why care about it?), but it is perhaps not worth leading with or lingering on at this stage.
On a most basic level, addressing denial of climate change must involve initiating a dialogue with those who deny it. People generally do not enjoy being lectured, talked down to, or told what to do with no chance to share their own thoughts and opinions. Furthermore, given the seriousness of climate change as a threat to humanity, and the impediment that polarization surrounding the issue creates when it comes to addressing it politically, those who deny it must be taken just as seriously. Such a dialogue should include taking into account any fears and concerns (that is, those having to do with what taking climate change seriously would entail) (Hornsey and Fielding 468–70) and relating care for the planet to the everyday concerns and experiences of deniers (O’Neill and Nicholson-Cole 375). Furthermore, it is important to be sensitive to cultural norms and values, as the consequences of offending these can quickly prove counterproductive (Kahan et al. 734). In short, we must be able to discuss the evidence in such a way that does not threaten values and to propose policy solutions that instead resonate with those values. Social scientists Matthew J. Hornsey and Kelly S. Fielding call this sort of argumentation that seeks alignment with values rather than attempting to counter them “jiu jitsu persuasion” (468–70).
On a pragmatic level, there are various ways to engage with deniers that incorporate the principles of jiu jitsu persuasion. Politics is undoubtedly a sensitive topic of discussion, but try as we might to avoid it, it seems inevitably to arise. In such situations, relying on jiu jitsu persuasion may be the best course of action. One of the easiest ways to practice this (only due to its practicality), though also one of the most difficult (due to the intense emotions that are likely to arise), is to speak to loved ones who may be skeptical of the reality or at least the seriousness of climate change. There is no need to be adversarial or antagonistic, and indeed, this would be counterproductive. Moreover, it is possible to minimize the chances of immediate defensiveness or reactance by avoiding mention of political parties or specific politicians, otherwise they will likely immediately defer to these in order to preserve their identity. Instead, speak to their values directly and connect these to reasons to care for the environment. For example, perhaps appeal to a respect for God’s creation (“God’s green earth”, one might say) to encourage consideration of how our actions affect the planet. If feeling especially adventurous, take these principles to political rallies or demonstrations and engage with attendees or counterprotesters there in a similar vein. There is much to be learned and gained from leaving one’s usual circle and speaking to those with which one might have little in common.
Storytelling can also be a powerful tool for inspiring respect for the planet and an urge to do something to help (Lowery et al. 1813–26). It is not uncommon to hear that the motivation to get involved with a cause was inspired through watching some documentary or reading some book. There are ways in which individuals who are so inclined can use the resources and skills at their disposal, whether it be social media and a camera or a blog and a flair for the written word, to “raise awareness” — to educate, to persuade, to appeal to the better angels of our nature and demonstrate how caring for the planet is within all of our ability. If such creativity is not one’s inclination, simply recommending a piece of compelling work to someone who has expressed a willingness to keep an open mind can also be effective.
Of course, climate change is a threat that is far larger than any one individual’s ability to address it. Systemic reform, effected through policy, is our only hope to truly reversing the trend that we see. But not all political solutions are created equal, and here, too, consideration of how individuals are likely to respond to certain policies is crucial. In general, policies that promote or incentivize more sustainable practices will more likely be accepted than those that strictly limit individual behaviors (Bilfinger et al. 7). Indicating support for such policies in any way, whether it be calling representatives, attending demonstrations, or voting for candidates that will fight for them, is perhaps more important than ever.
Finally, we should not let the perfect (or, we might say, the pragmatic) be the enemy of the good. Such concern for what is “realistic” or “effective” can be debilitating, immobilizing. Determining how best to focus one’s efforts to maximize impact will always be central, but at the end of the day, something is better than nothing; action is better than inaction. So, be that content creator, even if it feels like screaming into the void. Talk to those family members, even if it feels like talking to a brick wall. Call those representatives, even if it feels like trying to move the immovable. When the stakes are as high as with climate change, we have far more to lose by choosing not to act than by taking even the smallest step in a new direction.
Conclusion
Since the early 1990s, a climate change denial campaign, led by conservative thinktanks, has contributed to the hyperpolarization we see today among the American public, especially around climate change. Conservative elites, including media and politicians, have stoked fear around losing the “American way of life,” individual freedom, and, consequently, personal relationships if climate change is taken seriously. In order to address climate change, we must also address climate change denial. Not to do so would be akin to taking one step forward and two steps back. With every step we take to respond to climate change, our progress will be undermined with each change in administration or partisan control of Congress, as we have seen with various issues in just the last decade. We cannot simply rely on electing the “right” candidates and hope that any legislation passed survives the next transfer of power. We must fundamentally reorient the consciousness of our body politic. This may seem unimaginable, but it is possible. It is pivotal to get to the root of deniers’ skepticism, address their fears and concerns, and work together to generate solutions that both involve them on a foundational level and do not threaten their personal values. In short, the only way to cultivate enduring belief in and concern about climate change among those inclined toward denial is through trust, understanding, and genuine collaboration.
Works Cited
Bilfinger, Laura et al. “The Effects of Fear Appeals on Reactance in Climate Change Communication.” Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, vol. 115, 2024, pp. 2–7. ScienceDirect, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2024.104666.
Collomb, Jean-Daniel. “The Ideology of Climate Change Denial in the United States.” European Journal of American Studies, vol. 9, no. 1, 2014, pp. 1–12. OpenEdition Journals, https://doi.org/10.4000/ejas.10305.
Dunlap, Riley E. and Aaron M. McCright. “Climate Change Denial: Sources, Actors, and Strategies.” Routledge Handbook of Climate Change and Society, edited by Constance Lever-Tracy, Routledge, 2010, pp. 243–8.
Ebrahimi, Ehsan. “Climate Change Denial as Identity Defence: Understanding Resistance beyond Ignorance.” Environmental Management, vol. 76, 2025, p. 53. Springer Nature Link, https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-025-02353-5.
Egan, Patrick J. and Megan Mullin. “Climate Change: US Public Opinion.” Annual Review of Political Science, vol. 20, 2017, pp. 217–9. Annual Reviews, https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-polisci-051215-022857.
Hornsey, Matthew J. and Kelly S. Fielding. “Attitude Roots and Jiu Jitsu Persuasion: Understanding and Overcoming the Motivated Rejection of Science.” American Psychologist, vol. 72, no. 5, 2017, pp. 468–70. APA PsycNet, https://doi.org/10.1037/a0040437.
Hornsey, Matthew J. et al. “Meta-analyses of the Determinants and Outcomes of Belief in Climate Change.” Nature Climate Change, vol. 6, 2016, p. 626. https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate2943.
Jacques, Peter J. et al. “The Organisation of Denial: Conservative Think Tanks and Environmental Scepticism.” Environmental Politics, vol. 17, no. 3, 2008, p. 352. Taylor & Francis Online, https://doi.org/10.1080/09644010802055576.
Kahan, Dan M. et al. “The Polarizing Impact of Science Literacy and Numeracy on Perceived Climate Change Risks.” Nature Climate Change, vol. 2, 2012, p. 734. https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate1547.
Kovaka, Karen. “Climate Change Denial and Beliefs about Science.” Synthese, vol. 198, no. 3, 2021, pp. 2355–8. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/27293245.
Lowery, Brennan et al. “Storytelling for Sustainable Development in Rural Communities: An Alternative Approach.” Sustainable Development, vol. 28, no. 6, 2020, pp. 1813–26. Wiley Online Library, https://doi.org/10.1002/sd.2124.
McCright, Aaron M. and Riley E. Dunlap. “The Politicization of Climate Change and Polarization in the American Public’s Views of Global Warming, 2001–2010.” The Sociological Quarterly, vol. 52, no. 2, 2011, pp. 174–5. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/23027550.
O’Neill, Saffron and Sophie Nicholson-Cole. ““Fear Won’t Do It”: Promoting Positive Engagement With Climate Change through Visual and Iconic Representations.” Science Communication, vol. 30, no. 3, 2009, pp. 355–75. Sage Journals, https://doi.org/10.1177/1075547008329201.