Climate change as a collective action problem 

Building on my work regarding the motivational gap (see below), I am currently looking into how we can solve the collective action problem that climate change is. The climate ethics literature has addressed this in the following ways:

• There is an intricate discussion on how to understand collective responsibility philosophically;
• Action on climate change should be delegated to national and international political institutions (only) because of the scale of the problem, the institutional power to coordinate collective action, and the power to regulate corporations;​

I take a different approach: I focus on the practice of addressing collective action problems. I believe that all actors are implicated in them (rather than only focussing on institutions). 
​
First, as pictured left, all agents are connected and can influence one another. We could use this for good!  

Second, I defend the following claim: 

Solving global environmental problems depends on

• Substantial actions
• Undertaken by all agents
• Who have agency
• To the extent that they have this agency
• And in line with the distinct types of agency they have

On this basis I aim to develop principles for action by all different agents. 

​Moral disengagement and the motivational gap

Why, despite widespread acknowledgement of the seriousness of climate change, do both individual and collective responses remain inadequate?
​The traditional answers to this question in the climate ethics literature are: 

• Either our conventional moral judgement system is not well equipped to identify climate change and other large-scale problems as an important moral problem. They are just too complex to grasp. Therefore, our motivation to address it does not kick in;
• Or we are reluctant to change our consumerist behaviour and fossil-fuel-based economies. The temptation to shirk responsibility is therefore high;

In my work, I argue that it is not an either/or matter: both factors are at play in the motivational gap. These factors are complemented by moral psychology: moral disengagement enables emitters to dissociate self-condemnation from the harms caused by their emissions. In this way, they are able to maintain the liberal-capitalist worldview and the consumerism that is part of it even though this may conflict with their moral principles. For example:

• Emphasising that an individual's share in climate change is infinitesimally small. This is not wrong, but it should not be used to minimise or exonerate oneself from responsibility. We all carry a small but real share of the responsibility, so we can also be a small but fully real part of the solution. 
• Emphasising that it is "the government's job" to address climate change. This is not a wrong argument either, but it should not be used to displace blame and to exonerate oneself from responsibility in this way. Everyone - individuals, the government, companies, ... - are implicated in climate change. 

In other words, the fact that climate change is such a complex problem gives emitters the necessary wiggle room to reconstruct their share in the harms caused by climate change - such as minimising responsibility or displacing blame. This allows them to pursue self-interested motives such as consumption without facing responsibility for it. 
Since the explanation for the motivational gap consists of three parts, the solution for this can also divided into three parts:

• Reduce the complexity of climate change:
  • Make it more salient to emitters by emphasising that the harmful impacts do not only happen far in the future and at the other side of the globe; the impacts are already visible here and now.
  • In contrast, show that they do have agency in tackling climate change and show them what effective and feasible ways are to contribute to tackling climate change. 
• Bring self-interest in line with tackling climate change and emphasise the benefits for oneself:
  • Reducing the consumption of animal products and processed foods increases health and life expectancy while also benefitting the environment
  • Focussing on other things than consumption would reduce people's impact on the environment, but can also increase their wellbeing. For example, interpersonal relationships, cultural and political participation, activities in nature are important sources of wellbeing. Materialistic values, in contrast, seem to reduce wellbeing.
• Address moral disengagement directly:
  • Teach people to be more mindful of their actions and the consequences thereof to tackle alienation from the outcomes of their actions. 
  • Education about moral psychology and moral disengagement will reduce the successfulness of moral disengagement.
  • Linking climate action to positive moral emotions (such as self-efficacy, competence and pride) will decrease people's defensiveness.