How Culture Shapes the Climate Change Debate

How Culture Shapes the Climate Debate (2015) by University of Michigan professor Andrew J. Hoffman, is a nonfiction examination of the sociology around the issue of climate change. Although the scientific community mostly believes that drastic climate change is underway, ordinary people are entrenched in worldviews and refuse to take climate change seriously—or even believe it, in some cases. Hoffman argues for more scientific literacy in the general American public, as well as more awareness of rhetorical discourse.

Hoffman’s primary argument is that climate change is a cultural issue. He breaks this idea down into four interlocking parts. The first is that we all engage with the world through cognitive filters. We filter all information through our own worldviews and ideologies to decide on the veracity of those statements. This leads to the second part: cognitive filters reflect culture and identity. We double-check our worldviews and all the information we receive against that of the dominant groups we belong to, and the values held by other members of that group. Hoffman writes: “We are the product of our surroundings…and gravitate towards opinions that fit with those of the people with whom we identify.” This can be a powerful influence and leads to the third part that culture overpowers scientific reasoning. When belief in something becomes a foundational part of our identity, challenges to that belief do not lead to questioning our beliefs and assumptions—challenges just make us entrench deeper. The final part of his argument is political economy. Humans are fundamentally dependent upon and have built the entire physical, cultural, and political infrastructure around practices that contribute to increased climate change, such as using fossil fuels. Changing that infrastructure would be an immense undertaking and would mean acting against our own interests (financial, moral, political, etc.) in order to protect the interests of the planet.

People are motivated first by emotion. Reasoning comes a slower second, and even then, we filter what we know through cognitive filters in a process called “motivated reasoning.” We distrust facts and information sources that do not align closely with our worldviews. When we engage with climate change, we tend to conflate the idea of climate change with the person and/or the platform discussing it. The source of the information and the way we feel about it influences whether we are receptive to the message. Hoffman also points out that there is a fundamental distrust and misunderstanding of the scientific process because people tend to believe that science is another arm of the political machinery. They also distrust the message of climate change itself. Hoffman explains that most people live by the “Just World Theory,” meaning they believe that the world is a fundamentally good, orderly, and stable place. They do not want to hear that their comfortable world is balanced on the edge of disaster. Furthermore, people distrust solutions for climate change. They do not want to hear that resources are limited, or population growth is out of control, or that changing to a greener world might cost them more money. They do not want to be inconvenienced or pressured to examine their own lives and practices.



Hoffman points out that climate change is a threat to economic interests, and that most of the resistance comes from traditionally conservative sectors. Companies in the coal, oil, and natural gas industries have a vested interest in defending the status quo because it provides their profits. Resistance also comes from think tanks that are concerned that engaging with climate change would destroy capitalism by putting regulations on free enterprise, or that climate change is a vehicle for the rise of socialism or communism. Indeed, people with ideological leanings toward socialism and egalitarianism do tend to be more supportive of the idea of climate change and the solutions proposed to fix it. Mainstream media and social media also impact the ways people engage with climate change by reinforcing cultural ideologies and communities. Moreover, most Americans believe that climate change is either a problem for the future, or that it is a problem for someone else, not them. However, resistance to climate change often lowers when one experiences firsthand an extreme weather event—or a series of extreme weather events—that lend credence to climate change theories.

Hoffman also includes ways to open a constructive discourse with those who resist climate change. Part of a good dialogue comes from attitude and a willingness to meet someone where they are. Integral to this is a recognition that culture matters more than facts, and that condescending or patronizing language will shut down the conversation. People need to hear the message from other people they like and trust: politicians, celebrities, clerics, businesspeople, etc. The message also has to be clear, concise, and precise to prevent confusion. Moreover, the message should avoid doomsday predictions: since people adhere to the Just World Theory, giving them a graphic description of a post-apocalyptic world is counter-productive because on the one hand it might sound like alarmist fantasy, and on the other hand such a description sounds hopeless. When people feel hopeless or overwhelmed, they dissociate and are unlikely to even want to engage with solutions. Furthermore, dispense with the negative solutions, he advises. Focusing on a shared vision is more useful: What kind of world do we want to leave our children? What ethics and principles can we embrace to make a difference? How can American ingenuity be used to solve even one problem of climate change?

Hoffman points out that Americans have faced equally huge economic challenges before and overcome them. While he does not equate slavery with global warming, he uses the institution of slavery and the worldviews that surrounded it as an example. Since a huge part of the southern economy was dependent on slavery, there was significant resistance to abolition and the perceived sanctimony of the abolitionists. Yet, abolition did happen, and the world did not end. Americans adapted. Hoffman believes that we can similarly see our way forward through the major institutional and infrastructure changes needed to address climate change.



At only 120 pages, the book is written in clear language for a generalist audience. In 2017, the University of Michigan posted a 49-minute YouTube video of Hoffman’s presentation on the book. In the presentation, he covers all the salient points of the book, touching on topics in each chapter.