Confronting, collaborating, withdrawing? A psychiatric evaluation of three strategies to promote political climate action

This qualitative study analyzes the lack of political action to address climate change using a psychiatric lens, and frames that ambivalence lies at the core of inaction. While most politicians understand that climate action is absolutely necessary, any significant action is stalled by a number of important barriers they have to overcome. Using clinical analogies from eating disorders and the scientific literature on motivational change, this paper analyzes three current strategies that push for political action. First, using force and emotions (like confronting activists) is equivalent to playing a power struggle, which risks increasing politicians' resistance to change. Second, collaborative discussions in multilateral conferences and debates risk feeding verbal manifestos without enacting behavioural change. Withdrawal from the manifestos of politicians is a third strategy to push for change discussed in this paper. However, even after bypassing manifestos, this strategy is unlikely to succeed because the benefits of greenhouse gas emissions, linked to our current social norms, seriously outweigh the benefits of climate action. Overall, all three methods present severe flaws and are not viable solutions to help politicians implement climate action. Other enhanced options are likely to be necessary.