spinofflive
Image: Tina Tiller
Image: Tina Tiller

SocietyJuly 27, 2022

Happy copycats: The psychology of taking climate action

Image: Tina Tiller
Image: Tina Tiller

Berating people with bad news isn’t conducive to making change. Future Proof‘s Ellen Rykers asks professor Niki Harré about the psychology of sustainability.

A lot of New Zealanders care about climate change, according to a recent survey. But fewer of us actually take action in our daily lives. Why does this gap exist? Maybe in some cases we don’t know what actions to take, or sometimes it’s just tricky to do the sustainable thing. Plus, when you read about “climate criminal” celebrities taking 17-minute flights in their private jets, composting that spinach past its use-by date might seem, well, pointless. You are not alone. And therein lies the secret: there is power in numbers.

Professor Niki Harré from the University of Auckland was drawn to study the psychology of sustainability when she first learnt about climate change and realised it was “unreservedly my problem, as it is everyone’s problem”. She researches how to engage people in creating a more sustainable and equitable society, using psychology.

“There’s some sort of assumption that if we simply repeat how bad the situation is and how much we need to change, this will magically result in people altering their lives,” says Harré. “What that misunderstands is the way in which life is interwoven with a whole series of different values and demands. And it’s very difficult to just pick out one and just change that.”

Professor Niki Harré. (Photo: Dean Carruthers/University of Auckland)

Part of it has to do with how our systems and society are set up – for example, we’re unlikely to cycle if there isn’t safe cycling infrastructure. Or there may be other life practicalities that get in the way of a more sustainable choice. Some of it can be chalked up to our social networks and organisations, and the norms within those.

Harré reckons that organisations in particular have potential for change that’s “big enough to start to get a bit of traction”. 

“I think organisational level change holds this really good space between the difficulty of doing something as an individual, and the hugeness of it all,” she says. Embedding sustainability in our workplaces, educational institutions and governments is like planting a seed in fertile soil – you’re more likely to get results that stick, and spread like weeds. 

This is partly because humans are copycats, mimicking those around us. “The more we hear about it, see it demonstrated, consider it viable for people like us, the more likely we are to do it,” says Harré. 

But focusing on change at the organisational level doesn’t mean you should stop toting around your reusable coffee cup. It’s about living consistently with our deeply held values. 

“I don’t know how you avoid individual action if you care,” says Harré. “To me the question of whether it’s worth it or not is irrelevant – to me it’s an aesthetic thing, a moral thing, an emotional thing. I don’t want to chuck things in landfill, waste food – that’s just not who I am.”

There’s another key ingredient for change: positive emotions. After all, we’ve got to keep living while we try to make the world a more sustainable place.

In her book, Psychology for a Better World, Harré notes that positive emotions elicit creativity, a desire to connect with others, and openness to change – all things we need if we’re going to tackle climate change and foster a truly sustainable society.

In her book, Harré notes that positive emotions elicit things we need if we’re going to tackle climate change and foster a truly sustainable society. (Image: Auckland University Press)

Harré invites us to experiment with emotion: “Think about whatever scares you most about climate change, and you can actually feel a sort of an inward turn, that closing down, and that sense of desperation that something needs to be done urgently. Whereas with positive emotions, you can feel that sense of possibility, wanting to join with others, a kind of sense that there are multiple ways to deal with this.”

So this brings us back to how we talk about climate change. We can lay out facts “without the catastrophising and the fear, but not straying from the truth”, according to Harré.

‘He mea tautoko nā ngā mema atawhai. Supported by our generous members.’
Liam Rātana
— Ātea editor

“I do wish people would think really hard about what they’re conveying to young people,” she says. “When a young person is right in front of you, you can see what a treasure that person is, and all their vulnerability. Then, it’s brutal, really, to insist to a young person that the planet is in dire straits and nothing is being done about it.”

You may find the doom and gloom exhausting and overwhelming. But dystopia isn’t a given for our future, and perhaps it’s time we start imagining something better, and start embracing being happy, sustainable copycats. Because when it comes to the environment, sustainability and climate change, as Harré says, “Nobody is out of place here – this is all of our issue in a very genuine way.”


Sign up to The Spinoff’s brand new weekly newsletter Future Proof, sponsored by Electric Kiwi. Every Wednesday, Ellen Rykers will dive into what’s happening in the environment to keep you informed, empowered and inspired about our natural world. Sign up by August 9 and go in the draw to win a year’s free power for our partners at Electric Kiwi. (T&Cs apply.)

Keep going!
The Manly inclusive jersey (Image: Manly inclusion)
The Manly inclusive jersey (Image: Manly inclusion)

SocietyJuly 27, 2022

The inclusive Manly jersey is promoting a sin

The Manly inclusive jersey (Image: Manly inclusion)
The Manly inclusive jersey (Image: Manly inclusion)

It’s called gambling and it goes against some players’ religious beliefs.

Seven Manly Sea Eagles players have boycotted the club’s new “inclusive” jersey due to its promotion of something that goes against their religious and cultural beliefs. Josh Aloiai, Jason Saab, Christian Tuipulotu, Josh Schuster, Haumole Olakau’atu, Tolutau Koula and Toafofoa Sipley refused to wear the jersey and will not play in the club’s scheduled match on Thursday.

What is causing such outrage? In large font on the front of the jerseys is an advertisement for Pointsbet, an online betting platform with the tagline “bet anytime, anywhere”. Pointsbet is the key sponsor for Manly, a decision that must surely have brought tension and complaints from the religious players on the team. 

Olakau’atu is part of the Mormon church, a global religion that is crystal clear in its stance on gambling. “The Church is against all gambling of any kind, including lotteries,” reads the page titled “What is the Church’s position on gambling?” on the church’s website. 

Aloiai studied pastoral care and chaplaincy in 2016 at Inspire Church, a part of the Wesleyan church. The national constitution of the Wesleyan church of NZ (2014) states: “We oppose gambling as it does not reflect Biblical stewardship and encourages the vice of greed. This includes gambling through the TAB, casinos, lotteries, online gambling outlets and similar services.”

It’s unclear what the cultural reasons for boycotting are from the remaining players but it’s assumed they simply don’t care for the known harms caused by gambling, particularly in the Pacific community.

Discussions are presumably under way to determine whether the players will boycott every home game going forward as a primary partner of the Sea Eagles – and the naming sponsor of their home stadium – is 4 Pines Brewing Company. Both Olakau’atu and Aloiai’s religions oppose the consumption and promotion of alcohol and it would go against their beliefs to play within a system that benefits the manufacturers of an immoral product. 

This is only the beginning of tensions between rugby league and religion. Games against the Panthers and Sharks may also be on the chopping block for the seven players as the Penrith and Cronulla home stadiums are named Bluebet and Pointsbet respectively. In the long term, the players may even be enticed to switch to rugby union in New Zealand, where calls are increasing to ban alcohol advertising in sports

‘Love The Spinoff? Its future depends on your support. Become a member today.’
Madeleine Chapman
— Editor

The players have come under fire for boycotting the jersey based on religious and cultural reasons (again, the cultural reasons have not been disclosed) but this may signal a turning point in rugby league. Will accepting money to promote harmful practices and substances soon be too unpopular to maintain? Will the stand from these seven players be the catalyst for a more wholesome and family-friendly sport? Only time will tell.

In an unfortunate coincidence, the “inclusive” jersey also includes colourful piping in solidarity with a marginalised community, exactly the type of thing religions – where “love thy neighbour” is foundational – would jump to support.