What’s Risk Perception & Ideology Got To Do With It? How One’s Worldview Influences the Response to the Pandemic & Climate Change

Source: Financial Management magazine https://www.fm-magazine.com/news/2020/jul/risk-management-lessons-from-coronavirus-pandemic.html

What is ideology but a set of beliefs or philosophies that someone holds at a point of time and is 100% shaped by our social environments – where we live, how we live, based on our politics, our families or friends, our shared and individual social norms and experiences. Although we aren’t born with it, but wow does it have an important role in shaping our present and our futures (and now our planetary pathways too)!

A big influence on how we perceive major risk issues – be it the environment/climate change, technological change, war, economic troubles and social deviances – is determined by our ideologies and how we think individuals and societal institutions should function. Risk is a big factor in what decisions we take (for the current and future) and our culture and ideology more than influences what we see as being risky.

Given that climate change is a big issue where future wellbeing is determined by current risk reduction, it becomes necessary to understand how our own behavioural biases are preventing us from making overall better (or optimal) decisions in the present. A very interesting preview for what is to come (in reacting to climate impacts) can be seen with our current response in the ongoing pandemic! This blog post is a result of a frequent discussion we have, on why people don’t respond as easily to climate or risk information and why culture and communication have a huge influence on what is seen as a social and individual priority.

Before we start talking about the past 8 months of 2020, here’s a quick summary of what is documented in academic literature as risk- and cultural- biases. Based on culture theory there are three distinctive patterns of social relationships – hierarchical (highly influenced by social norms and social structures of society), egalitarian (value strong equality and reducing inequality among people based on wealth/gender/social class etc) and individualist (support decisions best for individual, i.e. more freedom and a more self-centered view).

VASU: These cultural social relationships are the basis of what forms our ideology and how our distinctive culture can influences our views under high risk scenarios like climate change or the pandemic. Unfortunately, the influence of scientific facts and knowledge is subsequently reduced in the face of these biases and social influences. If it wasn’t the case, we would have likely solved societal problems like climate change and pandemics already!

According to cultural theory, our social relationship biases influence our priority on things like environmental risks (climate change) or even health risks (pandemic response). For instance, if you were more egalitarian in nature, you would see environment/climate change as being more important as opposed to risks posed by economic troubles. Hierarchical society is driven by following social rules and maintaining social norms – anything that deviates from this is seen as a risk. And individualist societies are more likely to perceive risks on things that restrict their personal freedoms (think America and protests against wearing masks).

Even as I write this, the tweets on my twitter timeline are telling of the polarization of the pandemic and other societal problems like climate change. Some argue for it, others against it. Some say its getting better, others say it’s getting worse. In some countries COVID numbers are rising, in other countries the numbers seem to be falling. Due to a globally connected society, I am able to access the same information as someone from around the world – allowing us to truly educate ourselves and keep informed. And information can be a direct influencer of what we believe to be a risk – but whether that information is reliable in this age of social media is a highly debatable topic. Whether it is even reliable from a government can be highly contested – as seen in the early days of the pandemic and on how certain governments handled COVID disclosures. As one study puts it, even in straightforward global issues like climate change (which has full scientific agreement),there is still ongoing debate on whether it is urgent and if any changes need to be made (even as we lose valuable time) because cultural norms tend to encourage short-term thinking and reinforce our biases.

This brings me to what we hear around us and how we process this information to fit within our worldview – what are our friends, family, colleagues, politicians, policymakers etc. actually saying and how does it reinforce our idea of a response in the face of a societal threat? As humans we constantly look to reinforce our beliefs and our way of life – we like the status quo and nobody likes having their world views questioned or critiqued. This is known as confirmation bias and is documented in everything we do! We want to reinforce what we believe in – same goes with the pandemic and how we perceive it, with a little help from friends/family/peers of course!

Here’s why social circles matter and based on your social relationship biases (hierarchical/egalitarian/individualism) one tends to filter the information in a manner that fits within ones worldview – influencing whether we perceive the pandemic as a threat or not! Sadly, climate change is a threat multiplier and social problems seen in this pandemic (job losses, housing instability, food insecurity, mental health issues etc) are only going to get worse with more climate disasters – making our confirmation bias even more likely to kick in and influence our reaction and our social situation (better or worse).

VASU & MATT: An evident example of this in our experiences has been when it comes to social gatherings. In Canada (where we live), indoor social gatherings are highly discouraged because they are a major cause of COVID spread – with limited ICUs and extended strain on healthcare workers – there is a social stigma on those that go ahead with social gatherings, especially during a lockdown. It is socially bad to meet others in a setting that will enable a greater spread (or is inconsistent behaviour to the rules) – and because it is socially unacceptable, people are less likely to do it. In fact it encourages a sense of social repercussion for people that do take these actions, like the recent hypocritical case of Ontario Finance Minister who was away on international vacation as the provincial lockdown that started in December (people to stay home and avoid social gatherings or travel). This caused a public outrage and has led people to demand his resignation – a consequence of how social pressures can also evaluate leadership in times of crisis. But social pressure also depends on what sort of issue is taken seriously and prioritized by a society – economic recovery? those affected? the environment? social norms? Only time will tell what is truly important to a society, but in the meantime we end up losing lives as collateral in a totally preventable crisis.

In India (where my family lives), social gatherings have always been a big part of society (even more so than other parts of the world). Even in a pandemic, social gatherings like weddings and family get-togethers have continued, although at a limited capacity than before. But the social stigma doesn’t exist for those that hold these events, rather for those that do not attend them. As you can see, each place has a different kind of risk perception for the same problem and it is most definitely influenced by the social pressures and social relationships among people. Now you can understand how hard it is to convince people that climate change is an important (social, financial, physical and mental) risk -there is no single global agreement or definition for risk (even as we live through a global pandemic)!

MATT: If we were to look at these global events – whether it be pandemic or climate change – based on solely on what information they provided (not always through a social lens) and reacted to them accordingly, the solutions would be straightforward. New Zealand has been an interesting example of controlling the COVID spread based on its quick and efficient response, evolving guidelines based on scientific expert advice, clear leadership and effective rule following by its citizens. Although it is a small nation, we can all learn a lot when it comes to responding to such crisis – better knowing our cultural biases, (re-)evaluating our risk perceptions and understanding how our social spheres influence our reactions to threats we perceive (which might not always be a good thing).

Leading by example in the pandemic situation is seen by those that are well informed (based on scientific information and not social media), exemplify consistent leadership behaviour (evolving with the situation and not giving in to traditional management approaches/social pressures – a good example is companies that have changed back to working from home for employees after seeing a second wave), concern for others as opposed self concern (not meeting as many people that you usually would/keeping a closed bubble/taking precautions with vulnerable people).

Nobody likes making sacrifices (after all it wouldn’t be called a sacrifice if we did like it) – but that is what real leadership and response to rational information is all about. It is making decisions that might not be popular or might go against the status quo – for the greater good (which is obviously a very subjective thing based on where you live). Fortunately, in Canada the greater good is seen as the state of the health, rather than the economy (and we are fortunate to have this frame of mind) – however, this is also a short-term problem that has a visible impact from political decisions. But when it comes to climate change, these decisions have to be made again (and may not have a visible present day impact) and sometimes the economy ends up winning. If we were in fact a leader, it would mean making sacrifices in the present (transitioning away from fossil fuel industries) to allow for wellbeing in the future (a safer environment for future generations): A lesson from the pandemic as we live it – because as nice as it would be to meet our friends and family across the world (short-term thinking), it doesn’t mean that we should (long-term thinking) because it might mean exposing them to the virus. To us, this is what the greater good is all about!

VASU & MATT: As more climate impacts occur – some of which may come in the form of new and deadlier pandemics – our social and individual resilience might try to get us back to our old normal, but sometimes we need to go beyond normal to really tackle the problem in a way that prevents it from occurring again. Risk perception and risk taking is good in certain contexts (career/social situations etc.), but the real (bad) risk happens when we as a society cannot come together to address a future where our livelihoods, our societal structures and our sense of climate safety are gravely threatened just because we did not listen to the warning signs and gave in to our biases.

Here’s a great video that explains (in animation) why facts don’t work and why ideologies need changing:

What Happens When Social Inequality, Pandemics and Climate Change Collide?


Vasu’s Note: This post is a different one than our usual ones (that are more research based/data linked/have recommendations about carbon footprints). I wrote this op-ed back in 2015 (and didn’t end up sharing) until today. I have added a few updates regarding the ongoing social unrest and pandemic situation around the world, but most of it has stayed the same. Surprisingly, I didn’t think something I wrote back in 2015 would hold five years later.


“It was the best of times, it was the worst of times, it was the age of wisdom, it was the age of foolishness”

Remember Charles Dickens’ famous book, ‘The Tale of Two Cities’? It opens with these lines describing the turbulent times of the French Revolution. The story is that of the common citizens of London and Paris, who lived nasty, brutish and short lives. The elite on the other hand, had a powerful influence on the way society functioned. What has changed since the 1859 French Revolution? Not much, the poorest sections in our society are deprived, demoralized and powerless whereas the richest 1% of the world owns nearly half the global wealth. 

Although it might not be the 19st century anymore, issues of social injustice like inequality and poverty very much exist in 2015. We now live in an age where people have access to cellphones but not safe drinking water. How did this happen? With too many people and too few resources, basic necessities like safe drinking water become less accessible than buying a cellphone. When fundamental human rights such as safe drinking water become expensive and insufficient, one can see that humanity’s future stands on uncertain grounds.

This race to survive is evident in Mumbai’s traffic. A few years ago, this was only obvious during peak traffic hours. When cars got stuck in traffic lanes that extended for miles during rush hour. However, now even in the non-peak hours, there’s always a car or twelve trying to cut through the lights and ends up causing a traffic jam. In countries like India where there is additional enforcement of traffic rules by a traffic policeman, there’s a complete disregard for rules due to an absence of the fear of getting caught. In case of a problem, one can easily hide in the crowd. And it is this crowd that keeps growing by the second. This situation is seen in most developing countries that have poorly planned roads and a growing middle class. With an increasing disposable income, buying cars just becomes that much easier. And it’s no secret that more cars equals bigger traffic jams and greater air pollution. In cities like Mumbai or Jakarta, there always seems to be a rush to get somewhere or past the next light before someone else does.

As human population starts growing bigger, the world starts getting smaller. With extreme disparity everywhere, slums and high-rise condos co-exist in almost all cities. Unfortunately, global problems like climate change just end up amplifying this disparity, which in turn expose the social fault lines of societies. The elites of the world always have been in a better position to deal with any crisis, whether natural or man-made. The poor, however, are left vulnerable and expected to survive in the most brutal conditions possible. When the 7.8 magnitude earthquake struck Nepal, most countries sent in missions to help with recovery and relief. But even before this earthquake struck, geologists had warned about the risk for decades. These warnings had not prompted any planning for disasters. There was neither a contingency plan nor enough resources for proper planning. With the official death toll at 7000 and rising, less structural damage could have reduced the number of deaths. When perceived risk is high, society is very much capable of taking measures to reduce such damages. In July 1993 when a 7.8 magnitude earthquake struck the coast of northern Japan, it reportedly killed only 36 people and left much less structural damage than the Nepal earthquake. For a developed country like Japan, the risk of earthquakes has always been high but the damage caused has been controlled with proper planning. Similarly, we have missed the mark on pandemic preparedness (either through stockpiling) or the social safety nets (high unemployment, lack of savings and healthcare options) we are unable to provide to those affected the most.

When you look at a transboundary problem like climate change, its effects seem too big to fathom as well. For a person living in resource-rich countries like Canada, problems of drought in Africa sound too foreign to care about. Yet one notices that the weather around us is changing. It might be something as small as an unusual bug infestation affecting Ottawa to something as big as polar vortexes affecting all of North America. One might not understand issues that affect developing countries; such as lack of clean water, malnutrition or even natural disasters, but what one does understand is that the weather around us is becoming more severe and uncertain. 

The crux of the matter is that we rely too much on free market economics and let it shape the inequalities of the world. In the game of globalization and free trade, there have always been winners and losers. Traditional economics looks at how individuals or even nations can maximize their own benefit rather than the benefit to society. Based on this assumption we have built entire market systems and even countries that reward this behaviour. Markets don’t take into account the gains to nature – only the gains to consumers! ‘Externalities’ such as drinking water shortages or species extinction are almost never counted. Most traditional economic models assume that resources are non-exhaustive and assume having a safe natural environment as being a given. In all of human history, there has never been a market for nature and its conservation, just for more consumerism. And more importantly, we as a society seem to have failed in maximizing our utility. Not only is there greater economic disparity and issues of social injustice in the present, but we have also alienated the environment to the extent that freak weather patterns are now becoming the norm. 

With increasing environmental problems and no constraint on population growth, the future looks bleak. Although studies have shown that we have the willingness to save our planet, we lack the urgency to do so. And in the age of information, it is hard not to become egotistical. With the amount of news that is now instantly available, hearing about people dying in Malawi, South Africa due to floods seems distant and un-relatable. Has the worth of a human life diminished or are we just blocking out emotions in order to deal with the constant bad news that comes our way? This is no different from the current stream of bad news related to ever-increasing COVID19 cases that we just don’t want to see anymore.

Empathy, being the cornerstone of human behavior is what makes us understand other people’s sufferings. However, in recent years, studies have shown that empathy levels are decreasing and narcissism is on the rise; the Millennials have now become ‘Generation Me.’ With the constant stream of bad news from various newspapers and news channels, we have developed a defence mechanism. The lower empathy levels and constant bad news seems to have pushed thoughts of gloom and doom at the back of our minds, leaving us more apathetic than before. 

With increasing disparity it seems impossible to care about what happens in a far away country; especially where we have nothing in common with the people, the culture or the environment they live in. The most important solution to global problems like climate change, social injustice or even a pandemic (and keeping in mind that our actions have consequences for others) lies in being empathetic and acting on it. This begs the question, how do you empathize with someone you seem to have nothing in common with?

The answer is by connecting individuals and families. If your friend is going through troubled times, you do everything you can to help them. As John Steinbeck put it, “It means very little to know that a million people are starving unless you know one person who is starving.” And I am not talking about volun-tourism or posting about it on social media, but empowerment through education and engagement. The West has the money and knowledge whereas the East has the need and manpower to convert these ideas into actions. With the level of globalization and technological advances, connecting with someone on the other side of the world is just a Skype (or Zoom) call away. 

The youth around the world are the future and there has never been a better time to identify with someone from a different culture or country. An empathetic network needs to be established between the Global North and South as well as between those that are privileged and those that are not. By creating a connection around issues of the environment and global warming, we can create an equitable global community (or as close to one as possible)- that will also allows us to address other related issues like global health or systemic racism. Having such a network where a privileged youth can connect with someone who isn’t privileged would help establish an empathetic connection based on the common issues affecting our planet – and that in itself would be an important step towards a sustainable future. 

Much like the COVID-19 pandemic, if future risk around climate change and global warming is left unaddressed, problems like rising sea levels and food shortages (among many other climate impacts) will have a domino effect into social and economic issues of immigration, race, religion, terrorism, poverty, economic markets, businesses practices and standards of living around the world. It is our job as citizens to ensure that the political will of our country is addressing these issues in the most just and equitable way possible. Although governments will continue to behave in typical ways that are in-tune with archaic politics or pleasing the elites, it can be through individual stories (the likes of Greta Thunberg or George Floyd) that we are able to create a global social movement which ultimately changes voter priorities and makes elected officials care about distant (and social equity-linked) issues like climate change. Caring is an important act in our journey towards action, and if we can make a difference by creating empathy through conversations with those around us, we are able to change the world in our own little way. These are important times that we live in, where our future (and our humanity) lies in our decisions and our conversations in the present.

Fight, Flight or Maybe Just Better Preparedness? Thoughts on COVID-19 and Climate Change

MATT & VASU: We are writing a blog post after what seems like a decade – well, six months to be more precise (last post on October 2019)! Ever since our last post, we’ve gotten married in India (a blog post for another time), trying to plan a Canadian reception, getting through busy days at work and school as well as dealing with the biggest worldwide issues in 2020 – like the COVID-19 pandemic.

Although we usually talk about our experiences with changing our carbon footprint, this blog post is a bit more urgent and relevant to what’s going on around the world today. As most of you know, COVID-19 has been declared a pandemic by the WHO since March 11, 2020 – just 11 days ago! Feels like a lifetime ago because so much has happened since then – countries closing their borders, international travel winding down, economies are showing volatility and might be heading towards a global recession, food shortages are being caused due to people’s hoarding mentality and things like toilet paper/hand sanitizers are running out.

In order to address the fear that COVID-19 will infect everyone and at the same time, it feels like the world is gearing towards a shift in day-to-day life. Suddenly we have social distancing in place (upside: an increase in contact with friends and family through social media/skype etc), offices are making employees work from home (upside: cutting down carbon dioxide emissions from daily commuting) and people want to support communities more (upside: supporting more local business in innovative ways).

All the business-as-usual (at work, communities and even at home) has suddenly stopped and we think a lot more people are faced with the idea of sudden change (including us!). Which is why it made us reflect on what exactly was “business-as-usual” for us – why commute when you can work remotely? Why travel when you can stay at home and enjoy a nice evening together? Why go to different places unnecessarily (including multiple trips to the grocery store or for non-essential things) when you can plan and make one trip? It’s because of COVID-19 that we’ve had to put a break on our “life-as-usual” and think about what was really necessary and what was being done to fit the social norm/because it had no consequences – a lesson we will continue into life after COVID-19 as well (especially given that climate impacts are around the corner!)

But the downside of this global pandemic has been the sudden fight and flight response among people (who probably never anticipated experiencing such sudden change in their lives). Since both of us have a risk averse nature, we always thought about different scenarios (both good and bad ones), especially given climate impacts and of where and how our lives would turn out in the future. For instance, would we want to live in a place that could be experiencing greater flooding/wildfires/heatwaves in the future? The answer is no and our life-decisions have always been based on such basic risk/climate information. But sadly, not everyone thinks in these terms because decision-making is more geared towards the short-term. Yet the irony is that all global phenomenas like climate change or pandemics, are impacted by short-term decisions (things we can change now) having long-term consequences (how bad the future will turn out).

Taking COVID-19 as an example, we see more countries encouraging social distancing (staying at home to avoid unnecessary spread), yet it becomes hard to do if there is no immediate impact, you can’t see the benefits right away or it has an economic loss of some sorts – the best example for a short-term decision with a long-term impact! And yet, this is hard for people to implement in their daily lives because we are all part of some social/work/traditional routine. We see this in places which are used to being social/community-oriented as well as how it affects our present or near-future plans. One of the reasons why we are not prepared to change with the times so quickly, is the lack of willingness to anticipate risk events and change itself.

Climate change and COVID-19 definitely have things in common where global change is coming, whether or not we like it. So a good way to deal with massive societal change (in good times and bad) – is to see how we can prepare for it in advance. In climate change studies (where I work) as well as risk mitigation (where Matt works), we use scenario analysis to see how we will react to different situations (the good, the bad, and the ugly).

Similarly, if we are going to get through this with our heads on our shoulders (without fighting with each other or escaping into denial), we need to prepare like never before. A good first step is having a purposeful mental health strategy that allows one to stay up to date with information (reading the news once a day or taking an hour to speak about it with friends and family everyday), but in a way that doesn’t create more panic and allows us to keep up with the evolving nature of the pandemic. It’s highly necessary that we keep functioning in a way that keeps our immunity high in such times of unexpected and ongoing stresses.

So self-care is important and take time to do something for yourself every day – whether it is watching a feel-good movie, sports highlights of your favourite teams, making good meals at home, reading a good book, partaking in a old or new hobby, going for a walk (we’ve been doing this everyday and it really helps being out in nature – but make sure to keep distance with others out as well) and talking to your loved ones.

When talking with your friends and family, its important to not overwhelm anyone – whether it is “why are you freaking out vs. why aren’t you freaking out” types of conversations. Since you will react to the stress of a pandemic in your own way (some might overreact whereas others might under-react based on their personalities), it is important to reassure yourself that balance is the key and that you can learn from each other. Those that are overreacting (e.g. it is the end of the world) should learn to take a step back and see that this will end eventually (once a vaccine is out or we are able to flatten the curve). Those that are under-reacting (e.g. going about their lives with no significant changes) should realize that this is an important situation where their actions and decisions impact not only themselves but others that are more vulnerable (or that depend on them) as well. Thinking and more importantly talking about different scenarios (such as self-isolation, community spread, changing resource-use and affecting future plans) will help both types of people get through this in a helpful way.

Applying it our lives: we see our own future plans changing due to COVD-19 impacts, but right now the best course of action is to be proactive in planning how that change will come about as well as taking new/sudden changes day-by-day (so as to not overwhelm our mental health).

In terms of the short-term planning (now to 6 months): if one of us gets sick, how do we live in the same house? Do we have enough cleaning supplies to make sure we don’t spread it further? If we don’t have access to food/are too sick to cook, do we have enough stock to get through for a few days? Do we have enough medicines/energy drinks etc. to get us through a few weeks? Are we making sure to wash our hands after coming home/going out? Do we have enough stock of fruits and veggies to eat healthy? How are we able to maintain an exercise routine at home?

In terms of the mid-term planning (6 months to 1 year): What insurance options are there and what should we be getting for things like our wedding reception/planned vacations etc.? How often should we be keeping in touch with our families if we can’t seem them over the next few months to a year? Are we taking care of our health and immunity through good eating and exercise routines?

Long-term planning (1 year and over): Are we saving enough to get us through things like a recession or big economic losses? What kind of decisions to make around life-changing milestones such as having kids/getting pets/where to live? If this situation happens again (a high probability, given that melting arctic is releasing old and new viruses), how should we be prepared for it?

You should think about making lists like these so that you are better prepared (but keep in mind the context of where you live and your current lifestyles). If you are able to purposefully plan for different scenarios, it will not only ease your mind, but also give you a plan of action when it comes to unexpected yet long-term global changes like an ongoing pandemic or climate impacts in our futures.

To end and summarize our suggestions, here’s a great video by Astronaut Chris Hadfield on a guide to self-isolation: