Kubler-Ross's 5 Stages of Grief Applied to Climate Change

Elizabeth Kubler-Ross identified five stages of grief which have recently been applied to many other types of change. The five stages are:

1. Denial
2. Anger
3. Bargaining
4. Depression
5. Acceptance

It has long been my position that what is commonly referred to as resistance to change can be better understood as one of the first four stages of grief. In my own personal history I have experienced all five stages in relation to global climate change. And while I'll describe that in order, I want to emphasize that my progression through the stages has been far from linear. Before reaching acceptance I swirled and spiraled around and through the first four phases a number of times.

Denial - I became aware of 'global warming' as it was called, in 1991 when I was in high school. I wrote a term paper on rainforest deforestation my junior year and a term paper on global warming my senior year. I'd have to say that for me 'denial' was the first 16 years of my life when I loved being outdoors but had absolutely no sense of environmental ethics.

Anger - Throughout the 1990s I was very angry about the history of Western civilization, industry, and capitalism. In general I felt like the only way justice could be served was if ALL humans (including me) were anihilated and the Earth was left to heal herself.

Bargaining - In 2000 I joined the US Forest Service. I was a GS-4 Visitor Information Specialist. I spent my days talking with visitors about the natural environment and picking up cigarette butts in Sedona, AZ. During this phase I spent much of my time, both personally and professionally seeking ways to balance nature and humanity so that our species could perhaps learn from our mistakes and co-evolve with the Earth.

Depression - I've had seasons of depression throughout the previous stages. There have been times when I feel like we're completely doomed. There have been times when I have felt like some groups will survive but most others will experience cataclysmic demise and death. At I've sought to understand multiple perspectives I've encountered numerous religious, cultural, and philosophical perspectives which predict or suggest a huge die-off of humans. Each time this possibility presents itself to me I attempt to really feel the full depth of my dispair, or sometimes our collective dispair... and somehow, each time I dive deeply into the possibility of loosing everything, I end up experiencing some form of acceptance.

Acceptance - From within depression I have noticed the equisite beauty of the fragility of all of Earth, including humans. My sorrow has been a type of gateway, as if the tears have washed away the selfishness of my personal perspective and left me with the ability to appreciate all of creation. From this place of appreciation I noticed a sense of connectedness with all of creation. I should clarify that the sense of connectedness was not new, but noticing this unity of consciousness while standing on the bridge between depression and acceptance of global climate change provides an entirely different vista. In fact, acceptance has, for me, been a gateway to a sixth stage: hope.

Hope - I stand firmly rooted in acceptance of mankinds past foibles and follies. I can appreciate that every generation has always done the best they could with what they had. I have come to forgive the fires of industry as an amplification of a parent's deep drive to provide well for the family. In acceptance of our present global situation I discovered a number of people who were highly motivated to generate change. I have a deep sense of gratitude and hope for all of Earth and her children. I understand that we're connected and that though there may be a great deal of uncertainty and even catastrophe, I trust that we are learning and we will continue to evolve together.

In my next post I intend to broaden the application of these stages of change and apply them to the myriad of perspectives which I observe when considering the complexity of climate change. To do this I will share portions of a causal loop analysis which I've been developing along with several others.

Can Economic Needs Drive the Greening of Americans?

Recently I had the opportunity to speak to some individuals affiliated with the timber industry, representing both local government and private interests. Something very interesting occurred to me in response to the conversations.

Regardless of whether people believe that the climate is changing, and regardless of whether they feel that climate change is driven by humans, there are people and companies joining the green movement because of economic interests. This probably doesn't come as a huge suprise to everyone. I've long heard self proclaimed greenies complain when giant careless corporations go green just to maximize profits.

What I am writing about today is something else entirely. I'm talking about hard working, honest Americans who are in industries which are collapsing under current conditions. I'm talking about folks who perhaps even belong to political parties, clubs, and churches which take a strong anti-climate change, or anti-anthropogenic climate change stance; who are reconsidering green technologies so that they don't loose their homes, jobs, and the land which has been in their family for generations.



The green curve you see above is a change curve that is so popular that I could not determine who originated it. It basically shows a bell curve distribution of people in response to any particular change. Under it is an amplifying loop, or growth engine entitled "Reinforced Survival of Individuals and Families. It can be read like this: employment leads to water, food, and shelter, which leads to individual and family survival, which (according to Maslow) affords one the capacity for higher learning, in this case the capacity to learn a trade. Over time this leads to being employable and over time that leads to having employment, which provides food and shelther.

In my most recent post, Honoring Multiple Perspectives, I spoke about how there are many mixed opinions around the possibility of global climate change. Today I suggest to you that the greening of America does not depend upon agreement around the science of climate change. Regardless of our science, politics, or theology, we all share the same fundamental human needs for food and shelter. In the end, only that which makes economic sense to real people will be implemented.