Mask denialism is genuinely irrational.

While few respond as violently as Zaboroski, many display a strong aversion to wearing masks. A plethora of viral videos document confrontations in grocery stores and on airplanes over mask policies. Retail giants like Walmart and Lowe’s have reportedly ceased enforcing mask mandates to avoid clashes with irate customers. It is astonishing to see how far the mask debate has devolved, particularly given that it was scarcely a topic of contention just six months ago.

The anti-mask sentiment is not a spontaneous reaction. Since the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, President Trump has consistently downplayed its severity. He expressed hesitance about mask-wearing until July, only wearing one publicly for the first time then. Although he has not outright condemned mask usage, he has criticized mask mandates and dismissed the idea of a national mask policy. Right-wing influencers have eagerly adopted his stance, resulting in the intense confrontations we witness today.

The perception that mask-related hysteria is confined to the United States is misleading. On August 1, protests against mask mandates took place in Germany, with large crowds gathering without face coverings. Canadians have also demonstrated against these mandates, and surveys indicate that many Britons are reluctant to wear masks, despite the U.K. having the highest COVID-19 death toll in Europe. The phenomenon of anti-mask sentiment is, in fact, a global issue.

For those concerned about climate change, the parallels between skepticism towards COVID-19 and climate science are striking. Experts warn of impending disasters, yet their advice goes unheeded. The debate is often framed as a choice between economic interests and scientific reality, when in truth, the economy faces dire consequences if these crises are not addressed. Solutions to these emergencies have consistently been underfunded and undervalued.

A broader conversation is needed regarding the relationship between climate change denial and COVID-19 skepticism. Both stem from a shared anti-intellectual sentiment, but fully exploring this topic requires more extensive analysis. For now, focusing on the mask debate reveals that the gradual shift in public opinion may not necessarily lead to widespread acceptance of environmental policies, as demonstrated by the challenges posed by the mask backlash.

Note: Individuals with genuine respiratory conditions have valid reasons for not wearing masks. Criticism is aimed at those who can wear masks but choose not to, rather than those who wish to wear masks but cannot.

Good Science Isn’t Enough

The science behind masks is straightforward: wearing a face covering reduces the spread of viral particles. While there are nuances, including the types of masks and their effectiveness in protecting others, the fundamental premise is logical and supported by various studies.

Mask skeptics have devised flawed arguments against mask usage. For instance, Dr. Mikovits, a controversial figure in the COVID-skeptic community, claims—without evidence—that masks "activate" the virus. Other conspiracy theorists allege that masks can lead to a dangerous buildup of exhaled carbon dioxide, which can cause individuals to faint or even die (again, no evidence supports this). Congressman Gohmert, after testing positive for COVID-19, suggested that wearing a mask might have led to his infection.

Yet, there is no scientific basis for these claims.

For those who embrace a scientific worldview, there is a belief that clear evidence and robust theories will eventually persuade skeptics. However, the reality, as illustrated by mask opposition, is that sound science alone is insufficient to change some minds.

This lesson should be particularly alarming for those concerned about climate change. Climate science is significantly more complex than that of masks. A basic understanding of climate change necessitates knowledge of emissions, atmospheric science, and climatology. If the straightforward science of masks could not prevail in public discourse, the challenges facing climate change advocates are even more formidable. Calls to better inform the public or create more compelling narratives to sway skeptics often overlook the fact that purely rational arguments are inadequate.

Public Opinion Isn’t Enough

Monitoring the mask debate might lead one to think that opinions on mask-wearing are evenly split. Many issues in American society tend to be polarized along partisan lines, with approximately 45% in favor and 45% opposed, while the remainder remains neutral. For example, surveys show 45% of Americans believe income taxes are too high, while 48% think they are appropriate (Gallup, 2019). However, mask opinions differ significantly. According to Pew Research, 80% of individuals wear masks at least some of the time in stores, while Gallup found that 86% used a mask at least once in the past week. Mask mandates also enjoy strong support, with 79% favoring them, as reported by Harvard CAPS/Harris. Such levels of consensus are rare in America’s polarized landscape.

This overwhelming agreement on mask usage is encouraging but raises questions: why does a segment of the population remain so resistant to masks despite social pressure? This phenomenon can be attributed to our media environment. While major media outlets generally avoid amplifying anti-mask narratives, the mere coverage of the debate creates the illusion that mask skepticism is a prevalent viewpoint. Furthermore, those skeptical about masks often hold very strong convictions, leading them to actively participate in town halls and online discussions.

In contrast, climate skepticism constitutes a significantly larger segment of the population. A Gallup poll from April indicated that only 68% of people believe most scientists think global warming is real, and 64% attribute it to human activities. Moreover, only 46% express significant concern about climate change. YouGov found that only 69% of respondents believed that global warming contributes to summer heat waves, illustrating that climate skeptics represent a substantial portion of the U.S. populace.

Given the struggles to implement mask mandates despite widespread public support, one can only imagine the backlash against more sweeping climate policies. Even if environmentalists manage to shift public opinion from 60% favoring climate action to 80%, the remaining 20% will likely resist vehemently. It is unfeasible to shame this final group into changing their beliefs, as evidenced by the vocal minority of mask skeptics in the face of overwhelming pro-mask messaging. Policymakers must recognize that a portion of the population may never accept climate change and must design legislation accordingly.

It is also important to remember that wearing a mask is a minor request compared to the extensive measures needed to combat climate change.

No Such Thing as a “Small Ask”

Requiring individuals to wear masks in public is a minimal request for the vast majority. Many locations provide masks for free, and they are not needed at home or in personal vehicles. There are no demands for changes in taxes, transportation methods, or diets. While masks may be slightly uncomfortable and visually unappealing, they do not impose a significant burden.

Mask skeptics often espouse an extreme interpretation of freedom and rights, arguing that requiring mask-wearing infringes upon personal liberty. This perspective is both legally and philosophically flawed. Local and state governments have the authority to impose regulations on various matters, and legal precedents affirm that mask mandates are constitutional. Claims that it is unlawful to require customers to wear masks are particularly absurd, considering businesses have enforced "no shirt, no shoes, no service" policies for decades.

While the legal objections to mask mandates are laughable, the ethical arguments raise more serious concerns. Mask skeptics essentially posit that any limitation on their freedoms is immoral. They view it as tyrannical for the government to request the populace to do anything to assist others, even in life-and-death situations. This stance is extreme in virtually any philosophical framework outside of radical libertarianism. It is evident that these beliefs are not derived from a careful examination of philosophical literature; rather, they likely stem from a quasi-religious conviction that absolute rights are entwined with American nationalism, reinforced by right-wing media.

This brings to mind a poignant quote from a well-known HuffPost article: "I Don’t Know How To Explain To You That You Should Care About Other People" — Kyla Chadwick.

Masks are fundamentally about safeguarding others. If their primary purpose were to protect the wearer, the entire debate would be moot. If one believes COVID-19 is a hoax, they could forgo the mask and accept the risks themselves.

Much like masks, limiting greenhouse gas emissions is about supporting the collective, rather than individual benefit. While there may be some personal advantages to eco-friendly choices, many individuals will resist lifestyle changes necessary to reduce emissions. When the very notion of "caring for others" becomes contentious, the political landscape surrounding climate change appears insurmountable.

Importantly, the benefits of mask-wearing accrue primarily to one's immediate community. It is friends, family, and local business employees who stand to gain the most from mask compliance. Thus, appealing to individuals to care for their neighborhoods should be straightforward, yet it seems that even this simple request is too much to ask.

Rallying empathy for climate change will be substantially more challenging than promoting mask usage. Research from Nature indicates that the regions most severely affected by rising sea levels will be Southeast Asia, encompassing India, China, Thailand, and Bangladesh, with Bangladesh already grappling with significant flooding. Africa is facing widespread drought, according to Oxfam. Those most impacted by climate change will differ culturally and ethnically from the affluent nations primarily responsible for it.

This realization has been profoundly disheartening over recent months. It is painfully clear that many people simply do not care. They may not desire a healthier community or a more sustainable world; they merely wish to avoid inconvenience. If individuals are unwilling to protect their own communities from a deadly virus, what hope is there that they will extend their compassion to those on the other side of the globe?

Uncomfortable Lessons

Addressing COVID-19 has proven to be a formidable challenge for society, but it pales in comparison to the task of confronting climate change. Mask-wearing should have been a straightforward issue: the science is intuitive, public sentiment is overwhelmingly in favor, masks are a minor inconvenience, and they are inexpensive, primarily benefiting those closest to the wearer. Nevertheless, mask skeptics have instigated a protracted struggle that is likely to persist for months, if not years.

The resistance to masks and climate science arises from a failure of both shared epistemology and empathy. To believe that masks are hazardous necessitates a rejection of scientific reasoning. Viewing mask mandates as unethical reflects an individualistic moral framework that threatens the cohesion of society. These frameworks of knowledge and morality are vital for functional communities. Absent them, there is no shared logic to bridge societal divides. While it may seem exaggerated to suggest that a few individuals claiming masks cause CO2 poisoning signify a societal breakdown, it is indicative of intellectual decay. Should this deterioration continue, addressing major challenges will become increasingly impossible.

This article does not aim to propose solutions, but it does call for acknowledgment of the magnitude of the issues we face, including the necessity for social unity. The pandemic served as a practice test, and we failed—miserably.

Environmental advocates must take the potential for backlash against climate initiatives seriously. Current projections indicate we are on a path toward catastrophic warming. How can we establish a sustainable economy when approximately 20% of the population staunchly opposes such measures? What strategies can create political will when the scientific landscape is complex? How do we articulate the importance of caring for others? To have any hope of resolving the climate crisis, we must seek answers to these pressing questions.

More from the author: newsletter, website, email, Twitter.