" ... there is much evidence suggesting a confirmatory bias, ie a tendency to search for or interpret information in a way that confirms one's preconceptions and to avoid information and interpretations that contradict prior beliefs ..."
Another related psychological aspect appears a couple of pages earlier:
" ... there is also much evidence in favour of what psychologists term 'cognitive dissonance' ... which suggests that inconsistency between beliefs and behaviours causes an uncomfortable psychological tension, sometimes implying that people change their beliefs to fit their behaviour, instead of changing their behaviour to fit their beliefs (as is conventionally assumed)."
This is a significant aspect of human behaviour. It potentially explains why it took such a long time for climate change to become a generally held belief, in the same way that it took a long time for the belief that the Earth was flat to be replaced with a generally accepted belief that it is round. (I classify this as a belief, because there is only a miniscule proportion of the Earth's population who have actually travelled away from the Earth far enough to be able to come back and say "yep - it's round alright" - the vast majority are largely relying on believing those who have done it, and from scientists who say it is the case, not from their own direct experiences of it).
It potentially explains why, despite decades of mounting evidence about the inability of the planet to sustain the projected future human population and its activities, we seem to be inexorably bound up in a socio-economic and political path of (practically) unconstrained growth and resource exploitation. These effects have arguably resulted in the current inertia preventing many people from re-imagining the way we could run our economies. It means we are fighting a hard battle if we want to, for example, build a global balance sheet, including using human wellbeing as a measure of the success of nations rather than continue to focus so much on the 'profit and loss' mentality of GDP (where both the income and the costs are counted as positive economic activities). Politicians of almost all ideologies (and their electorates) see economic growth as the way out of our present-day problems of national debt, poverty and unemployment. The existing capitalist paradigm seems, at times like this, to be like an unassailable and unquestionable castle holding the strategic ground and driving the way our world works, preventing change in the timescales that are needed.
However, when faced with a seemingly immovable object (for example a tree-stump I need to remove in the garden), I'm usually reminded of the irresistible force paradox. If I want something to move, I re-imagine myself as the irresistible force, and deploy the argument that the resolution of this paradox is that the object is overcome by the force. (However, there are obviously other resolutions imaginable - I'm sometimes in a position of wanting to be an immovable object, so take the alternative resolution as my means of tackling the situation psychologically).
Back to the topic of sustainability - In order to avoid falling into traps of taking up entrenched, extreme positions at either end of the spectrum of views, I frequently find myself reflecting on and challenging the bases underlying my positions on the various aspects of sustainability, which often comes down to establishing or verifying a belief system. This is because of the inevitable impacts and cross-overs between economics, politics and social ethics in dealing with this subject. I commend this approach to others, so that we can, together, provide bridges between extreme views and avoid debates deteriorating into polarised and immobile, sterile 'comment tennis'.