Slashdot Mirror
How Human Psychology Holds Back Climate Change Action
Hugh Pickens DOT Com writes "Cass R. Sunstein writes at Bloomberg that an understanding of human psychology — specifically, what human beings fear and what they do not — helps to explain why nations haven't insisted on more significant emissions reductions even as scientists warn that if the world continues on its current course, we will face exceedingly serious losses and threats including a significant rise in sea levels by century's end. First, people tend to be especially focused on risks or hazards that have an identifiable perpetrator, and for that reason produce outrage. 'Warmer temperatures are a product not of any particular human being or group, but the interaction between nature and countless decisions by countless people. There are no obvious devils or demons — no individuals who intend to create the harms associated with climate change.' The second obstacle is that people tend to evaluate risks by way of 'the availability heuristic,' which leads them to assess the probability of harm by asking whether a readily available example comes to mind. For example, an act of terrorism is likely to be both available and salient, and hence makes people fear that another such event will occur. A recent crime or accident can activate attention and significantly inflate people's assessment of risk. Finally, human beings are far more attentive to immediate threats than to long-term ones. They may neglect the future, seeing it as a kind of foreign country, one they may not ever visit. For this reason, they might fail to save for retirement, or they might engage in risk-taking behavior such as smoking or unhealthy eating that will harm their future selves. 'All the obstacles are daunting skepticism about the science, economic self-interest, and the difficulties of designing cost-effective approaches and obtaining an international agreement,' concludes Sunstein, 'But the world is unlikely to make much progress on climate change until the barrier of human psychology is squarely addressed.'"
Because there must be something psychologically invalid about the people who do not 'believe' as you do...it could not be, I don't know, that you have not made a strong argument for the position you are taking.
I am John Hurt.
Meh, all the same, he has a point. World leaders aren't going to enact any significant environmental regulation this until people start dying. Regulating CFCs to help restore the ozone hole was the only piece of environmental regulation in my limited knowledge of recent history that I'm aware of that was enacted without anyone dying. I'd like to attribute that to a brief time in the 80s when people actually trusted scientists, but it was probably more public fear of scientists and radioactivity against a weak aerosol manufacturer lobby.
This world view makes perfect sense.
Which is why governments should use taxes to make that 30mpg car HURT your pocketbook more than the 50mpg car.
With the first link, the chain is forged.
It can be cheaper to go green. Drop down to 1 car if possible (try to bike or walk instead). Buy clothes from the thrift store etc. Switch to mostly vegetarian diet (maybe not cheaper now, but meat prices are skyrocketing so it will likely get there soon). Run your AC/heat less. Buy a used car (it may get less mpg but I imagine the emissons saved from not having to manufacture/transport a brand new car would make it worth it) In general, buying/consuming less is greener, and obviously cheaper. I bet it has a much higher impact than buying organic/fair trade shit, or prius's
Maybe Cass can use the same explanation to explain our $16 Trillion debt.
The same explanation does hold in both cases. The main difference is that climate is a real physical phenomenon, whereas money is purely psychological. It's a measure of intention that people try to keep track of using rewriteable magnetic patterns on spinning disks.
I concluded long ago that due to human nature, nothing will be done about climate change until the resulting unfolding disasters force people to make desperate feats of geoengineering to attempt to reverse the damage. The cost of those efforts is probably going to make $16T look like a drop in the bucket.
"I'm gonna get my kicks before the whole shithouse goes up in flames."
-Jim Morrison
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
1.) What is the societal cost of cutting energy usage. How much does this cost in comparison to warming.
2.) Explain how using less carbonaceous fuel here will prevent it from being burned there.
Please invent some psychobabble to explain common sense.
love is just extroverted narcissism
A better reason why there has been little "action" on climate change is that it is all based on bad science with no reliable predictions and constant falsification.
The Environmental Protection Agency was pushed through by, of all people, Richard Nixon. Nobody was actively dying, but some rivers were burning and a few writers (Rachael Carson comes to mind) were making a big splash. So something like this can be done - as long as no one else is looking.
I rather doubt that the EPA could get created de novo these days. What they did actually worked to a large degree and things don't seem so bad unless your a Anne Rand level Libertarian. Also, the rules and regs that the EPA created didn't change the fundamental underpinnings of society or cost all that much money (rending of garments and wailing from certain industries notwithstanding).
Climate change is a whole other set of problems. To cut down carbon emissions fast enough to make a difference will take the wind out of the economic sails of most of the G20. That isn't going to happen unless the Flying Spaghetti Monster himself arises from the pasta bowel and shakes Parmesan cheese over the planet. And it's not even clear that such a level of change will do anything measurable. So faced with the likelihood of economic (and societal and military destruction) over the possibility that we can do something about it, the actual rational answer is to .... punt.
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
There's the issue of what to do. At the moment, there seems to be a lot of division and non-answers on that. If climate models are correct, a leveling off or small reduction in emissions won't do anything to help. Even massive cuts might not do the trick. Ok well going back to the pre-industrial era isn't an option, though some green groups do like the idea. That would entail a massive loss of life and loss of quality of life. So no go there.
Likewise carbon credits, carbon exchanges, that kind of shit won't do anything. Playing money games and shuffling things around on spreadsheets does not enact any kind of real change. While economic incentives can help move things in certain directions, this won't really do that much and mostly will serve to enrich those that play the exchanges (see Wall Street).
Ok so, we'll need something else. Some geoengineering to change what is happening, or we'll need to do R&D on solutions not to change what is happening, but to survive and adapt to the changes that are going to happen. So what are those then? What are the proposals, what do they cost, what are the risks, the benefits, etc, etc? Also where are the green groups pushing for them, advocating for it?
Right now, it seems to be not just that there are people who do not believe that climate change is real, or is a problem (or a big enough problem to warrant large scale action), but there seems to be little in the way of solutions from those that do believe. "Just cut emissions," does not seem to be a solution that will be useful. "Cap and trade," seems to just maintain the status quo, while funneling money around to poorer countries. None of the popular solution with the climate change advocates seem to be one that would actually deal with the issue.
Is it such a surprise then that politicians don't seem to want to act on it?
I mean suppose I tell you that you have a real problem with your house, it is slowly deteriorating towards a collapse. I am able to prove this to your satisfaction, and I am able to show you that the reason is related to water use. Any time you run water though your pipes, it moves things further along. Also, as best as I can tell, even if you stopped running water entirely, you are already past the point where you can save it, it WILL collapse, all you can do is slow it.
However as solutions, I propose you just try and use less water. Maybe crap in a bucket and dump it outside instead of using your toilet. I also propose you "cap and trade" your usage, you don't actually have to decrease the amount you use, but you just pay your neighbours when you use over a certain amount. None of my solutions involve fixing the problem, or rebuilding, or reinforcing, just trying to prolong things and/or shuffling funds around.
Are you going to do what I suggest? Or are you going to ignore me?
That's one of the real problems I see is that the solutions climate change advocates seem to put forward aren't useful solutions by their own models. If we are already past a tipping point where even drastic emissions cuts won't help, well then we need to stop worrying about emissions and start worrying about either how to geoengineer a change, or how to simply deal with the changes that are coming.
That doesn't prove that anything I said is patently false. It just means that 66.4% of the studies weren't designed to provide a conclusion on cause. It's not a vote one way or the other. It is outside the scope of what is trying to be measured. Most likely some of those studies are concerned with the real world impact of climate change without caring so much about the cause. If my study was on the impact of climate change on polar bears I am not going to espouse an opinion on why.
About one half of our country is listening to the corporate line; fed to them through a filter of spurious skepticism of a stance about as close to absolute certainty as you see in the scientific community.
I swear to God...I swear to God! That is NOT how you treat your human!
For Christ's sake, click your own link. They already value lives, you silly person. He's just saying we ought to put more resources towards saving a 10 year old who will live to be 79, then saving a 84 year old who won't live to see 85.
Play Command HQ online
Of course! Increasing tax loads always has the intended side effect. Why, if we taxed death itself, there would certainly be less of it, simply because people couldn't afford it.
In reality, people will be forced to forgo better jobs at further distances, or to move closer to their jobs, or (and this is good) choose a means of transportation that can get them there while abiding by your 'rules'...but I am willing to wager a small sum of money that many of those modes of transportation will not be on the approved list...and that the number of catastrophic accidents will increase.
I am John Hurt.
Which is why governments should use taxes to make that 30mpg car HURT your pocketbook more than the 50mpg car.
Yes. Lets artificially make cars more expensive, because then this guy wont have to worry so much about his retirement, or the expense of raising his kids. That also will be great for the people with jobs making cars... /sarcasm
The number one killer in the world is poverty. Advocating for artificial inefficiency is advocating for the killing of real living people. Deaths due to government-mandated inefficiency arent just theoretical.
50mpg cars already have a real economic advantage over 30mpg cars. If that advantage isn't good enough, then figure out why it isn't and fix the real problem. Artificial inefficiency doesnt actually fix problems, it just pretends to. Some people are OK with pretending, because they are shallow and the act of worshiping a particular cause makes them feel better even though at its core its just an empty high at the expense of everyone else.
"His name was James Damore."
No assumption about it. Anthropogenic climate change has already started to seriously affect the world. Many are simply not perceptive enough to realize that yet.
You know what holds ME back?
I work hard. I worry about retirement, about having kids. I can't AFFORD to spend "extra" to go green. I will do what is cheapest. If, in the long run, a 30 mpg car helps my pocketbook over a 50 mpg car, I'll get it. I make no apologies.
And that is the problem with most Americans. They mod this up, because doesn't everyone really just care about numero uno? If I sacrifice, no one else will, and they will laugh while I suffer? Sickening. Is this what we've become? From "land of the brave" to "land of craving grubbing cowards." Americans used to have a concept of "common or greater good," of "helping your neighbor," of "advancing the nation." Now it's just scrounging for scraps before the rest of the curs grab them. The problem is NOT the economy, it's NOT the criminals in congress, it's NOT the invisible terrorists, it's this attitude that it's not only OK to be selfish, but it's rational and expected.
Well, fuck you all and your tiny little world view. Humanity will grow and advance and reach out to the stars, and they will leave your filthy ass behind. It's time to bury Franklin's experiment, and get the people in this country who still have goals and ideals and courage someplace to do the work that needs to be done. I have no problem cutting loose the detritus. You are already dead and buried as far as I'm concerned.
Was that strong enough?
The only thing worse than a Democrat is a Republican.
Bullshit. If you are middle-income or higher in western society, you can obviously afford to spend extra. We don't need cable tv, smartphones, internet, cell phone plans, netflix, etc etc etc. We do need a climate that is bearable to live in.
You come a lot closer in your third paragraph: "Westerners want cheap goods."
And I'll admit, I'm no better. Could I spend more on going green? Sure. I do a small amount (mass transit to/from work, LED bulbs, recycling, etc), but in the end, I still want my smartphone, tablet, fast internet, television, etc, and I'm willing to sacrifice "green choices" to get these.
Oh, I have perfect faith we will come through this. I just doubt we will come through this unscathed. But it's really hard to get leaders to act on projects that may only see fruition in 30-40 years, when most politicians don't care past the next 4 year term, and most CEO's don't care past the next quarter.
If he were serious, he would have said that Hurricane chart went to 11....
Even if it doesn't happen the way it's 'supposed' to, it doesn't change my argument. It's too complex and the potential fixes are too difficult economically, politically and militarily to envision. I pointed out to rwa2 that you could indeed push environmental regs through the system. Just not to the level we would need to meet the presumed threat*. I actually agree with his major thesis that politically we won't start doing much until people are really dying.
Of course, by then the only way to solve the problem will be to nuke it from orbit.
* I think the data is most consistent with a moderate change in the environment over the next generation or so. Unfortunately, mankind is pushing up against the carrying capacity of the environment and even if the changes are relatively modest, they're going to create a world of hurt. So to speak.
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
Many are simply not perceptive enough to realize that yet.
I would include you in that number. Observation bias is the big problem that AGW advocates haven't bothered to overcome yet.
What they did actually worked to a large degree and things don't seem so bad unless your a Anne Rand level Libertarian.
Why is the EPA still pushing through new regulations? Why is it finding novel and unconstitutional ways to enforce its regulations?
The couple, Chantell and Michael Sackett, had started to fill the home site with dirt and gravel to prepare for construction. But the EPA intervened, announcing that the property was a regulated wetland. Agency officials ordered the couple to restore the land to its original state or face up to $75,000 a day in fines.
The Sacketts disputed the EPA's wetland designation and filed a lawsuit to litigate the issue in federal court.
The EPA argued that the Sacketts' lawsuit must be dismissed because the EPA's Clean Water Act compliance order did not amount to final agency action.
In other words, the EPA claimed that the plaintiff's didn't have standing to sue the EPA even though they were being fined by the EPA $75,000 a day if they didn't comply with costly reversal of their construction efforts. One doesn't have to be an Objectivist to think that's very unfair.
The thing here is that the EPA pretty much fixed the problems that led to its creation. Yet it's still growing. It should be like a fire department where it's funded a fixed amount to do a set job and doesn't keep enlarging itself to do more and control more.
And the EPA is far from alone in this mission creep. The NSA is another fine example which has extended itself to the point where it's eavesdropping on the entire world. A little while back in the Fast and Furious scandal the ATF was equipping the Sinaloa cartel in Mexico with high quality US firearms under the pretext of trying to stop gun smuggling. And it appears that such guns were found at crime scenes involving more than 200 murder victims in Mexico and the US.