How Human Psychology Holds Back Climate Change Action 530
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.'"
Uhg, not Cass Sunstein (Score:5, Informative)
This is the same guy that thinks animals should have a right to sue people:
http://www.opposingviews.com/i/cass-sunstein-proposes-that-animals-should-have-legal-right-to-sue [opposingviews.com]
Nothing this guy says should be taken seriously.
Re:Uhg, not Cass Sunstein (Score:4, Informative)
His views on the First Amendment are also odious, as he has called for "reformulating" related law and supported the infiltration and propaganda against groups that are considered wrong by the government.
Oh, and he's not only married to the U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, but has the ear of the President.
Re:And just maybe... (Score:1, Informative)
Patently false.
Actual study: We analyze the evolution of the scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming (AGW) in the peer-reviewed scientific literature, examining 11,944 climate abstracts from 1991–2011 matching the topics 'global climate change' or 'global warming'. We find that 66.4% of abstracts expressed no position on AGW, 32.6% endorsed AGW, 0.7% rejected AGW and 0.3% were uncertain about the cause of global warming. Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming.
Actual study summary: 32.6% of published, peer-reviewed scientific papers about 'global climate change' or 'global warming' espouse a position. 97.1% of these endorse that humans cause this. Overall, 31.7% of published, peer-reviewed scientific papers studied agree that global warming is a real, human-made thing.
Claim made: 97% of studies [unqualified for publishing or peer-review] agree that humans cause global warming:
Yeah well except that 97% of studies agree about man's impact on accelerating climate change.
Claim made: 97% of climate scientists agree that humans cause global warming.
I guess 97% of experts could be wrong but you look at some charts you don't fully understand must be right.
Fact: Less than a third of published, peer-reviewed studies in the source study cited take the position that global warming is a real and man-made phenomena.
Re:Nonsense (Score:4, Informative)
Tens of thousands. You mean the 11,944 peer reviewed scientific studies conducted from 1991-2011, of which 32.6% endorse AGW and 97.1% of those claim it's human-made, giving 3,894 papers endorsing global warming, of which 3,777 claim it's human-caused?
Re:Uhg, not Cass Sunstein (Score:3, Informative)
The aerosol manufacturers were for it, actually -- the patents on the propellants and refrigerants that were going to be banned (like R-12) had all expired, and the patents on the new ones (like R-134a) had not. This is also what's driving the current migration from R-134a to HFO-1234yf.
Ob. Simpsons (Score:2, Informative)
Homer: That's future Homer's problem. Man, I sure don't envy that guy!
Re:Some say...why bother? Too much a PITA. (Score:1, Informative)
Same deal happened with Passenger Pigeons,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passenger_Pigeon [wikipedia.org]
The Passenger Pigeon or Wild Pigeon (Ectopistes migratorius) is an extinct North American bird. The species lived in enormous migratory flocks until the early 20th century, when hunting and habitat destruction led to its demise.[2] One flock in 1866 in southern Ontario was described as being 1 mi (1.5 km) wide and 300 mi (500 km) long, took 14 hours to pass, and held in excess of 3.5 billion birds.
Tunnel nets were also used to great effect, and one particularly large net was capable of catching 3,500 pigeons at a time.
At a nesting site in Petoskey, Michigan in 1878, 50,000 birds were killed each day for nearly five months.
Paul Ehrlich reported that a "single hunter" sent three million birds to eastern cities during his career.
By the mid-1890s, the Passenger Pigeon almost completely disappeared. In 1897, a bill was introduced in the Michigan legislature asking for a 10-year closed season on Passenger Pigeons. This was a futile gesture. Similar legal measures were passed and disregarded in Pennsylvania.
The last fully authenticated record of a wild bird was near Sargents, Pike County, Ohio, on March 22 or 24, 1900, when the bird was killed by a boy named Press Clay Southworth with a BB gun.
And today, same thing happening with birds passing through Afghanistan.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-23486991 [bbc.co.uk]
So what do you expect from AGW? People will do *nothing* until it bites them in the ass. Montreal Protocol was only created to preserve Ozone because,
1. ozone depletion already started and there were measurable effects - including sunburn
2. you could replace the CFCs in question with better ones - one company that had a patent was against regulation, but they changed their mind when patent expired! Imagine that!
3. some didn't like that if nothing was done, ozone would be completely gone by 2020 and we'd have UV index of 60+ instead of mere 10 or 15
With AGW, it will be ignored until it can't be ignored no more. By then, the effects could become catastrophic, just like with passenger pigeons. Unlike CFCs that kill ozone for 40 years, released carbon stays in carbon cycle for many centuries.. Even acting when we chose to act will not stop AGW from being very nasty indeed. +10C minimum over current temperatures (of +15C).
Re:Here's what holds ME back. (Score:2, Informative)
Making people/businesses pay the cost of their externalities is the only way to avoid the tragedy of the commons without imposing regulations that limit freedom to a greater extent.
Would you rather have to pay extra to use a gas guzzler or not have the option to buy it at all?
Oh, and government shouldn't try to make a 30mpg car hurt your pocketbook more than a 50mpg car...that's discriminatory in the wrong way. Someone who owns a 50mpg car with a 50mi/day commute is more of a problem than someone with a 30mpg car who commutes 15mi/day. Tax fuel consumption, not fuel efficiency.
Re:Uhg, not Cass Sunstein (Score:2, Informative)
Except there hasn't been any warming for 200 months.
Re:You invert science and ethics (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Uhg, not Cass Sunstein (Score:4, Informative)
Do you actually know what happened there?
CFC's re replaced with HCFC's. They're not as bad for the ozone layer. They're only 98% as bad.
DuPont got paid to:
1) Recycle all the freon.
2) Make machines to do 1)
3) Make all the HFCF's
4) Make all the machines fo use 3)
A former Dupont exec I met in first class once said they'd pretty much made it all up. Notice we cut back, not eliminated CFCs? Hows the ozone layer doing 30 years later now ?
It's easy to spot a manufactured crisis for commercial gain after the fact.