[TheClimate.Vote] May 29, 2018 - Daily Global Warming News Digest
Richard Pauli
richard at theclimate.vote
Tue May 29 08:48:12 EDT 2018
/May 29, 2018/
SEVERE FLOODING | Ellicott City, Maryland
*Catastrophic flooding hits Baltimore suburb: Surreal video
<https://www.theweathernetwork.com/us/news/articles/us-weather/maryland-baltimore-ellicott-city-rain-flood-emergency-evacuations/102433>*
Monday, May 28, 2018 - Heavy rain and severe flooding made streets in
Ellicott City, Maryland look like a river on Sunday (May 27).
Videos uploaded to social media showed completely flooded streets,
stranded cars and people trapped in buildings looking through windows as
water flowed by.
Local media reported up to 8 inches of rain had fallen on Ellicott City
in only two hours. Maryland Governor Larry Hogan declared a state of
emergency.
"It's really, truly devastating. I would say it's as bad or worse than
the storm two years ago," said Hogan in a press conference Sunday.
https://www.theweathernetwork.com/us/news/articles/us-weather/maryland-baltimore-ellicott-city-rain-flood-emergency-evacuations/102433
- -- -
[India]
*Aside From Battling Climate Change, We're Not Doing Enough to Adapt to
It
<https://thewire.in/environment/aside-from-battling-climate-change-were-not-doing-enough-to-adapt-to-it>*
Credit ratings agencies must evaluate the impact of climate change on
urban local bodies and reassess their access to cheap credit.
Last week, a dust storm raged over Uttar Pradesh and Rajasthan, killing
over 100 people and raising concerns over extreme weather events and
their causal links to anthropogenic climate change.
There have been two major types of policy responses to climate change:
mitigation and adaptation. Mitigation addresses the root causes and
focuses on reducing future greenhouse gas emissions, while adaptation
seeks to lower current risks posed by the effects of climatic change.
Even if we successfully reduce emissions over the next decade,
adaptation will still be necessary to deal with the short- to
medium-term risks associated with carbon emissions released over the
last century - including protecting ourselves against freak weather
events like dust storms.
Other measures include building defences to protect against sea-level
rise, deploying early warning systems against cyclones, revising
building codes, diversifying crops, installing micro-irrigation systems
and increasing penetration of weather insurance.
Costs of delaying adaptation
According to an HSBC repor
<https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2018/03/india-most-vulnerable-country-to-climate-change>t
published in March 2018, India is among those nations considered most
vulnerable to the effects of climate change. The highest risks are
concentrated among low-income groups living in houses that are more
easily damaged by wind and water hazards during extreme weather events.
https://thewire.in/environment/aside-from-battling-climate-change-were-not-doing-enough-to-adapt-to-it
[Opinion]
*When it comes to climate change, our governments are letting us down
<https://www.cnet.com/news/green-energy-renewables-governments-climate-change/>*
Commentary: At the cutting edge of green energy tech, there's a common
thread: Governments aren't doing enough to secure our future.
Mark Serrels - May 25, 2018
We're heading in the wrong direction. We're ignoring the possibilities.
Based on current data, Australia is expected to miss the targets set out
by the Paris climate accord -- a UN agreement designed to help curb
global greenhouse emissions -- by 26 percent to 28 percent. In July
2017, Donald Trump withdrew the US from the Paris Agreement completely
to "save jobs."
We're heading in the wrong direction. We're ignoring the possibilities.
A future powered entirely by renewable energy is not only within reach,
it's already possible. Countries like Iceland, Costa Rica, Albania,
Ethiopia, Paraguay, Zambia and Norway are already at 99 percent or 100
percent.
https://www.cnet.com/news/green-energy-renewables-governments-climate-change/
[Good idea]
*Limiting global warming could avoid millions of dengue fever cases
<https://phys.org/news/2018-05-limiting-global-millions-dengue-fever.html>*
May 28, 2018, University of East Anglia
Limiting global warming to 1.5 degrees C could avoid around 3.3 million
cases of dengue fever per year in Latin America and the Caribbean alone
- according to new research from the University of East Anglia (UEA).
A new report published today in the Proceedings of the National Academy
of Sciences (PNAS) reveals that limiting warming to the goal of the UN
Paris Agreement would also stop dengue spreading to areas where
incidence is currently low.
A global warming trajectory of 3.7 degrees C could lead to an increase
of up to 7.5 million additional cases per year by the middle of this
century.
Dengue fever is a tropical disease caused by a virus that is spread by
mosquitoes, with symptoms including fever, headache, muscle and joint
pain. It is endemic to over 100 countries, and infects around 390
million people worldwide each year, with an estimated 54 million cases
in Latin America and the Caribbean.
Because the mosquitoes that carry and transmit the virus thrive in warm
and humid conditions, it is more commonly found in areas with these
weather conditions. There is no specific treatment or vaccine for dengue
and in rare cases it can be lethal.
Read more at:
https://phys.org/news/2018-05-limiting-global-millions-dengue-fever.html#jCp
[Climate Denier Roundup]
*Indulge Them on Conspiracy Theories, And Deniers Might Just Warm to
Climate Consensus
<https://www.desmogblog.com/2018/05/25/indulge-conspiracy-theories-deniers-might-warm-climate-consensus>*
Friday, May 25, 2018
A new study in the AMS journal Weather, Climate and Society suggests
that there's an interesting way to soften denier rejection of the
consensus on climate change: validate their conspiracy theories.
The approach outlined in the study is pretty simple. The researchers
asked nearly 500 people to what extent they agreed with the sentiment
that climate change is a hoax or conspiracy, along with a few other
simple questions, like their political orientation. Then they gave
respondents information about the consensus on climate change.
But before the consensus message was delivered, the test subjects were
also told that "a majority of people acknowledge that on many topics,
powerful people work to mislead citizens for bad purposes. Yet human
induced climate change is not one of those topics."
Finally, people were asked to what extent they think climate change is
caused by humans, as opposed to being a natural phenomenon. Researchers
also asked if respondents would be interested in hearing more
information about human-induced climate change.
The hoax believers shown the statement that conspiracies exist then
became more accepting of human causation than those conspiracy theorists
who weren't shown the reaffirming statement.
On its face, it's a counterintuitive finding. How does validating
conspiracies make people less likely to embrace them? The study doesn't
delve into the psychology, but does suggest that offering that
reassurance that sometimes conspiracies exist may make respondents "feel
less motivated to defend their prior belief or worldview and be more
open to consensus scientific information."
This hypothesis does make some sense. We know that denial is a
psychological defense mechanism that's triggered by unwanted
information. By indulging people's natural skepticism and understanding
that not all those with power use it for good, we can perhaps offer a
bit of preemptive comfort before delivering the consensus message.
In other words, conspiracy theorists/climate deniers may gain
intellectual flexibility from feeling like they're in a safe space
rather than under attack. The acknowledgement that that yes,
conspiracies exist but no, climate change isn't one of them, perhaps
functions like something of an olive branch. It's recognition that it's
not totally insane to think that perhaps a group is lying about the
climate for their own gain.
Because, to be fair, that is definitely a thing that happens …
https://www.desmogblog.com/2018/05/25/indulge-conspiracy-theories-deniers-might-warm-climate-consensus
[Game Theory]
National Geographic Magazine
*What a Simple Psychological Test Reveals About Climate Change*
<https://www.nationalgeographic.com/magazine/2018/06/embark-essay-tragedy-of-the-commons-greed-common-good/>
If everyone's success depended on it, would you share - or be selfish?
By Dylan Selterman
I teach undergraduate psychology courses at the University of Maryland,
and my classes draw students with diverse interests. But every one of
them perks up when I pose this question: Do you want two extra-credit
points on your term paper, or six points?
I tell my students that the extra-credit offer is part of an exercise
illustrating the interconnectedness of choices individuals make in
communities. I explain that the exercise was inspired by an ecologist
named Garrett Hardin and an address that he delivered 50 years ago this
summer, describing what he called "the tragedy of the commons." Hardin
said that when many individuals act in their own self-interest without
regard for society, the effects can be catastrophic. Hardin used the
19th-century convention of "the commons" - a cattle-grazing pasture that
villagers shared - to warn against the overexploitation of communal
resources.
Garrett Hardin defined 'the tragedy of the commons' as many
individuals acting in their own self-interest without regard for
society. The effects can be catastrophic.
I'm hoping that my students will grasp the connections between the
classroom exercise, Hardin's ideas, and our planet's most pressing
problems (including climate change). I allow them to choose between two
points or six points of extra credit - but there's a catch. I stipulate
that if more than 10 percent of the class members choose six points, no
one gets any points. The extra-credit points are analogous to water,
fuel, grazing pasture (from Hardin's analysis), or any natural resource.
According to some free market economic theories, if everyone strives for
maximum personal benefit, then societies will thrive. By this logic the
student's rational choice would be to pick six points, just as the
shepherd's rational choice would be to use as much grazing pasture as
possible. And those who maximize personal consumption aren't greedy -
they're strategic.
But when everyone chooses this path, the common resource is overtaxed,
and societies end up with overharvesting, water shortages, or climate
change.
A possible solution seems simple: If everyone just moderated their
consumption, we'd have sustainability. As many of my students say, "If
everyone chooses two points, we'll all get the points." And yet, for the
first eight years I used this exercise, only one class - of the dozens I
taught - stayed under the 10 percent threshold. All the other classes
failed.
This exercise was developed more than 25 years ago. Professor Steve
Drigotas of Johns Hopkins University had been using it for some time
when he administered it to me and my classmates in 2005. My class failed
too - and I, who had chosen two points, was incredibly frustrated with
my peers who had chosen six.
In 2015 one of my students tweeted about the exercise - "WHAT KIND OF
PROFESSOR DOES THIS" - and his lament went viral. People around the
globe weighed in: Does so many people choosing six points mean it's
human nature to be greedy and selfish?
Test-Takers Dylan Selterman teaches students about the tragedy of the
commons with this extra-credit exercise:
Choose zero, two, or six points to be added to your final paper grade.
If more than 10 percent of you choose six points, no one will receive
any points. If you choose zero points, you cancel out one of the
six-point choosers, who will receive no points.
In his class in fall semester 2017, how did students respond? Read on.
ZERO POINTS
Devin Porter, 21, sociology major
"I took the class to get something out of it, not necessarily for
the grade. When we didn't get the extra credit, I felt bad for the
people who really needed it, but I wasn't too surprised. People who
chose two made the obvious choice - everyone eats. People who chose
six thought they could get away with it."
TWO POINTS
Robin Bachkosky, 19, nursing major
"I thought I made a pretty beneficial choice for the class and
myself, one that wouldn't necessarily put the class to any
disadvantage but would give me some extra credit. I was a little
disappointed that I didn't get any extra credit just because some of
the other kids were selfish and weren't satisfied with two points."
SIX POINTS
Gunleen Deol, 18, information systems and psychology major
"I thought that the majority of people would choose two and felt
that the rational decision for me to make would be the one that
maximizes my personal benefit, which would be six. Considering how
my choice affected the rest of the class made me wish that I had
chosen two instead."
The class failed the exercise.
Actually most people aren't. But it's very tricky to get people to
cooperate, especially in large groups of complete strangers. After all,
if someone else is taking more for themselves (running more water or
choosing six points), why shouldn't I? But if we all think this way,
eventually we'll all lose.
Hardin suggested that education might make a difference - that if we
teach people about the consequences of taking too much, they might not.
I've been skeptical about this idea. When my student's tweet went viral,
some colleagues said that I wouldn't be able to use the exercise again
(because students would already know how it works). I laughed. If it
were only that easy! My suspicion was justified. Even after the exercise
got wide exposure, my students still failed the challenge to get the
extra-credit points.
Despite this I remain optimistic. After all, most of my students, about
80 percent, choose two points - just as most people choose to cooperate
in real-world situations. Most of us want to do what's right. But that
alone won't solve our problems, so we need to think creatively and use
behavioral science to find solutions.
In 2016 I decided to change things up. In hopes of finding a way to
increase cooperation, I drew from the scientific literature on
social groups and introduced a third option: Students could choose
two points, six points - or zero points. That's right. Zero. Why
would anyone do that? Well, for each student who chose zero points,
one of the six-point choosers (selected randomly) would lose
everything, reducing the total number of six-point choosers by one.
1.71 Earths
Global Footprint Network calculates the date each year when humans'
demand on nature - for food, wood, fiber, and carbon dioxide
absorption - exceeds what Earth can regenerate in a year. In 2017
that "Earth Overshoot Day" was the earliest on record - and humans
used roughly 1.71 Earths' worth of resources.
2017: 1.71 Earths
Overshoot Day: August 2
2011: 1.69 Earths
August 4
2001: 1.38 Earths
September 22
1991: 1.29 Earths
October 10
1981: 1.16 Earths
November 11
1971: 1.03 Earths
December 20
The zero-point option is self-sacrificial; students forgo points for
themselves in order to help the group by restraining those who take too
much. In behavioral experiments this type of action is called altruistic
punishment, a term coined by economists Ernst Fehr and Simon Gächter.
Their research documented people willingly giving up some of their own
resources in order to punish those who behave selfishly in a group
context - and doing so in the belief that every individual profits from
increased cooperation.
Usually a few of my students each semester choose the zero-point option,
and sometimes that's all it takes. Just a handful of people can make a
huge difference - that is, a few self-sacrificing students can bring
down the total number of six-point choosers to below the 10 percent
threshold. This additional element has dramatically increased
cooperation in my courses. Now roughly half my classes receive the
extra-credit points. In my opinion this is a remarkable turnaround. And
some of my classes have done this without anyone actually choosing the
zero-point option; simply knowing it was available was enough to
increase cooperation.
Though this type of solution may work on the small scale of a classroom,
won't we need much larger action to curb global problems like climate
change? Yes, but the principle is the same-it's about collective action
and reducing overconsumption. For example, recently I started
volunteering with Citizens' Climate Lobby (CCL), an organization that
advocates for a policy known as carbon fee and dividend. This plan would
put a steadily rising fee on fossil fuels and distribute the money
raised back to American households (to protect families against rising
costs). Ultimately this would reduce fossil fuel consumption by making
this type of energy more expensive to use - so reducing consumption
would be better for both our wallets and the environment. At CCL,
volunteers meet with lawmakers and conduct outreach to the community.
Through our efforts - again, collective action - we gain allies in
Congress and the public. By early this year the House's bipartisan
Climate Solutions Caucus had 70 members (half Democrats and half
Republicans) from states across the country.
As I write these words, I'm sitting next to my three-month-old daughter,
Amelia. Though the planet faces daunting problems, I'm determined to
help her have a bright future - so I have to believe that action by even
a few people can make a significant difference. A few students can help
an entire class of hundreds gain a leg up in the course. A few people
who recycle or compost can have a contagious effect on others'
lifestyles. A few politicians' votes can alter national and
international policies that affect millions.
The challenge that Garrett Hardin described 50 years ago remains today:
Our survival depends on each of us and all of us conserving the commons.
I choose to remind myself of that with these wise and hopeful lines from
the Beatles: "All the world is birthday cake / so take a piece / but not
too much."
Dylan Selterman is a lecturer at the University of Maryland, College
Park, and former editor in chief of the psychology magazine In-Mind. He
lives in Washington, D.C.
https://www.nationalgeographic.com/magazine/2018/06/embark-essay-tragedy-of-the-commons-greed-common-good/
[Candidates]
*314 Action is proud to endorse these scientists and other STEM leaders
who will fight to protect science and stand up to climate deniers.
<http://www.314action.org/endorsed-candidates-1/>*
http://www.314action.org/endorsed-candidates-1/
*This Day in Climate History - May 29, 2015
<http://www.msnbc.com/the-ed-show/watch/deniers-go-berserk-on--science-guy--454188611636>
- from D.R. Tucker*
May 29, 2015: On CNN and MSNBC, Bill Nye declares that mainstream-media
entities should start covering climate change comprehensively in the
wake of the extreme weather events in Texas and Oklahoma.
http://mediamatters.org/video/2015/05/29/cnns-costello-and-bill-nye-texas-floods-show-ne/203816
http://www.msnbc.com/the-ed-show/watch/deniers-go-berserk-on--science-guy--454188611636
/-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
//Archive of Daily Global Warming News
<https://pairlist10.pair.net/pipermail/theclimate.vote/2017-October/date.html>
//
/https://pairlist10.pair.net/pipermail/theclimate.vote//
///
///To receive daily mailings - click to Subscribe
<mailto:subscribe at theClimate.Vote?subject=Click%20SEND%20to%20process%20your%20request>
/to news digest. /
*** Privacy and Security: * This is a text-only mailing that
carries no images which may originate from remote servers.
Text-only messages provide greater privacy to the receiver and
sender.
By regulation, the .VOTE top-level domain must be used for
democratic and election purposes and cannot be used for
commercial purposes.
To subscribe, email: contact at theclimate.vote with subject:
subscribe, To Unsubscribe, subject: unsubscribe
Also youmay subscribe/unsubscribe at
https://pairlist10.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/theclimate.vote
Links and headlines assembled and curated by Richard Paulifor
http://TheClimate.Vote delivering succinct information for
citizens and responsible governments of all levels. List
membership is confidential and records are scrupulously
restricted to this mailing list.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://pairlist10.pair.net/pipermail/theclimate.vote/attachments/20180529/4ba55c3e/attachment.html>
More information about the TheClimate.Vote
mailing list