[TheClimate.Vote] June 11, 2019 - Daily Global Warming News Digest.

[Richard Pauli]

/June 11, 2019/

[Opinion from Jerry Taylor in The Guardian]
*Conservatives should change how they think about global warming. I did*
The uncertainty of climate change is an argument for - not against - 
decarbonizing the economy as quickly as possible...
- - -
..the real debate in climate science is about how much warming we'll 
have to face, how abrupt it might be, how quickly we can adjust, how 
much severe weather we'll experience, and how likely it is that various 
low-probability, high-impact climate events will come to pass.
Uncertainties persist because scientists are still unsure how sensitive 
the atmosphere is to greenhouse gases. Evidence from the peer-reviewed 
literature suggests that a doubling of greenhouse gas concentrations 
above pre-industrial levels (which we're likely to see sometime after 
mid-century) will probably warm the planet anywhere between 1.5C (2.7F) 
and 4.5C (8.1F).

There's a world of difference between those "likely" low-end and the 
high-end estimates. "Lukewarmers", such as the journalist Matt Ridley, 
contend that warming will be at the low end and prove of little 
consequence. Many scientists, however, have little patience for those 
arguments, arguing instead that warming is more likely to be at the 
higher end, with global environmental and economic convulsion the likes 
of which we've never seen....
- - -
It took time for me to come to the realization that uncertainty is an 
argument for - not against - decarbonizing the economy as quickly as 
possible. Never before have we run an experiment where greenhouse gases 
were loaded into the atmosphere at today's rates. While we don't know 
precisely what will follow, we understand basic physics well enough to 
know that "warming is coming". How much, and how dangerous it will be, 
is an open question, but we have no backup planet if the answer is a bad 
one.

Jerry Taylor is president and co-founder of the Niskanen Center, a 
public policy thinktank in Washington DC. A longer version of this essay 
appeared at The Bulwark
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/jun/10/conservatives-should-change-how-they-think-about-global-warming-i-did
- - -
[Original Essay - long]
*What Changed My Mind About Climate Change?*
Risk management is not a binary choice.
https://thebulwark.com/what-changed-my-mind-about-climate-change/



[Classic Essay - Important discussion]
*33 reasons why mankind isn't acting to stem global warming*
Most of us realise how devastating climate change is likely to be, yet 
do very little to slow the process. Robert Gifford taps into mankind's 
primal tendencies to explain our potentially life-threatening inertia
NEW SCIENTIST - Published: 12:00pm, 14 Aug, 2015
By now, most reasonable people understand that they have been burning 
too much carbon. Most of these same people are still burning too much 
carbon. There is a big gap between our views on climate change and what 
we are actually doing about it. Unfortunately, actions are what matter, 
not sentiments or good intentions.

Most of us have taken some steps in the right direction. However, we 
continue to produce greenhouse gases. Sometimes, we cannot do better; 
not everyone can afford solar panels or has the space to erect them, 
many people couldn't ride a bike to work even if they wanted to and Hong 
Kong would be almost unbearable at this time of year without a certain 
amount of air-conditioning. These are structural barriers, beyond an 
individual's control.

However, for those not restricted by such barriers, adopting more 
pro-climate choices and behaviours is quite feasible. Yet, so far, we 
are not taking enough action to decrease emissions. Why is this? What is 
stopping us from doing at least the things we are capable of?

A few years ago, I began researching this problem. It quickly became 
apparent that many of the barriers to action are not structural, but 
psychological. They are what I call the "Dragons of Inaction". In 
mythology, dragons take on a wide array of forms, and Asian dragons can 
be benevolent. However, as a Westerner, I use dragons as a metaphor for 
these obstacles because Western dragons always seem to be blocking 
humans from some goal or aspiration. Perhaps another less obvious reason 
for this choice lies in the word itself: these barriers are a "drag on" 
progress.

Once one begins looking, a large number of dragons can be found. I have 
identified 33, classified into seven fearsome families:

_DRAGON FAMILY ONE: limited cognition_ Humans are far less rational than 
once believed - which is also true when it comes to thinking about 
climate change. This family, the largest, includes 10 species of dragon.

*1 Ancient brain Our physical brain hasn't evolved much in 30,000 
years**. *Back then, we were wandering around the savannah, concerned 
mainly with our immediate kith and kin, proximate dangers and quickly 
exploitable resources. Although we have learned to think (a bit) about 
other people, distant threats and slowly exploitable resources, our 
ancient brain tends to fall back into the here and now, which is 
inconsistent with paying much heed to the gradual and often distant 
effects of climate change. This makes us slow to act.

*2 Ignorance* Ignorance is a barrier to action in three ways: not 
knowing that climate change exists; not knowing what to do about it once 
you become aware of the problem; and being told wrong information. The 
first problem is shrinking, although factual knowledge still lags 
severely: my team recently tested the climate-change knowledge of a 
representative sample of Canadians. We found that, on average, they 
could correctly answer only 1.5 out of six questions.

Second comes a lack of knowledge about which actions to take; how to 
undertake those we are aware of; and the relative climate benefits of 
various actions. We are getting better at understanding the latter and, 
in broad terms, we know what we should be doing. However, much remains 
to be learned, partly because the answers aren't always universal - a 
best practice in London may not be a best practice in Hong Kong, for 
example. Also, they aren't always obvious - for instance, lamb raised in 
New Zealand and eaten in Britain has a smaller carbon footprint than 
lamb raised and eaten in Britain. And modern products are composed of 
many ingredients or component parts and have complex life cycles.

Third, ignorance also stems from deliberate attempts by groups with a 
vested interest in the production and use of greenhouse gases to cast 
doubt on climate science.

*3 Environmental numbness *This dragon comes in two subspecies.**First, 
every environment is made up of more elements than we can wholly grasp, 
so we attend to them selectively. Sometimes we attend to salient 
elements at the expense of less salient but more dangerous ones, which 
is how accidents happen. Climate change is like that for many: a 
dangerous phenomenon that isn't salient because it isn't causing any 
immediate personal difficulties. This makes action unlikely.

The second form occurs at the other end of the stimulus spectrum. When 
people see the same advert many times, they get used to it and stop 
paying attention. Similarly, hearing about climate change too often, 
particularly if the message isn't varied, can lead to message numbness 
and the attenuation of behaviours that would help ameliorate the problem.
*
**4 Uncertainty *Experiments show that uncertainty - both real and 
perceived - reduces the frequency of pro-environmental behaviour. For 
example, when asked how many fish they would harvest from a hypothetical 
ocean, the more uncertain the number of fish left, the more people said 
they would take. People tend to interpret any sign of uncertainty as 
sufficient reason to act in self-interest. This happens in the real 
world, too. In its 2007 report, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate 
Change (IPCC) expressed its level of confidence in its predictions very 
carefully, using phrases such as "likely" or "very likely". This led 
many to interpret the report as indicating a lower likelihood than the 
IPCC had intended. Thus, we are left with a perplexing problem: how to 
present the likelihood of climate outcomes honestly without promoting 
underestimates of the problem, which, of course, help to justify inaction.

*5 Discounting *One well-known psychological bias is our tendency to 
undervalue distant and future risks. This is also true of climate 
change. For example, my colleagues and I found that citizens in 15 of 18 
countries believe that environmental conditions are worse in other 
countries. Although conditions often are objectively worse elsewhere, 
this tendency occurs even in similar places, such as English villages a 
few kilometres apart. People also tend to discount environmental risks 
that will occur in the future. Both types of discounting are a barrier 
to action against climate change. If conditions are presumed to be worse 
elsewhere and in the future, people will be less motivated to act.

*6 Optimism bias Optimism is generally a healthy, desirable outlook that 
can produce useful personal outcomes.***However, it can be overdone, to 
the detriment of well-being. For example, people are overly optimistic 
about their chances of having a happy marriage or avoiding illness. They 
are also overly optimistic about environmental risks.

*7 Perceived lack of behavioural control* Because climate change is a 
diffuse and global problem, many people do nothing because they think 
their behaviour has little or no impact on the outcome.**Closely related 
to this is fatalism - the sense that nothing can be done, not only by 
oneself, but even by collective human action.

*8 Confirmation bias *We like to be told that we are correct. Therefore, 
people tend to read and watch media that tells them they are on the 
right track. Those who have doubts about climate science prefer to read 
newspapers and watch broadcasts that reinforce their convictions. That, 
in turn, is a serious barrier to engaging in climate-positive behaviour.
*
**9 Time is money Studies show that when people view the time they have 
available in monetary terms, they tend to skip acting in environmentally 
positive ways**. *Money is the epitome of self-interest, and so, when 
one's time becomes associated with it - a common enough scenario in Hong 
Kong - the environment suffers.

*10 Perceived inability* - Many pro-climate actions require some extra 
knowledge, skill or ability. Some people are unable to act because of a 
physical disability, for example. However, many more are capable of, 
say, riding a bicycle or changing their diet, but claim to be unable to 
do so. Protest and sentiment are the easy part; changing lifestyles is a 
lot harder.
_*
*__DRAGON FAMILY TWO: ideologies_
This family includes four broad belief systems that inhibit 
climate-positive behaviour.

*11 World views *World views are broad swathes of connected attitudes. 
Some of them include a special place for views on climate change. For 
example, support for free-enterprise capitalism is especially associated 
with disbelief in global warming. Capitalism has clearly produced 
comfortable lifestyles for millions, but some aspects of it, such as a 
belief in the freedom of the commons - that common resources should be 
exploitable by anyone - have also led to the devastation of fisheries, 
forests and landscapes around the world. Having a financial or emotional 
stake in capitalist organisations isn't compatible with adopting 
climate-positive behaviours.

*12 Suprahuman powers* Some people take little or no action because they 
believe that a religious or secular deity will not forsake them, or will 
do what it wishes anyway. When researchers at the University of 
Melbourne, in Australia, interviewed people living on Tuvalu's main 
island, Funafuti, which is threatened by rising sea levels, they found 
that about half weren't worried, maintaining that God wouldn't break the 
biblical promise never to flood the Earth again. More commonly, secular 
people believe Mother Nature will take a course that we mere mortals 
cannot influence. Climate inaction follows naturally from these beliefs.

*13 Technosalvation* Technical innovation has a long and admirable 
history of improving our standard of living. Clearly, it can be a 
partner in mitigating climate change: witness the recent drop in the 
price of solar panels. However, some go further and believe that 
technology can solve all the problems associated with climate change. 
Such overconfidence can serve as another barrier to climate-mitigating 
behaviour.

*14 System justification* This is the tendency to defend and justify the 
status quo. When people have a comfortable lifestyle, the tendency to 
not rock the boat grows and - more importantly - so does the desire not 
to let anyone alter the way things are. Climate change will require 
major adjustments; system justifiers will argue against them. On a 
positive note, if mitigation can be portrayed as part of the system, 
this can change.

DRAGON FAMILY THREE: social comparison Humans are social animals; 
comparing our own situation to that of others is a deeply ingrained 
tendency. This dragon family has three species.

*15 Social comparison* People routinely compare their actions with those 
of others. When we compare ourselves to someone we admire, we gravitate 
toward their choices; if that someone happens to harbour 
anti-climate-science views, we are likely to decide that the climate 
isn't such a problem.

*16 Social norms and networks* Norms are what we see as the proper 
courses of action. They can be a potent positive force for climate 
action, but they can also be regressive. Social networks create and 
informally enforce norms. If the network's sentiment is toward doubt, a 
dragon of inaction naturally reigns. But it works both ways. In one 
neighbourhood in the United States, for example, dwelling proximity in 
the network helped explain why 16 per cent of householders installed 
photovoltaic panels, far higher than the national average of 1 per cent.

*17 Perceived inequity* Perceived inequity is often heard as a reason 
for inaction: "Why should I change if they won't change?" Usually other 
nations or well-known figures are cited as not cooperating, which serves 
as a convenient justification for one's own inaction. This is backed up 
by experiments that show when any inequality, real or perceived, exists, 
cooperation tends to decline.
_
__DRAGON FAMILY FOUR: sunk costs_ We like to buy things that will make 
our lives more comfortable and predictable. Some of these purchases can 
be climate-positive, but many are not. This dragon family has four species.

*18 Financial investments* Once we have invested in something, 
disinvesting in it for climate reasons becomes difficult. The cardinal 
example is car ownership. If I have bought a car and am now paying for 
its insurance and upkeep, why should I sell this cosy portable living 
room or leave it on the driveway? Similarly, if someone has a financial 
stake or a job in a fossil fuel industry, believing that burning these 
fuels damages the environment can lead to cognitive dissonance. It's 
often easier to reduce this dissonance by changing your belief ("burning 
these fuels isn't causing a problem") than by changing your behaviour 
(disposing of the stake).

*19 Habit *In 1890, pioneering psychologist William James called habit 
the "enormous flywheel of society" - that is, a powerful force for 
keeping things regular and ordered. In the context of climate change, 
habit can lead to the routine, mindless performance of damaging actions. 
Of course, climate-positive habits are a potential boon.

Habit isn't a glamorous dragon, but it is one of the most important 
because many repeated actions are highly resistant to permanent change - 
think of diet and transport. Some people use the term "behavioural 
momentum" instead, because it aptly expresses this resistance to change. 
The use of cars, for example, has a great deal of behavioural momentum 
and, therefore, is very difficult to change.

*20 Conflicting goals, values and aspirations* Everyone has multiple 
goals in life and these aren't all compatible with climate-change 
mitigation. The near-universal aspiration to "get ahead" often means 
engaging in actions that compete with the goal of reducing climate 
change, such as buying a larger house, taking exotic holidays or owning 
a new car.

That climate-related goals frequently take a back seat to others is 
revealed when people are asked to rank climate change against other 
problems or concerns: they usually assign it a low importance. Polls 
carried out by the Pew Research Centre think tank reveal that 80 per 
cent of US respondents say climate change is an "important issue", yet 
it comes 20th out of 20 when ranked against other issues. Many people 
favour addressing the economic cost of climate change, as long as it 
doesn't come out of their own pockets.

*21 Place attachment* Individuals are more likely to care for places 
they feel an attachment to. Weak attachment can therefore act as a 
barrier to climate-positive behaviour. However, so can strong place 
attachment, for example, in "nimby" ("not in my back yard") opposition 
to nearby wind farms.
_*
*__DRAGON FAMILY FIVE: discredence_ When people think ill of others, 
they are unlikely to believe what they say or take direction from them. 
These negative views can take a range of forms.

*22 Mistrust* Trust is essential for healthy relationships. When it is 
absent between citizens and scientists or government officials, 
resistance in one form or another follows. There is ample evidence that 
many people mistrust messages that come from scientists or government 
officials. When trust sours, the probability of positive behaviour 
change diminishes.

*23 Perceived programme inadequacy* Policymakers have implemented many 
programmes designed to encourage sustainable or climate-friendly 
behaviour. Most of these are voluntary, such as a rebate for buying 
double glazing or energy-efficient appliances. Thus, people choose 
whether to accept the offer, and often they decide it isn't good enough 
for their participation.

*24 Denial* Uncertainty, mistrust and sunk costs can easily lead to 
active denial of the problem. This may include denial that climate 
change is occurring at all or that it is caused by us - something 
believed by substantial minorities in most countries. Those holding this 
view tend to be outspoken. One newspaper reader's comments on an article 
about research by environmental psychologists is typical of the 
emotional intensity felt by some deniers: "It figures that a bunch of 
psychologists need to mess with people's heads to get them to fall in 
line with this 'eco-friendly' nonsense."
*
**25 Reactance* Mistrust and denial lead to what psychologists call 
"reactance", the tendency to struggle against whatever appears to 
threaten one's freedom. Of course, some circumstances should promote 
reactance, but climate change isn't one of them. Reactance is especially 
problematic when it comes to climate because it may promote actions that 
go beyond inaction and into destructive territory.
_
__DRAGON FAMILY SIX: perceived risk_ Changing one's behaviour is risky. 
What might those who consider adopting pro-climate behaviour be risking? 
In this case, there are six dragons of inaction.
*
**26 Functional risk* Will it work? If one purchases, for example, an 
electric car, it may, as a new technology, have operational problems. 
The same could be said for many green technologies.

*27 Physical risk* Some adaptations may have, or at least be perceived 
to have, some danger associated with them. Bicycles, for example, 
produce virtually no greenhouse gases after they are manufactured, but 
result in quite a few visits to emergency rooms.

*28 Financial risk* Many green solutions require capital outlays or 
premiums. How long is the payback? If the product becomes a fixed part 
of a residence, such as solar panels, will I recoup the installation 
costs or accrue enough energy savings before moving on? Is the premium 
for that electric car worth it?

*29 Social risk* Other people notice many of our choices. This leaves us 
open to judgment, which could damage our reputation or ego. Will riding 
a bicycle make me look odd? What about becoming a vegan? Or keeping my 
old mobile phone?

*30 Psychological risk* This risk, which closely follows social risk, is 
perhaps less likely for most people, but it can still occur. If we are 
teased, criticised or even bullied for engaging in climate-positive 
actions, we risk damage to our self-esteem and self-confidence.

*31 Temporal risk* Another risk is the potential that the time I spend 
planning and adopting a climate-friendly course of action might fail to 
produce the desired results. Many people spend considerable time trying 
to decide whether to install solar panels, buy an electric car, become a 
vegetarian or cycle to a destination. Fear that the choice might not 
result in the desired benefits can lead to inaction: the time spent 
planning a change may be wasted.

_DRAGON FAMILY SEVEN: limited behaviour_ Most of us engage in at least 
minimal action to help limit the emission of greenhouse gases. However, 
most of us could do more. This relatively benign dragon of inaction 
takes two major forms.

*32 Tokenism* Some climate-related behaviours are easier to adopt than 
others, but have little or no impact on greenhouse gas emissions. One 
example is taking your own shopping bags to the supermarket. However, 
their ease of adoption means these tend to be chosen over higher-cost 
but more effective actions, such as commuting by bike or public 
transport, or switching to a vegetarian or vegan diet. Nevertheless, 
they might be considered a gateway to better things.

*33 The rebound effect* Often, after some positive change is made, the 
gains are diminished or erased by subsequent actions. For example, 
people who buy a fuel-efficient car may drive further than when they 
owned a less efficient one. Like reactance, this dragon may go beyond 
cancelling out the benefits and produce overall negative consequences.

WE'VE IDENTIFIED THE 33 dragons of inaction - now can we slay them? What 
can be done in the face of this fearsome army?

First, structural barriers should be removed by forces such as 
legislation and urban renewal, but this isn't likely to be sufficient.

You can take some steps, though. Identify your own main dragons, which 
should help begin the process of slaying them. You can also look for 
opportunities to join and promote social networks that spread the 
adoption of climate-positive behaviour.

Other steps need to be taken by researchers from both the social and 
technical domains, often working together. We need to better understand 
how people can overcome their barriers. We need to create better 
measures of the carbon cost associated with various behaviours, so that 
people know where to put their efforts. We need to better reward those 
whom I affectionately call the mules: people who are carrying the load 
for the rest of us by already doing everything within their power.

We also need to smile upon others - I call them honeybees - who engage 
in climate-positive behaviour for non-climate reasons, such as the 
cyclist who rides for health or the person who chooses not to have children.

Finally, we need to aid understanding of those who oppose policies and 
tech for limiting climate change.

The dragons of inaction can be overcome, although it will take time and 
will never be complete. This must be done expeditiously, though: we may 
not have four or five decades to ease our profligate spewing of 
greenhouse gases and return to a balanced climate.

Robert Gifford is an environmental psychologist at the University of 
Victoria, in Canada
This article appeared in the South China Morning Post print edition as: 
Inaction stations
https://www.scmp.com/magazines/post-magazine/article/1848858/33-reasons-why-mankind-isnt-acting-stem-global-warming



*This Day in Climate History - June 11, - from D.R. Tucker*
June 11, 2001: In a Rose Garden speech on climate change, President 
George W. Bush repeatedly attacks the Kyoto Protocol.
http://c-spanvideo.org/program/GlobalClimateChang
http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2001/06/20010611-2.html 



/-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------/

/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 
<mailto:contact at theclimate.vote> with subject subscribe, To Unsubscribe, 
subject: unsubscribe
Also you may subscribe/unsubscribe at 
https://pairlist10.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/theclimate.vote
Links and headlines assembled and curated by Richard Pauli for 
http://TheClimate.Vote <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.