RCP8.5 also comes with a storyline that would be consistent with such high GHG concentration levels by the end of this century. The storyline is a set of socio-economic assumptions that provide a narrative for how we might get from here to there. The storylines aren’t carved in stone; different socio-economic developments could lead to the same climate change outcome – but to be taken seriously, a storyline has to be plausible.
[The authors] predict that by 2100 the poorest third of US counties, mostly in the south, will experiences significant damage due to climate-related effects on agriculture, crime, coastal storms, energy, human mortality, and labor. They project this damage will occur “under business-as-usual emissions (Representative Concentration Pathway 8.5)”. In other words, the authors’ analysis is based on a particular global emissions scenario unfolding. If we are to put stock in their projections, we need to consider the plausibility of their assumptions. The output is only as good as its input.
...the authors don't explain what "Representative Concentration Pathway 8.5" is, except to say it's a "business-as-usual" emissions scenario. You can't really evaluate the paper without some idea of what RCP8.5 is and whether it's a likely scenario for global emissions trends.
There's no way you can go from making it easier to buy health insurance, or to incentivize buying health insurance, and get to universal coverage. Some people just can't or won't buy insurance. The US would still have millions uninsured if we had a completely voluntary system.
America used to be the mobile society. People would pick up and move to the next opportunity or adventure. Oregon Ho! Sure, moving could be scary - failure was always a possibility - and yet we took that risk time and again. Then we stopped. What happened?
Moral indignation has served us well throughout the evolution of our species, keeping free-riders and rule-breakers in check, maintaining group cohesion, helping us reproduce and thrive. It is deeply embedded in our nature. Yet moral indignation is a response tendency that gets us into all sorts of trouble. Like love of sweets, it is a natural inclination to be managed and restrained.
The purpose is to dazzle us. But dazzling doesn’t illuminate; quite the opposite: it overwhelms the vision. Dazzling blinds and confuses.
...dissent potentiates a process that may lead us closer to the truth of things. Even when dissent is stupid and wrong-headed, it can make you think.
The International Energy Agency has a nice list of policy recommendations to speed up adoption of energy-efficient technology and practices. They estimate that if implemented globally without delay, their proposed actions could save as much as 7.6 gigatonnes (Gt) CO2/year by 2030 – "almost 1.5 times current US annual CO2 emissions."
Canada and Finland have recently begun pilot studies designed to assess the feasibility of a universal basic income (UBI). Both studies involve providing a basic income to disadvantaged individuals for a substantial period of time. The Canadian study is set to last two years and the Finnish study three years. Payments are not means-tested and will continue for the duration of the study period regardless if the recipients find work or better employment.
Here we have the conflict between a moral imperative of treating people as ends in themselves and a pragmatic imperative of treating people as means to an end. But what if the pragmatic end is also a moral good?
Our neuronal networks are strengthened through repeated activation. When we repeatedly engage in a behavior, we strengthen the neural substrate underlying that behavior, including connections within the brain's attentional control system. That's because anything we do requires we attend to the world in specific ways, reflecting what matters to us in the moment: our goals, values, and concerns.
I am not a climate change skeptic although I have the utmost respect for those that keep the torch of skepticism alive (minus the cranks). Saying I'm not a skeptic doesn't mean I've read all the science, understand the physics, and evaluated the climate projections based on my extensive knowledge of climate models. It means I'm using a heuristic: when 90% (give or take) of a group of experts say something is so, it probably is so. Nothing to pat myself on the back about. Not going to crow: I am more science-y than thou.
Getting, keeping, and mastering a job is a huge confidence-building experience. Hope falters without confidence. Effort falters without hope: if nothing will come of my effort, why try? Chronic unemployment zaps the will and can lead to a downward spiral. That’s why it's so important for employers to be willing to take risks on 'non-optimal' job applicants.
What is the right question? Something along the lines of what the Pew survey asked: assuming climate change is happening, are humans the primary cause of global warming? The Verheggen et al paper comes closest to having both the right question and the appropriate respondents. Plus, they had the largest sample size - more than the other three studies combined. And they found a roughly 90% endorsement of anthropogenic global warming.
For some people, the mere possibility of achieving a goal matters more than favorable opportunities. A chance, not necessarily a good chance.
Sometimes uncomfortable thoughts and feelings take us down a path to nowhere and sometimes they lead to new insights or solutions to vexing problems. We might want to follow their lead for awhile and see where they are taking us. If we cut them off (“gently redirect” – same dif) the moment we notice them, we might miss out on a valuable learning experience.
The inner audience may nod in agreement, clap with enthusiasm, talk back to the stage, or perhaps engage in a distancing maneuver. The difference is between a receptive, engaged audience and an audience that observes without commitment to the narrative.
It also makes a world of difference when the scientific consensus on climate change is represented as nearly unanimous (e.g., 97%) rather than merely a large majority (e.g., 90%). The former intimidates and discourages potential dissent; the latter, not so much.
Given the personal pain exacted by goal failure, we develop "optimization heuristics" to increase the likelihood of success and provide a psychological cushion for when we fail. One heuristic is to maintain sufficient goal diversity to insure a sense of control, optimism, and competency in at least a few life domains. So if we suck at x, at least we know we're good at y.