Forecast
To the best of my understanding, the main leaders of the environmentalist movement have made a conscious decision that whipping people into a state of alarm and panic about the prospects of catastrophic climate change is not the right way to go. Instead, there’s a preference for focusing on the positive and trying to paint an appealing vision of the clean energy future. And though it’s not something I’ve peered into in great detail, the research in social psychology seems to me to back that conclusion up—it really is better to focus on the positive political message rather than trying to freak people out.
That said, the trajectory we’re on right now is actually really frightening. The weather seems like a banal topic, but if you study history it’s clear that systematic changes in the climate can have utterly catastrophic impacts on human societies. And it’s also clear that right now climate-related issues are having a significant negative impact on human lives. If you want to give yourself a good scare, Stephan Faris’ book Forecast: The Consequences of Climate Change, from the Amazon to the Arctic, from Darfur to Napa Valley is all about reportage on this sort of thing and the scary near-future we seem to be heading towards.
50 Responses to “Forecast”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Matt YglesiasContact Me
Donate
March 30th, 2009 at 1:20 pm
ссылки…
To the best of my understanding, the main leaders of the environmentalist movement have made a[...]…
March 30th, 2009 at 1:22 pm
So scaring people is the wrong way to go on environmental issues, but you recommend a book that you think will….scare people. Makes perfect sense.
March 30th, 2009 at 1:25 pm
Sounds fun. I’ll get to it right after I finish MY’s last book recommendation — on the Rwandan genocide.
March 30th, 2009 at 1:28 pm
Scaring people is a necessary part of a good strategy, so long you’re not making up stuff out of whole cloth. Addressing climate change is a really really hard problem given time horizons and diverse interests and cultures, and a good amount of fear (and disgust for the unhelpful) has to be part of the solution.
As to climate scenarios, I don’t see anything out there in the modeling world that assures us that really bad stuff won’t happen in the medium run (next 40-150 years) under realistic assumptions about fossil fuel burning. This is a big a threat as nuclear war ever was and deserves as much attention and resources. And yes, scaring people is part of dealing with the problem. People burning coal as the terrorists and Communist oppressors of tomorrow.
March 30th, 2009 at 1:37 pm
I turned off my lights for an entire hour on Saturday. Problem solved.
March 30th, 2009 at 1:38 pm
Climate change hates us for our freedom.
March 30th, 2009 at 1:40 pm
As to climate scenarios, I don’t see anything out there in the modeling world that assures us that really bad stuff won’t happen in the medium run (next 40-150 years) under realistic assumptions about fossil fuel burning.
There’s nothing out there that assures us that really bad stuff won’t happen in the medium run from all sorts of potential natural or man-made catastrophes. There are no assurances. There are just degrees of risk.
This is a big a threat as nuclear war ever was and deserves as much attention and resources.
How do you know it’s as big a threat as nuclear war ever was (or is now, or will be in the future)?
March 30th, 2009 at 1:42 pm
Apparently your social psychology research hasn’t looked much into the history of environmental reform in America (and, generally, around the world). Reform hasn’t come until the effects of environmental damage were visible: increased cancer rates, respiratory ailments, acid rain, disappearance of fish & other harvested animals, etc. Because of the economic impact inherent in any regulations to ameliorate these problems, it’s been impossible to generate the political will necessary to fix them until people are literally dying (despite what Thomas Friedman says, getting CO2 emissions to where they need to be will slow the growth of the global economy in the near term).
This won’t work with CO2 emissions; the most severe problems won’t manifest themselves until it’s too late to do anything about it. The environmental movement needs to educate the public so that they’re justifiably afraid of the risk we’re taking.
The problem with focusing on the positives is that the positives (no more foreign oil… what else?) are frankly outweighed by the impact on our economy. The balance only tips when you consider the risk of doing nothing.
What I think would help would be an effort (presumably spearheaded by Gore) to put out a monthly report card on efforts to reduce CO2 emissions; show the emissions target and keep reminding people that it’s going to take more and more sacrifice to meet it the longer we do nothing.
March 30th, 2009 at 1:45 pm
I don’t see the world coming to grips with this in a way that will make much difference. The increase in population alone would wipe out a big part of any CO2 reduction. And political self-interest always mitigates against enduring short term pain for long term gain (c.f. the deficit).
March 30th, 2009 at 1:47 pm
The problem is that people are too hard to scare. Climate change will be a nuisance for people in wealthy countries, and while it will be worse than that for people in poor countries, being in a poor country means that you don’t have a lot of say in how the world goes. So it’s hard to scare the people in responsive polities (which, by and large, and wealthier ones), without exaggerating the negative effects.
March 30th, 2009 at 1:47 pm
Climate hour was disgusting, by the way. I’m pretty sure the television networks I saw trying to convince folks to turn off their lights could’ve offset more CO2 emissions by selling the ad time and buying carbon offsets. It falls comically short of the sorts of reductions in consumption that are necessary under any successful scenario. Making people feel good about themselves for buying a lightbulb or turning out the lights when they leave the office provides a false sense of success.
March 30th, 2009 at 1:48 pm
There’s a ton of social psychology research on the general issue of fear and motivation. Fear works to catch people’s attention, but it sucks as a motivator to get them to change behavior. As most good marketers know, you have to activate people’s fear, and then offer them a solution:
“He’s got bad breath. If only he knew about Chlorahexacrystalbenadrine–that’s the secret ingredient in Tootho-Router mouthwash.”
Much more about this in older postings of mine at TPMCafe:
http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/2007/10/09/shadowboxing/
March 30th, 2009 at 2:13 pm
stefan @ 4
Scaring people is a necessary part of a good strategy, so long you’re not making up stuff out of whole cloth.
Well then, no need to go whole cloth as long as you can bleat enough half lies huh stefan?
It is crap like that and Matt’s Goresque lies that convinces me that the Global Chicken Littles are lying out their asses.
And they think Americans are going to buy their half lies to raise their taxes so someone in India can build a dirty car factory?
Ha ha ha ha!
I can’t wait for the cap and trade debacle in Congress…
Wanna bet it gets postponed by the ObaFrauds?
March 30th, 2009 at 2:16 pm
@13: My understanding is that DARPA is now researching geo-engineering.
I agree with you, but I think there are also very good reasons to keep relatively quiet about geo-engineering. It’s unlikely to be a panacea, and you don’t want to trumpet your fall-back option too much . . . or it’s no longer a fall-back option.
March 30th, 2009 at 2:18 pm
The question of whether we should choose a tactic of highlighting negative or positive consequences of potential actions cannot be taken up in isolation. It depends on the probability of how effective our interventions will be. Enter behavioral economics, namely Tversky and Kahneman. Their major contribution can be summarized as follows:
Take two scenarios, A and B:
A. You have a 50% chance of winning $100.
B. You have a 100$ chance of winning $50.
Which do you choose?
Now compare that with two more scenarios, C and D:
C. You have a 50$ chance of losing $100.
D. You have 100% chance of losing $50.
You should notice that the expected utility (probability X outcome) for A (win 50) is the same as B (win 50), and the expected utility of C (lose 50) is the same as D (lose 50). In the first pair, people tend to choose the higher risk option (A) and in the second pair, they tend to choose the lower risk option (D). In short, when facing potential losses people are more risk averse than when they face potential gains.
Thus, choosing a strategy of focusing on the positive is a product of the relatively low probability that our interventions will yield the desired result. If we have higher probability interventions at our disposal, focusing on the negative consequences of inaction is a perfectly viable strategy, according to Tversky and Kahneman. As a reasonable real-world example, imagine the following:
Positive Consequences – If we spend $10 million, we might be able restore a polluted lake to good health.
Negative Consequences – If we spend $10 million, we can definitely save a healthy lake from being polluted.
Both scenarios are (theoretically) equivalent in their persuasiveness.
March 30th, 2009 at 2:26 pm
…. and if you actually study history – which it’s pretty clear Matt has not done – you’ll find that it’s been much warmer during recorded history (the medieval optimum), and it’s been much colder (the little ice age). The period of time that Al Gore and his acolytes like Matt have been utterly panicked about has been one of fairly uninteresting weather.
March 30th, 2009 at 2:27 pm
charles writes:
There are lots of human activities that have pretty well bounded worst case outcomes — pretty much all the the ones we regularly engage in everyday. And I’d seriously quibble with the notion that differences in risk are ‘just degrees of risk.’
A nice take on this is the work by Martin Weitzman, for instance here or here.
Well, I wrote ‘no assurance’ — so yes, I don’t think one could come up with a credible argument that nuclear war was impossible at all times from 1950-1989. People, including the military, sure didn’t behave that way. Yes, the threat of nuclear war actually happening is hard to determine — but that seems like a silly reason for assuming it was always small enough not to matter.
March 30th, 2009 at 2:32 pm
I turned off my lights for an entire hour on Saturday. Problem solved.
USA! USA!
March 30th, 2009 at 2:45 pm
stefan,
There are lots of human activities that have pretty well bounded worst case outcomes
So what? The point is that there are human activities other than emitting GHGs that have potentially catastrophic consequences.
And I’d seriously quibble with the notion that differences in risk are ‘just degrees of risk.’
The purpose of the “just” is to contrast “degrees of risk” with “assurance.”
Well, I wrote ‘no assurance’ — so yes, I don’t think one could come up with a credible argument that nuclear war was impossible at all times from 1950-1989. People, including the military, sure didn’t behave that way. Yes, the threat of nuclear war actually happening is hard to determine — but that seems like a silly reason for assuming it was always small enough not to matter.
I wasn’t suggesting that the threat of nuclear war actually happening was (or is now) small enough not to matter. I asked how you know that climate change “is as big a threat as nuclear war ever was.” Do you have an answer?
March 30th, 2009 at 2:49 pm
Jeffrey
This is about the Holocene warming period, and it looks like the medieval period had similar impacts around the globe.
We seem to be learning now that la nina/el nino events in the pacific are the big drivers for the northern hemisphere
March 30th, 2009 at 2:51 pm
I suspect that your statement that Gore told a lot of lies is, in fact, a lie. It’s wrong and has been pointed out often.
George Will’s a big fat liar!
No, Al Gore’s a big fat liar!
No, Will is!
No, Gore is!
Yadda, yadda, yadda…..
March 30th, 2009 at 2:55 pm
Oh, who even knows what’s true anymore?
Right, Chuckles?
Notice which side wants to create that impression.
March 30th, 2009 at 2:59 pm
charles writes
Take a look at any of the two Weitzman papers and get back to me. Dynamic decision making with ill defined fat tailed large risks has properties that doesn’t look like static decision making with small well defined risks. In particular, the ‘how do you know for sure?’ question isn’t a deal breaker for decision makers — sometimes there are serious problems where not knowing is part of the problem and one can still do some reasonable but not straightforward analysis.
March 30th, 2009 at 3:04 pm
To the extent that people want to talk about solutions, it is a significant advance. There are pressing issues to solve while we wait for the verdict on climate change (and no, I don’t believe that verdict has yet been rendered). Deforestation and land use, combined with drawing down of the water tables, may actually pose a greater threat to the climate than CO2–check Climate Science.
This line of argument can go back to Jared Diamond’s Collapse, and should be pursued. As we are talking about changes that affect the planet, and behavioural changes by the entire population required to mitigate/adapt to it (of course, as with any warming caused by greenhouse gases), I hope this book talks about what we can do, as well as what we should and should not do.
As for clean energy, there are many reasons to be optimistic. Although I don’t think wind power is a useful solution to all our needs, the US did move ahead of Germany this year to become the biggest generator of wind power. A lot of interesting things are happening with solar and with battery design. I’m a bit surprised that people aren’t talking about two alternative generating technologies I read about in the 70s–ocean thermal systems, now know by the acronym OTEC and solar power collectors on satellites that beam power down by microwave. Both are systems that scale and that we know would work.
March 30th, 2009 at 3:17 pm
stefan,
Take a look at any of the two Weitzman papers and get back to me.
No, I won’t. You claimed that climate change “is as big a threat as nuclear war ever was.” How do you know this to be true? If you think a paper by Weitzman shows your claim to be true, explain to us how you think the paper shows this.
Dynamic decision making with ill defined fat tailed large risks has properties that doesn’t look like static decision making with small well defined risks. In particular, the ‘how do you know for sure?’ question isn’t a deal breaker for decision makers — sometimes there are serious problems where not knowing is part of the problem and one can still do some reasonable but not straightforward analysis.
This is all utterly irrelevant to the question I asked you. You claimed that climate change “is as big a threat as nuclear war ever was.” How do you know this to be true? Stop evading, stop trying to change the subject, and answer the question.
March 30th, 2009 at 3:45 pm
Well, sorry you don’t want to take a look at a paper because you already know it is irrelevant to the question you’re asking. Not having time I could understand. I’m simply suggesting taking a look at a modern exposition of dynamic decision making under uncertain risks might be relevant for understanding policy making for climate change. Take a look and your horizons might expand — there are smart people who have thought about these issues before. In contrast, I’d hazard that nitpicking the semantics of ‘as big as’ in the context of discussing big hard to evaluate risks isn’t going to be as productive.
March 30th, 2009 at 4:02 pm
The trolls on this topic are such a waste of time. They’re a self-selected group of people who enjoy arguing more than they enjoy discerning truth.
People who actually cared about the truth could go to the IPCC website, or check the list of international scientific organizations that have endorsed the IPCC conclusions. There’s a checking and winnowing process in the scientific community as a whole that exceeds anything a lone crackpot on a comment thread could provide.
But they don’t actually want to engage with the full range of evidence. They just want to pick data points and throw them at the opposition. A lovely game — and it would be no crime, if we could solve real-world problems by doing it.
March 30th, 2009 at 4:06 pm
Hi again, Ted,
I think everybody discussing this should be familiar with the work of the IPCC. I especially think they should look at the differences between what the scientists say and what the Summary for Policy Makers says. Now, this is not so easy, as they have taken to writing the SPM first and turning it over to the scientists and saying the science had better agree with this.
March 30th, 2009 at 4:10 pm
Seems like one of those all is for the worst in this worst of all possible worlds books. One example (and granting that melting glaciers would be bad for Bangladesh) is what appears to be the book’s treatment of the effect of global warming on the arctic. It is cold in the arctic. It is hard to do anything up there because it’s too cold. If it becomes less cold there might be opportunities for enhanced productivity. There will be costs but it is very clear there will also be benefits, perhaps huge net benefits. Judging from the 1st 3 pages of the arctic chapter (all that Amazon would let me read), however, all the book foresees for the arctic is doom and gloom.
Wake me up when an adult writes a book on this topic.
March 30th, 2009 at 4:13 pm
Hi Tom. I’m not counting you as a troll, incidentally.
March 30th, 2009 at 4:20 pm
stefan,
Well, sorry you don’t want to take a look at a paper because you already know it is irrelevant to the question you’re asking.
No, as I said, the text of yours I quoted is irrelevant to the question I asked.
You claimed that climate change “is as big a threat as nuclear war ever was.” How do you know this to be true? Stop evading, stop trying to change the subject, and answer the question.
March 30th, 2009 at 4:25 pm
People who actually cared about the truth could go to the IPCC website, or check the list of international scientific organizations that have endorsed the IPCC conclusions.
The IPCC has not reached, and is not in a position to reach, firm conclusions about how much warming there will actually be, what the cost of the warming will actually be, or what our policy response should be.
March 30th, 2009 at 4:25 pm
Stop trolling, ‘charles’.
If you have nothing to add to these threads, you’re just picking arguments to pass the time of day.
March 30th, 2009 at 4:26 pm
You’re not fooling anyone, ‘Mixnerspotter’.
March 30th, 2009 at 4:29 pm
I’m making two claims:
1) the probability distribution for the occurrence of large scale nuclear war from 1950 onward is a) not negligibly small at all times given the consequences of this outcome as far as we know, b) not well known in terms of its probability distribution.
2) the probability distribution for the occurrence of catastrophic climate change going forward is a) not negligibly small given the consequence of this outcome as far as we know, b) not well known in terms of its probability distribution.
When I write that that climate change “is as big a threat as nuclear war ever was” I am making the claims above. I don’t take this as nihilism about either what we can learn from research about nuclear war or climate change, simply a claim that we need to be more sophisticated in our decision making framework than usual, in particular recognizing the implications that the non-standard aspects of these risks may have. Hence my reference to Weitzman’s papers.
March 30th, 2009 at 4:38 pm
Thanks, Ted. I’m actually looking at environmental deterioration of areas containing the original sites of civilization–very much what Jared Diamond was looking at in Collapse–and it’s sobering stuff. We are hard on our planet.
Have you seen any discussion ’round the intertubes on alternative energy generating technologies that do not focus on wind and solar?
Thanks
March 30th, 2009 at 4:49 pm
No, I haven’t. I just read an article about OTEC on wikipedia, following up your mention of it on this thread. But most of the discussion I’ve heard involves wind, solar — and nuclear.
March 30th, 2009 at 5:27 pm
Yeah, what else is there? hydro, geothermal, tidal… biofuels, biomass…?
March 30th, 2009 at 5:47 pm
The IPCC has not reached, and is not in a position to reach, firm conclusions about how much warming there will actually be, what the cost of the warming will actually be, or what our policy response should be.
@charles – the whole point of the IPCC reports is to determine targets for CO2 emissions to decrease the likelihood of catastrophic climate change. The overarching policy is to hit that emissions target, which can be accomplished through a combination of any number of things which the IPCC and other organizations study in detail. There is reams of research on the comparative effects on CO2 emissions of increased efficiency, power generation strategies, consumption reduction, aid to developing countries, etc, etc, etc. In fact, in my opinion the biggest problem with the scientific & policy communities’ approach to climate change is that there’s too many policy prescriptions and attempts at model refinement (like the skeptics will ever be pleased) and not enough simple salesmanship.
March 30th, 2009 at 6:23 pm
stefan,
When I write that that climate change “is as big a threat as nuclear war ever was” I am making the claims above.
No, you didn’t make those claims, and I’m not referring to those claims. The claim of yours I am referring to is the claim that climate change “is as big a threat as nuclear war ever was.” How do you know that climate change “is as big a threat as nuclear war ever was?”
Stop evading. Stop pretending you said something else. Stop trying to change the subject. Answer the question.
March 30th, 2009 at 6:33 pm
Charles writes:
Do you disagree with my claim that
This is the claim I made when I wrote — people use shorthand — in the context of discussing policy towards high downside outcomes with hard to assess risk that “climate change “is as big a threat as nuclear war ever was””.
March 30th, 2009 at 6:43 pm
Zach,
@charles – the whole point of the IPCC reports is to determine targets for CO2 emissions to decrease the likelihood of catastrophic climate change.
No, the “point” of the IPCC is to:
As the last sentence makes clear, the role of the IPCC with respect to policy is to present policymakers with policy options. And not just options for mitigation, but options for adaptation also.
In fact, your statement above about the “point” of the IPCC is so vague that it’s worthless. Since any reduction in CO2 emissions is likely to “decrease the likelihood of catastrophic climate change,” any “target” that is below current emissions would be consistent with that goal, from a very small reduction to a very large one.
March 30th, 2009 at 6:46 pm
Stefan,
This is the claim I made when I wrote …
No, it’s not the claim you made. It’s a different claim. The claim you made is that climate change “is as big a threat as nuclear war ever was.”
How do you know that climate change “is as big a threat as nuclear war ever was?” Stop evading. Stop pretending you said something else. Stop trying to change the subject. Answer the question.
March 30th, 2009 at 7:02 pm
Chrales, I’m sorry that I initially stated my claim too concisely for you to have understood my meaning. Feel free to disregard my initial formulation of the claim in favor of my subsequent clarification which, I hope, is more foolproof against misreadings.
What claim do you see me as making that I’m not willing to defend? If I had an idea I might be able to respond to your point.
March 30th, 2009 at 9:59 pm
Stefan,
How do you know that climate change “is as big a threat as nuclear war ever was?” Stop evading. Stop pretending you said something else. Stop trying to change the subject. Answer the question.
April 2nd, 2009 at 12:38 am
deep solar minimum
For 2008 there were no sunspots observed on 266 of the year’s 366 days (73%).
Sunspot counts for 2009 have dropped even lower. As of March 31st, there were no sunspots on 78 of the year’s 90 days (87%)
It adds up to one inescapable conclusion: “We’re experiencing a very deep solar minimum,” says solar physicist Dean Pesnell of the Goddard Space Flight Center.
“This is the quietest sun we’ve seen in almost a century,” agrees sunspot expert David Hathaway of the Marshall Space Flight Center.
http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2009/01apr_deepsolarminimum.htm
A 50-year low in solar wind pressure:
A 55-year low in solar radio emissions:
A 12-year low in solar “irradiance”: