- Las humanidades medioambientales en la narrativa latinoamericana
- Antibiotics no cure for colds or flu
- Violencia en la familia
- Día de los muertos, ¿esperanza vacía o consoladora?
- Trump calcula que hay “10.000” personas en la caravana y dice que “no entrarán”
- Íngrid Betancourt dice que las FARC se escudaron en los secuestros para traficar drogas
Three reasons we can’t agree on climate change
It’s human nature to delay change to ensure gratification today and mankind simply doesn’t play well together.
What should we do about fossil fuels and climate change?
It’s difficult for society to agree on a course of action for a variety of reasons, including these three:
Instant versus delayed gratification
All of us make choices daily about whether to act for immediate benefit or invest in future benefits. It’s a struggle that crosses many basic lines, including food, exercise, finance and relationships.
Behaviour psychologists show us that when we make decisions to invest in the future and delay gratification, we’re more successful. But for many, perhaps most, the pain of discipline is too high when the opportunity of gratification is at hand.
When we think about this struggle in terms of climate change, we can boil it down to whether we’re willing to accept short-term pain for long-term gain – or, more modestly, long-term sustain.
As an example, the debate about oil transport – through pipelines, on trains and trucks, or in ships – is highly charged.
Those who support these developments see oil and gas exploration as an important economic development that can mitigate the pain of unemployment, decrease personal and national debt, and bring about greater security through energy sovereignty.
Those who oppose such development generally cite the risks to water and to future generations. They liken it to a disease that we shouldn’t treat with short-term painkillers. These folks would rather bite the bullet today and cure the cause so that the pain will be less in the future.
History shows that more often than not we value commodity production and consumption in the present far more than the potential future benefits of conservation, which feel like a missed opportunity today. Consider the massive deforestation in the Amazon basin to produce beef, despite the knowledge that this unsustainable practice carries a huge environmental cost. But conservation isn’t likely to put meals on the table and so the trade-off continues.
We do the same with money. Many of us don’t save because we value our current self more than our future self. Economists came up with a way of accounting for this – it’s called the discount rate. Essentially, it means that money in hand today is more valuable than money in the future. Even having a commitment device like “doing it for future generations” isn’t always enough of a reward for us today.
Tragedy of the commons
Economist William Forster Lloyd first wrote about this in 1833. The tragedy of the commons is an economic theory of a situation within a shared-resource system, where individual users acting independently according to their own self-interest behave contrary to the common good of all users by depleting that resource through their collective action.
The Paris Agreement is a global attempt to overcome the tragedy of our commons – the anthropogenic acceleration of climate change on Earth – by acting collectively for the greater good despite the short-term discomfort we will inflict on ourselves.
But with recent rhetoric from U.S. president-elect Donald Trump that he will cancel the Paris accord, what will other nations do?
A lot of people say if the U.S. isn’t reducing emissions or imposing a carbon tax, why should we? We’ll just be hurting ourselves for no benefit.
This harkens back to my first point – the choice between immediate or delayed gratification.
Julia Galef, the president and co-founder of the Center for Applied Rationality, gives a TED Talk that points directly at this: “Why you think you’re right – even if you’re wrong.”
If you want to believe something, you’ll find justification for it to prove your point. Galef points out “our judgment is strongly influenced, unconsciously, by which side we want to win. And this is ubiquitous. This shapes how we think about our health, our relationships, how we decide how to vote, what we consider fair or ethical.”
While it’s possible that the vast majority of scientists studying climate change could be wrong, it’s unlikely.
Still, there are those who don’t accept this perspective – probably because accepting it wouldn’t support their priorities. So tremendous effort is taken to discredit and find technicalities that introduce uncertainty, in order to delay acting on climate.
It reminds me of the decades of experiments to identify smoking as harmful to your health. Yet studies still come out today disputing this, citing George Burns and his cigars as proof.
And so society continues to struggle for consensus, never mind cohesive action, on climate change. -TROYMEDIA
Barry Wilson is a systems ecologist and cumulative effects expert.