Dear Chris and all,
As I said above, I really appreciated this podcast.
Chris, you mentioned that behavioral economics has informed your decision to avoid discussion of global warming, here in this part:
Chris Martenson: Yes. You really shifted my views a number of years ago when I was thinking about climate change and that climate change is a difficult motivating topic because it lacks some features. It lacks a face, or worse, the face that we might associate with it is staring at us in the mirror. It is abstract. It is distant. It is not near and immediate. That there are a variety of things around that story that would require transforming it out of just the strict statistical data into a more human accessible compelling sort of an argument. And what I am wondering then is to get back to this idea is, what are the best ways of motivating people towards taking new actions? That is the work I care about, but marketers would care about it the same or doctors. We could be talking about—we want to try and motivate somebody towards maybe weight loss or saving more money for retirement, reducing excessive consumption, whatever that new action is. What does behavioral economics tell us about the best ways of motivating people to new actions?
When you explained your "relative absence from the Climate Change arena" in response to the thread following your interview with Mark Cochrane, you said the following:
My relative absence from the Climate Change arena reflects very little about my own views on the matter scientifically, but quite a lot about my views on the utility of the AGW story to lead to the sorts of changes I desire to see in the world.
Behavioral economist Dan Ariely convinced me that humans have a certain amount of hard wiring and that wiring responds better to some threats than others. If we want people to take something seriously enough to change their behaviors, then the threat we are describing is most powerful if it:
- Has a face. We combat things like Hitler, Saddam, even wolves, because they are easy to identify in our brains. We are less successful with things like climate change, because there's nothing we can see and touch directly. There is no single foe to defeat. Worse, the only face we can legitimately attach to the issue is the one we see in the mirror every morning.
- Is immediate and visible. The nearer and more immediate the threat, the faster we respond to it. A saber tooth tiger gets more of our attention than a slowly advancing (or retreating) glacier. We will dive into a body of water to save a drowning child we see, but barely give a second thought to children dying halfway around the world from fully preventable causes. Evolutionarily this makes perfect sense, but it is a distinct liability for a species with the ability to fundamentally deplete resources that took hundreds of millions of years to accumulate over a few hundred years. Similarly, discussions about potential changes in 2100 tend to lose a lot of people.
- Is concrete. Statistical arguments really lose most people. Even the idea of smoking, with its very high statistical chance of leading to illness and premature death, is not compelling enough to get people to quit or to not take it up at all. The point here is that humans do better with certainty than with uncertain arguments, even though statistical methods are really solid and businesses and financial people use them every day to great effect. Uncertain, or statistical, arguments are far less effective than you might expect based on the (severity) x (likelihood) outcome of some things like climate change.
- Is something we can control. This means we have some sense of agency in the cause. If it's something that we feel we have very little control over, that serves to blunt our tendency towards action. The things we can control are the ones we react to best and with the most vigor. What sense of control does any one person have in the climate change story given that most think that even if their entire nation gave up burning fossil fuels, China would simply do it instead? The full post is here
Behavioral economics aside, any handling of the third E (environment) without global warming will simply not meet the rigorous data-driven standards of the rest of the Crash Course. While it may make sense to exclude climate change from the section on the environment - presenting the reader/viewer with a Third-E-lite - for purposes of making the narrative easier for a reader/listener to handle, this decision does not hold water on the level of an well-conceived, objective analysis of the major destabilizing threats we face as a civilization. Also, I am not convinced that the behavioral economics criteria you listed above is the only reason that global warming has been excluded. After all, neither peak oil nor ocean acidification has a face, etc, yet you have acknowledged that both are significant threats to civilizational stability.
I can think of two reasons that this is important and worthy of addressing:
1. Because the Crash Course is an important part of a growing intellectual body of work - both academic and less formal - around the immediacy of various limits to growth. This body of work draws upon a tradition going back to Thomas Malthus and includes such modern thinkers at M. King Hubbert, Dennis and Donella Meadows, Al Bartlett, Charles Hall, Cutler Cleveland, Joseph Tainter, Ken Deffeyes, Kjell Aleklett,, Jeremy Grantham, Gail Tverberg, Bill McKibben, James Hansen (and the thousands of other peer-reviewed climate scientists), Mark Lynas, Naomi Oreskes and the hive-minds of Zero Hedge and the Oil Drum. While all of these thinkers have made outstanding contributions, Chris, you are unique in your popularization of the concept of the three E's. This is a powerful and important new paradigm. And while the trademarked three E's may include or exclude anything that PeakProsperity wishes, any accurate and realistic overview of the third E must include anthropogenic global warming as the keystone, as climate is the linchpin and the trump card of environmental stability and/or instability. Whether you intended to be or not, Chris, you are clearly part of an important group of people who are presenting data and creating narratives that do a better job explaining the world in which we live than do the legacy paradigms that are still the mainstream conventional wisdom. As you and Adam have intimated, it is likely that a day will come when a much greater percentage of people take interest in these alternative paradigms. When that happens, it is my hope that the third E includes climate change because that will give people the most realistic, data-driven overview of major destabilizing shifts.
2. Because there are practical and real differences as to how individuals, firms, other organizations, and government policymakers will respond to the three Es whether or not climate change is included. In other words, it may be that installing solar hot water heating makes sense whether or not one believes in AGW, but there are many other outcomes that will be different whether or not the destabilizing power of climate change is recognized. One simple example is where to buy land. If one believes that the current dry and hot conditions in Australia and California are simply due to natural variablity, then it might make sense to buy farm or ranch land in New South Wales or California's central valley. If, however, one believes that it is likely that these place will become hotter and drier due to global warming, then it makes more sense to buy farmland in western Washington or Tasmania. Another example has to do with energy investments. If one believes that oil is central to the functioning of our fast, bright, and warm civilization, but does not believe in AGW, then it very well might make sense to exploit the Canadian tar sands. On the other hand, if one believes that exploiting non-con oil reserves means game over for the climate, then one might choose to support political leaders who seek to minimize such exploitation, and one may also vote with one's wallet by not buying stock in Trans-Canada or other corporations that are exploiting non-con oil.
OK, I'm out of time, so I'll post this as is; sorry, no time to edit. Chris, I trust that you know by now how much I admire your work, so I intend no disrespect. Nor am I a climate zealot, who requires everyone to believe the same thing he believes. In fact, I probably spend too much time focusing on other aspects of the three E's. Nonetheless, the data in support of AGW is very strong on three levels: 1. paleoclimate 2. what is happening today 3. the results of models The reality of this shift is almost universally acknowledged by climate scientists. So, whether or not it's hard for people to stomach, any robust overview of the third E should include - if not feature - AGW.
Thanks again for all of your great insight.
Hugh
P.S. I have been told by a CM/PP veteran that global warming was a topic that produced many virulent flame wars at the site a few years ago. As I only arrived here circa March of 2012, I did not experience that. I am happy to engage in a civil and respectful discussion of AGW on the Definitive Climate Change thread. That thread has been very quiet since Mark, Stan, Tony, Doug, Eric, and others have not posted very much there lately.