A more familiar framing: health and fever
We discuss in my previous post, why stories are so important, and that the climate change or global warming story has tremendously failed to make us act urgently. Polls show that the concern about the topic is going down, while the greenhouse emissions and the biodiversity destruction seems unstoppable [2].
While scientist should work on better understanding this phenomenon and its consequences, it is also true that the implementation of the known solutions requires a better communication plan that leads to behavioral change [2].
It's not about the fact, is about the mind response to them
The understanding of psychology is critical to run effective communication [2]. We need a framing that is not only scientifically sound, but that target the emotion and ultimately behavior.
We need a wording that is meaningful (it is based on science: human caused global warming), impactful (it affects what is relevant for us: our health), and actionable (it has a clear direction to action: restore earth health).
It’s about health! the most important thing
That's why I suggest talking from now on about the global fever, and how to take care about the world health.
Let me explain this a little. While climate change is rightly naming the variation of climate mainly due to human conduct, it does not appeal to the emergency situation we are heading. Change is not wrong per se, and there is a natural variation on climate. Global warming seems more appealing but does not pose the urgency (in some places less clouds and rain seems like a good thing!), and the extreme increase in volatility of the climate resulting from it.
I find instead very appealing the fever concept. It is close to our daily lives and make a point that a rather moderate relative increase in the temperature, can have significant impact in our health [3]. Note that anything below or above this range 36.5–37.5 °C, could mean the death of any human.
Our fever is moderate now, but on the rise!
The scientist community agree (97%) that our environment and us, are above a safe range, and will go at least 1.5 degrees away [11] [12]. We can already feel it: sea level rise [4], corals dying [5], deforestation [6], species loss [7], water shortages [8] [10], food shortages [9]... but for many of us (normally in the richer countries), is just a bunch of little inconveniences ( a shorter ski season, very hot summers...), nothing we cannot cope with flights and air conditioners...
The current fever levels are not a present concern for nations (specially the fossil fuels producers [2]), but given the fact that the equilibrium is so subtle and delicate, we can acknowledge that proper risk management should be applied. We have too much at stake, our standard of living is under risk, a few degrees (a very plausible if not certain scenario [11] [12]), will make our planet sick, very sick. There is not reasonable technology, or emotional state that can makes us think of a nice future without a healthy Earth, whether we can survive it or not. Who wants to live in a world with dirty air, no biodiversity, and polluted seas and rivers?
We are curing it all wrong
We are told that the problem is indeed global, and then global coordination is required on taxing carbon [13][14][15][16][17], but we do not see the agreements to have any impact on the current trends [18][19].
Our fever peaks and grows without taking a pause. Our business and lives are too busy and short-term focus to work on a lifetime project. Our development model is too attached to the constant growth, fossil fuel-based economy, to find attractive sustainable paths. Our competition game in the economy, is asking us not to spend more time or resources on climate change that our countries, even if we are not following any climate justice policy.
Worse of all, environmentalists put too much effort on explaining a future of sacrifice [2], basically saying: "the party is over". It is the time to cutoff flights, consumption, and increase taxes. Brace for impact. That is not an exciting story, and although they have the facts on their sight, it is not creating the change we want.
On top of that, global warming has divided the society, very far from the scientific consensus The problem is that the solution framework clashes with the value setting of a great deal of society. The story is not about taxes or growth, employment or sustainability, development or sustainability, conservatives or sustainability... the story is about health and the fundamental care of the systems where our development and progress rely upon: our health, and the health of our home, the Earth.
We need to decouple prosperity with shortermisn, and sustainability from big goverment or austerity.
Big challenges require big consensus
The most accepted way to fight climate change over economists is carbon taxing or cap and trade systems. In theory if you increase taxes, the price goes up, and demand go down, and you create incentives for low carbon activities or ways of development. That makes sense. The problem is that for many citizens more taxes means less employment, available income and growth [2].
It is fair to say that most of the rich countries have a reasonable high tax pressure on the 25-75% income base. Increasing taxes is never appealing, especially when we are fearing the next crisis.
I would advocate to eliminate carbon subsidies, and hence reduce government expenses budget on climate mitigation. That means that the overall tax load should go down, while the environmentally harmful activities should have a greater tax. No matter if you are liberal, socialist, or communist... you would be in favor or assigning the cost to the emiter of the cost. And most of the society would like to see his labor income or basic items taxes go down.
A future full of opportunities
Companies need their shareholder value to grow, and there are environment friendly ways to do so : energy savings, water optimization, creating unique long lasting products, circular economy ...[20][21][22][2] those are ways to improve profitability without needing to increase sales or production.
Everyone will benefit on a more resilient nation if the investment and jobs are focus on local renewable energy, agriculture and water management. Those sectors are very labor intensive and make nations more secure toward the risks of climate change (energy collapse, food shortages...).
Our new generations are not consumers, but citizens aiming for a life full of experiences and purpose. An economy strong in personal development, culture, health, sport, adventure, rich relationships, is wealthy on what it matters, and on the aspects that makes a country genuinely unique.
The times of sacrifice do not need to come.
Recommended readings
[1] http://guide.cred.columbia.edu/pdfs/CREDguide_full-res.pdf
[2] What we think about when we try not to think about global warming: Toward a new Psychology of Climate Action. Espen Stoknes. 2015.
[3] https://medlineplus.gov/ency/article/001982.htm
[4] https://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/global-warming/sea-level-rise/
[5] https://www.chasingcoral.com/impact-stories/
[6] https://www.worldwildlife.org/threats/deforestation
[7] https://e360.yale.edu/features/global_extinction_rates_why_do_estimates_vary_so_wildly
[8] https://www.worldwildlife.org/threats/water-scarcity
[9] https://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change-world-faces-food-shortages-and-mass-migration-caused-by-global-warming-a6784911.html
[10] https://www.worldbank.org/en/topic/watersupply
[11] https://www.ipcc.ch/sr15/
[12] https://www.ipcc.ch/sr15/chapter/summary-for-policy-makers/
[13]
Nordhaus, W. (2013). The climate casino: Risk, uncertainty, and economics for a warming world New Haven and London: Yale University Press. Retrieved from https://search-proquest-com.ezproxy.uned.es/docview/1511799748?accountid=14609
[14] https://www.nobelprize.org/uploads/2018/10/advanced-economicsciencesprize2018.pdf
[15] https://www.nobelprize.org/uploads/2018/10/press-economicsciences2018.pdf
[16] https://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/06/upshot/the-key-role-of-conservatives-in-taxing-carbon.html
[17] http://scholar.harvard.edu/files/mankiw/files/smart_taxes.pdf
[18] https://www.nature.com/articles/s41558-019-0414-z
[19] https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/EN.ATM.CO2E.KT
[20] https://www.drawdown.org/
[21] https://www.ted.com/talks/amory_lovins_on_winning_the_oil_endgame
[22] https://www.algore.com/library/our-choice-a-plan-to-solve-the-climate-crisis
Comments
Post a Comment