Climate Change and Possible Futures: Part IX

The Environment

Summary so far: to keep average global temperatures within 2°C by 2100, we’ll need to be a lot more energy efficient, reproduce less (not exceeding 9 billion by century’s end), and get really good at increasing agricultural productivity so that lots of land can revert back to the wilds.

Scenarios associated with RCP2.6 show how this might be possible. In a typical RCP2.6 scenario,  carbon capture technology would greatly reduce the GHGs produced by coal and natural gas. Bio-energy and renewables would also play a part – but not more than is already expected per current trends. And later in the century, nuclear energy would make a comeback.

Check out the following chart. On the right is an energy mix consistent with staying within 2°C by 2100. On the left is a scenario that assumes carbon capture and storage basically won’t happen.

 

Trends in Global Energy Use

It’s obviously  essential  to make carbon capture and storage happen. On a huge scale.

Staying within 2°C by 2100 would also require that we do everything we can to reduce population growth. Which means to educate the women of the world, insure sufficient economic development to absorb their precious skills, and promote a global culture of female empowerment so that no woman has sex or bears children unless she wants to. Sorry mister: you ain’t having none except on my terms.

Anti-GMO activists would also need to be marginalized or see the error of their ways. More GM Agriculture = less land for agriculture = more reforestation and wild habitat.

Between major advances in carbon capture and storage, expansion of nuclear energy,  female empowerment, and intensive, sustainable agriculture, staying within a 2°C rise by 2100 is within the realm. It is feasible.

Now, if only…

Reference:

van Vuuren, Detlef P.  et al (2011) RCP2.6: exploring the possibility to keep global mean temperature increase below 2°C. Climatic Change; 109:95–116 DOI 10.1007/s10584-011-0152-3

Ideology and US Politics

Politics and Economics

According to Teun A. Van Dijk, the following “ideological square” has been found to be pervasive in ideological discourse:

  1. Emphasize Our good things
  2. Emphasize Their bad things
  3. De-emphasize Our bad things
  4. De-emphasize Their good things

Here’s my take on the Ideological Square:

  1. Exaggerate Our Good Things: Our vision is good and true
  2. Exaggerate Their Bad Things: Their vision is evil and false
  3. Minimize Our Bad Things: Our vision has no serious downside
  4. Minimize Their Good Things: Their vision has no merit

The Square constitutes the essence of ideology.  Political leanings are more or less ideological, according to how well they align with the Square. Applying this metric to political groupings in the US,  I would say progressives are the most ideological, followed by libertarians, followed by Republicans.

Say what?!

More to follow.

Reference:

Van Dijk, Teun A. Politics, ideology and discourse. Elsevier Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics. Volume on Politics and Language (Ruth Wodak, Ed.), pp. 728-740. 2005.

Climate Change and Possible Futures: Part VIII

The Environment

In my last post, I suggested that we (humans) set the goal of staying, roughly, within the RCP2.6 scenario, which would keep global temperatures within 2°C by 2100.  RCP2.6 is one of the four Representative Concentration Pathways (RCPs) presented by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) a few years ago. A scenario consistent with RCP2 is a global population of 9 billion in 2100, fairly robust global GDP growth, middling reforestation and wild habitat restoration,  relatively less oil (and more natural gas) consumption than the other RCPs, and decent advances in carbon capture technologies van Vuuren et al (2011a). This scenario, per its authors, “represents a medium development scenario for population, income, energy use and land use” ((van Vuuren et al; 2011b, p. 100)

In the”a picture is worth a 100 words” department, here,are several graphs illustrating the above (all from van Vuuren et al (2011b):

Slide1 Slide2 Slide3

Note that if the graph lines fall within gray areas, they are considered within reasonable as per various experts as per IPCC. All the RCPs are within the gray areas. Otherwise, the IPCC wouldn’t be wasting our time with fantasies.

So, is RCP2.6 scenario presented above really reasonable? Mull it over, explore it in your problem space, and stay tuned…..

References:

van Vuuren, Detlef P.  et al  (2011) RCP2.6: exploring the possibility to keep global mean temperature increase below 2°C. Climatic Change; 109:95–116 DOI 10.1007/s10584-011-0152-3

van Vuuren, D et al. The representative concentration pathways: an overview. Climatic Change (2011) 109: 5. doi:10.1007/s10584-011-0148-z

 

 

Problem-Solving and Emotions

Explorations Outside the Box, Scientific Encounters

Problem-solving when we’re in a good mood tends to be quick, flexible, creative, and intuitive. Problem-solving when we’re in a bad mood tends to be information-based, detail-oriented, systematic, and cautious. Then there’s problem-solving when we’re on the rebound from feeling bad to feeling good – shifting from the negative to the positive: that’s when we’re especially creative and original in our approach and solutions. Each mode of problem-solving has its advantages and disadvantages; each works better in some situations than in others.

We need emotional breadth and dexterity to be effective problem-solvers.

References:

Bledow, R., Rosing, K., & Frese, M. (2012). A dynamic perspective on affect and creativity. Academy of Management Journal. Advance online publication. DOI:10.5465/amj.2010.0894

Spering, M., Wagener, D., & Funke, J. (2005). The role of emotions in complex problem-solving. Cognition and Emotion, 19, 1252_1261.

 

The Inequality Series, Part III: Churn in the Ranks

Politics and Economics

“Rather than talking about the 1% and the 99% as if they were forever fixed, it would make much more sense to talk about the fact that Americans are likely to be exposed to both prosperity and poverty during their lives & to shape our policies accordingly.”

– Mark R. Rank, “From Rags to Riches to Rags” New York Times, April 18, 2014

Churn rate is a measure of the number of individuals moving out of a collective group over a specific period of time. Relative household income in the US is subject to lots of churn. For instance, the top 400 US taxpayers changes a lot from year to year: over 70 % (2,909) made the list only one year during the period of 1999-2009.  Here are more examples:

  • 12%of US population will reach the top 1 % of income earners at least once.
  • 39 % of Americans will spend time in the top 5 % of earners
  • 56 % will make it to the top 10 %
  • 73 % will spend at least a year in the top 20 %
  • 50% who earned over $1 million a year did so just one year over and  15 % managed just two years (1999-2007)
  • 54 % of Americans will experience poverty or near poverty at least once between the ages of 25 and 60

In the US, persistence within an income category is the exception, not the rule.  On the premise that you can’t fix a problem you don’t understand, we need to keep this essential fact in mind when attempting to solve the problem of inequality.

References:

http://taxfoundation.org/article/income-mobility-and-persistence-millionaires-1999-2007

Auten, Gerald, Geoffrey Gee, and Nicholas Turner. 2013. “Income Inequality, Mobility, and Turnover at the Top in the US, 1987-2010.” American Economic Review, 103(3): 168-72.

Rank,Mark R.  “From Rags to Riches to Rags” New York Times, April 18, 2014

The Inequality Series, Part II: Inequality and Age

Politics and Economics

Relative affluence or poverty is less a matter of fixed groups than of lifespan. The young are poor, the middle-aged are gaining traction, the near-retired have peaked, and old age is a long decline – in wealth and income as well as health. When we’re young, we’re getting educated and sampling jobs – a process that can extend into our 30s. Eventually we settle on some career trajectory and start accumulating skills and money. Most of us will be home owners by age 40.

Since the biggest source of wealth in the US is home equity,  the longer we own homes, the wealthier we’re likely to be.  Over half of us will also invest in stocks and mutual funds – the value of which peaks when we reach our late 60s.  Hence, the association between age and wealth.

As for the association between age and income, this chart pretty much says it all:

Income and Age

Of course, there are plenty of people who are chronically poor. Not everyone is able to improve their circumstances as they get older. The less fortunate and vulnerable need help – especially single moms. But most of us will reach at least the middle class at some point in our lives.

Next: How many?

References:

http://www.census.gov/people/wealth/

Investment Company Institute/2013 Investment Company Fact Book

US Census Bureau: Survey of Income and Program Participation, 2008 Panel

The Inequality Series, Part I: Correlation, Causation, and Bad Data

Politics and Economics

Inequality is correlated with all sorts of bad things (at least if you look at subsets of the international data , which often includes different countries and time periods and doesn’t control for outliers, mediators, moderators, and confounding variables).

But we all know correlation is not causation (even if we’re looking at good, truly comparable data).

Did you know that in the US, increasing inequality is correlated with decreasing crime rates? Or that, internationally, divorce and suicide rates are higher in more equal societies? Check out these charts:

Inequality and Bad Things

Inequality and Bad Things II

No – I’m  not saying  inequality is a good thing. Nor am I saying that graphs lie. The above graphs reflect accurate data. The point is that correlation is not causation – and this principle applies whether or not you’re sympathetic to the point.

Wandering Thoughts are Exploring Thoughts

Explorations Outside the Box, Observing Mindfulness

The phrase “wandering thoughts” is interesting. Why not call the movement of thoughts “exploring thoughts”?  From the outside, exploration may look like wandering. From the outside, you can’t see direction; you can’t see what is being sought.  It’s all helter-skelter. The difference is that “exploring’ conveys intention or goal. As noted in prior posts, “stimulus-independent” thoughts are largely goal-directed and future oriented (Baird et al, 2011). When an observing part of the brain becomes aware of the activities of another part of the brain, the observing part may not grasp the latter’s business.

Reference:

Baird, B., Smallwood, J. Schooler, and J. W. Back to the future: Autobiographical planning and the functionality of mind-wandering. Consciousness and Cognition 20 (2011) 1604–1611

 

The Origin of Thinking

Explorations Outside the Box, Observing Mindfulness

…the origin of thinking is some perplexity, confusion, or doubt. Thinking is not a case of spontaneous combustion; it does not occur just on “general principles.” There is something specific which occasions and evokes it. (Dewey 2010, p 1)

…the content of mind-wandering is predominantly future-focused … [and] frequently involves autobiographical planning (Baird et al, 2011, p1604).

Dealing with “perplexity, confusion or doubt” may take the form of planning, problem-solving, rehearsing, re-playing prior interactions (to reduce uncertainty on how to interpret the experience; or to reinforce an initial impression) and rumination. Since dealing with unfinished business involves contemplation of something not yet in its ideal state, a certain amount of mild negativity may be part of the process.  For example, competent planning for just about anything requires consideration of what might go wrong. It stands to reason that when the mind is churning over unresolved issues, one’s  hedonic states will be somewhat less enjoyable than, say, a flow experience, where attention is buoyed by a challenging but doable activity. Not a tragedy.

References:

Dewey, John “What is thought?” Chapter 1 in How we think. Lexington, Mass: D.C. Heath, (1910): 1-13. https://www.brocku.ca/MeadProject/Dewey/Dewey_1910a/Dewey_1910_a.html

Baird, B., Smallwood, J. Schooler, and J. W. Back to the future: Autobiographical planning and the functionality of mind-wandering. Consciousness and Cognition 20 (2011) 1604–1611