Climatic Change

, Volume 110, Issue 3–4, pp 507–521 | Cite as

Climate policy: hard problem, soft thinking

Article

Abstract

Climate change is more uncertain, more global, and more long-term than most issues facing humanity. This trifecta makes a policy response that encompasses scientific correctness, public awareness, economic efficiency, and governmental effectiveness particularly difficult. Economic and psychological instincts impede rational thought. Elected officials, who cater to and foster voters’ misguided beliefs, compound the soft thinking that results. Beliefs must change before unequivocal symptoms appear and humanity experiences the climate-change equivalent of a life-altering heart attack. Sadly, it may well take dramatic loss to jolt the collective conscience toward serious action. In the long run, the only solution is a bottom-up demand leading to policies that appropriately price carbon and technological innovation, and that promote ethical shifts toward a world in which low-carbon, high-efficiency living is the norm. In the short term, however, popular will is unlikely to drive serious action on the issue. Policy makers can and must try to overcome inherent psychological barriers and create pockets of certainty that link benefits of climate policy to local, immediate payoffs. It will take high-level scientific and political leadership to redirect currently misguided market forces toward a positive outcome.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Acemoglu D, Aghion P, Bursztyn L, Hemous D (2010) The environment and directed technical change. Working Paper, April 28Google Scholar
  2. Akerlof GA, Dickens WT (1982) The economic consequences of cognitive dissonance. Am Econ Rev 72(3):307–319Google Scholar
  3. Allcott H, Mullainathan S (2010) Behavior and energy policy. Science 327(5970):1204–1205CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bar-Eli M, Azar OH, Ritov I, Keidar-Levin Y, Schein G (2007) Action bias among elite soccer goalkeepers: the case of penalty kicks. J Econ Psychol 28(5):606–621CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Barrett S (2007) Why cooperate? Oxford University Press, OxfordCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Berger A, Brown C, Kousky C, Zeckhauser R (2011) The challenge of degraded environments: how common biases impair effective policy. Risk Anal. doi:10.1111/j.1539-6924.2010.01477.x
  7. Center for Research on Environmental Decisions (CRED) (2009) The psychology of climate change csommunication: a guide for scientists, journalists, educators, political aides, and the interested public. Columbia University, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  8. Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) (2009) Turn toward climate safety. (http://www.edf.org/documents/10483_Turn_Toward_Safety.pdf)
  9. European Climate Foundation (ECF) (2010) Roadmap (2050) (www.roadmap2050.eu)
  10. Festinger L (1957) A theory of cognitive dissonance. Stanford University PressGoogle Scholar
  11. Hardin G (1968) Tragedy of the commons. Science 162(3859):1243–1248CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Hatfield-Dodds S, Morrison M (2010) Confusing opportunity costs, losses and forgone gains: assessing the effect of communication bias on support for climate change policy in the United States and Australia. CCEP Working Paper 9.10, Centre for Climate Economics & Policy, Australian National UniversityGoogle Scholar
  13. Jaffe A, Newell R, Stavins R (2005) A tale of two market failures: technology and environmental policy. Ecol Econ 54:164–174CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Kahneman D, Tversky A (1972) Subjective probability: a judgment of representativeness. Cogn Psychol 3(3):430–454CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Kahneman D, Tversky A (1979) Prospect theory: an analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica 47(2):263–292CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Kahneman D, Knetsch JL, Thaler RH (1990) Experimental tests of the endowment effect and the coase theorem. J Polit Econ 98(6):1325–1348CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Kemeny J, (Comission Chair) et al. (1979) The need for change: the legacy of Three Mile Island. Report of the President’s Commission on the Accident at Three Mile IslandGoogle Scholar
  18. Kousky C, Cooke R (2009) The unholy trinity: fat tails, tail dependence, and micro-correlations. RFF Working Paper 09–36Google Scholar
  19. Krosnick JA (2010) The climate majority. New York Times op-ed, June 8Google Scholar
  20. Leiserowitz A (2004) Before and after the day after tomorrow: a U.S. study of climate change risk perception. Environment 46(9):22–37CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Leiserowitz A (2005) The international impact of the day after tomorrow. Environment 47(3):41–44Google Scholar
  22. Lenton TM (2007) Tipping elements in the Earth’s climate system. PNAS 105(6):1786–1793CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. McKinsey (2010) Unlocking energy efficiency in the U.S. economy. (www.mckinsey.com/usenergyefficiency)
  24. Munger CT (2005) The psychology of human misjudgment. (Combined selections of three of Charles Munger’s talks). (http://files.arunbansal.com/pdf/mungermisjudgment.pdf)
  25. Murray BC, Newell RG, Pizer WA (2008) Balancing cost and emissions certainty: an allowance reserve for cap-and-trade. Rev Environ Econ Policy. doi:10.1093/reep/ren016 Google Scholar
  26. Oppenheimer M, Todorov A (2006) Global warming: the psychology of long term risk. Clim Change 77:1–6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Patt A, Zeckhauser R (2000) Action bias and environmental decisions. J Risk Uncertain 21(1):45–72CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Pigou AC (1912) Wealth and welfare. Macmillan Company, LondonGoogle Scholar
  29. Pooley E (2010) The climate war: true believers, power brokers, and the fight to save the earth. Hyperion, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  30. Raihani N, Aitken D (2011) Uncertainty, rationality and cooperation in the context of climate change. Clim Change. doi:10.1007/s10584-010-0014-4 Google Scholar
  31. Sterman JD (2008) Risk communication on climate: mental models and mass balance. Science 322:532–533CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Stern N (2007) Stern review report on the economics of climate change. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  33. Sterner T (2009) In defense of sensible economics. In: Touffut J-P (ed) Changing climate, changing economy. Edward Elgar, Cournot Centre for Economic StudiesGoogle Scholar
  34. Summers L, Zeckhauser R (2008) Policymaking for posterity. J Risk Uncertain 37(2):115–140CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Sunstein CR (2007) Worst-case scenarios. Harvard University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  36. Sunstein CR, Zeckhauser R (2011) Overreaction to fearsome risks. Environ Resour Econ 48(3):435–449CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Tversky A, Kahneman D (1974) Judgments under uncertainty: heuristics and biases. Science 185(4157):1124–1131CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Weber E (2006) Experience-based and description-based perceptions of long-term risk: why global warming does not scare us (yet). Clim Change 77:103–120CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Weinstein ND (1980) Unrealistic optimism about future life events. J Pers Soc Psychol 39(5):806–820CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Weitzman ML (2009) On modeling and interpreting the economics of catastrophic climate change. Rev Econ Stat 91(1):1–19CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Weitzman ML (2010) GHG Targets as insurance against catastrophic climate damages. Working Paper, June 3, 2010Google Scholar
  42. Yohe G, Tol R (2007) Precaution and a dismal theorem: implications for climate policy and climate research. Working Paper FNU-145. Research unit Sustainability and Global Change, Hamburg University, HamburgGoogle Scholar
  43. Zeckhauser R, Viscusi KW (1990) Risk within reason. Science 248(4955):559–564CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Environmental Defense FundNew YorkUSA
  2. 2.School of International and Public AffairsColumbia UniversityNew YorkUSA
  3. 3.John F. Kennedy School of GovernmentHarvard UniversityCambridgeUSA

Personalised recommendations