The climate-poppycock pandemic looks like this: “The slow but steady ratcheting of ambition put in motion after Paris creates a virtuous cycle where success can breed success.” --Above post and the whole United Nations
How can we explain this pandemic of poppycock? --Steven Pinker
“Poppycock” was deemed “my favorite word” by someone at Pi…
The climate-poppycock pandemic looks like this: “The slow but steady ratcheting of ambition put in motion after Paris creates a virtuous cycle where success can breed success.” --Above post and the whole United Nations
How can we explain this pandemic of poppycock? --Steven Pinker
“Poppycock” was deemed “my favorite word” by someone at Pinker’s terrific zoom talk yesterday.
This “ratcheting up of ambition” poppycock was made up at the 2015 Paris Climate Conference to justify not having any real commitments.
That claim has been checked experimentally more times than any other behavioral claim. I would say at least 1,000 experiments — in political science, psychology, and economics.
Every single time it was proved wrong. They ratchet down, not up.
This is why we were sure the Kyoto agreement would fall apart, just as it did.
This is why the Paris agreement will not work.
Here’s how it goes. Typically four people (countries) participate (when you add more, the outcome gets worse). They are all given $10 and told to contribute as much as they want to the common pot. This represents each spending $10 on C02 reductions.
Because the climate benefit to the world is greater than the cost of reductions, the experimenter doubles the money in the pot and divides it evenly among the four players. (Climate benefits are spread over all countries.)
If they all contribute $10, that’s $40 in the pot. Doubled is $80, and they each get $20. That’s smart. Or is it?
What if they all “commit” to that and then three keep their commitment and one doesn’t. Then there’s $30 in the pot. Doubled is $60 and ALL four get $15. So the three honest players end up with the $15, but the cheater keeps his $10 and gets $15 from the pot and ends up with $25. That’s “smarter.” He gets his climate benefit for free.
What actually happens in these experiments? The first time they play, they are somewhat cautious and contribute about $6 or $7 on average. Then they play again. Some may contribute more but on average they RATCHET their contributions DOWN. And after playing 10 times they are down to about $2 each on average.
There have been 1000 variations on this experiment. Almost all players ratchet down.
I’ve read papers on a dozen or so of these experiments. I’ve worked with a top behavioral economist on this at his lab in Cologn, Germany, and I recently conducted the experiment several more times online using Amazon Turk workers.
Why don’t the post’s authors know this? The same reason the UN activists and negotiators don’t. They are not social scientists. They don’t read any of the scientific literature on how people do and don’t cooperate. They just know a little about energy tech and about climate science.
But the real problem is: How to get people to cooperate. And they never, ever read about that. I watched all the videos of the Paris conference. There was not a single mention of the science of cooperation or any results or theory of cooperation. They just make stuff up.
The climate-poppycock pandemic looks like this: “The slow but steady ratcheting of ambition put in motion after Paris creates a virtuous cycle where success can breed success.” --Above post and the whole United Nations
How can we explain this pandemic of poppycock? --Steven Pinker
“Poppycock” was deemed “my favorite word” by someone at Pinker’s terrific zoom talk yesterday.
This “ratcheting up of ambition” poppycock was made up at the 2015 Paris Climate Conference to justify not having any real commitments.
That claim has been checked experimentally more times than any other behavioral claim. I would say at least 1,000 experiments — in political science, psychology, and economics.
Every single time it was proved wrong. They ratchet down, not up.
This is why we were sure the Kyoto agreement would fall apart, just as it did.
This is why the Paris agreement will not work.
Here’s how it goes. Typically four people (countries) participate (when you add more, the outcome gets worse). They are all given $10 and told to contribute as much as they want to the common pot. This represents each spending $10 on C02 reductions.
Because the climate benefit to the world is greater than the cost of reductions, the experimenter doubles the money in the pot and divides it evenly among the four players. (Climate benefits are spread over all countries.)
If they all contribute $10, that’s $40 in the pot. Doubled is $80, and they each get $20. That’s smart. Or is it?
What if they all “commit” to that and then three keep their commitment and one doesn’t. Then there’s $30 in the pot. Doubled is $60 and ALL four get $15. So the three honest players end up with the $15, but the cheater keeps his $10 and gets $15 from the pot and ends up with $25. That’s “smarter.” He gets his climate benefit for free.
What actually happens in these experiments? The first time they play, they are somewhat cautious and contribute about $6 or $7 on average. Then they play again. Some may contribute more but on average they RATCHET their contributions DOWN. And after playing 10 times they are down to about $2 each on average.
There have been 1000 variations on this experiment. Almost all players ratchet down.
I’ve read papers on a dozen or so of these experiments. I’ve worked with a top behavioral economist on this at his lab in Cologn, Germany, and I recently conducted the experiment several more times online using Amazon Turk workers.
Why don’t the post’s authors know this? The same reason the UN activists and negotiators don’t. They are not social scientists. They don’t read any of the scientific literature on how people do and don’t cooperate. They just know a little about energy tech and about climate science.
But the real problem is: How to get people to cooperate. And they never, ever read about that. I watched all the videos of the Paris conference. There was not a single mention of the science of cooperation or any results or theory of cooperation. They just make stuff up.
Read our full op-ed here.
https://news.trust.org/item/20180829094229-b1g4u/
Get the book here (free pdf paid for by Energy Economics Institute at the University of Cologne)
A collection of papers including 3 by Nobel economists. Just read my preface.
https://carbon-price.com/