Showing posts with label environmental policy. Show all posts

The Lima Accord: Some key points

Typhoon Hagupit. Source: NASA

The climate is already changing


One year ago, supertyphoon Haiyan unleashed havoc in the Philippines while world governments were discussing a global climate agreement at the United Nations Climate Talks. Now, one year later, another destructive typhoon Hagupit hit the country while the same climate negotiations were taking place in Lima, Peru. While no single storm can be directly linked to a changing climate, the increased frequency and intensity of severe storms, has been observed and reported on by scientists linking it to global warming. Some politicians and businesses herald the Lima talks as progress while many climate experts say it’s not enough. Let’s look at some of the issues with the draft agreement coming out of Lima. 

The Lima Accord: Some key points

First, the new agreement does not reflect the urgency of the climate crisis. One of the fundamental flaws of the negotiations is the lack of a clear global goal for limiting global warming based on science. The IPCC latest report made it clear that we have to get off fossil fuels and take urgent measures if we want to keep warming below 2 degrees Celsius and avert global disaster (its even debatable if 2C degrees can be considered a "safe" limit). With the current agreement we are on a path to 3-4 degrees warming. Island nations face imminent danger from rising sea-levels but the agreement does not reflect this urgency. 

Second, while there are some good ideas in the agreement there are no measures to ensure implementation. One scenario included in the text coming out of Lima is a goal of phasing out carbon emissions by 2050, which was supported by over 100 countries. This is a big deal. However, the only way to achieve it is by moving away from fossil fuels but there is still no plan for how countries will achieve this or how to monitor their progress. Each country are expected to report in the coming months how they will make this happen. But nations won’t be held accountable for reporting their plans. This increases the seriousness of putting pressure on governments to ensure responsibility. 

Third, many least developed and vulnerable countries feel they have been left out in the cold. The agreement does not force rich nations to support countries that are being most impacted by climate change. Countries that have had little impact on global emissions will likely be the ones making the most efforts to create change but they will not be getting enough financial support. It’s a serious issue of climate injustice. Many rich countries are still treating the climate talks as business as usual and are not going out of their way to provide leadership. 

Fourth, the world’s nations are for the first time in agreement over that poorer nations should also lower their emissions. How much rich nations and poorer nations should lower their emissions, respectively, has not been agreed upon. This will be a difficult issue to solve during the 2015 Paris meeting. 

Conclusion

The Lima Accord resulted in that every nation has to present their emission plans during March 2015. The final text also opened up for the future agreement to be non-binding and voluntary, which most experts agree on is a bad idea. The major questions around how poorer nations will receive financing and technology as well as payments for losses and harms from a changing climate has not been resolved. Richer nations seem to once again have gotten their will while the poorer nations are the loosers. The issue of climate justice has thus not been adressed which was the major problem during the Climate talks in Copenhagen. It looks like most problems are pushed further down the road, to the climate meeting in Paris, November 2015. I have no major expectations since politicans has proved over and over again that they are incapable of coming to an agreement with teeth. We will have to look for other solutions that incurage low-carbon solutions and forces emitters to pay, for example, through dividends and fees on carbon from all trade and production.
Read More

Who's afraid of the big bad wolf?

The myth lives on

The Wolf has featured as the bad character in fairytales for generations, but what is the real problem between humans and wolves? How come people are so vocal about this specific animal that they will go to such lengths, even violating EU environmental law and pay millions in fines just to hunt it? Wolves have had a complicated relationship with humans. For much of history they have been persecuted as competitors, and out of fear and ignorance. Yet favourable legislation in the European Union have recently allowed this species to re-establish in parts of the continent, in which it's considered critically endangered by IUCN.
Gray Wolf. Photo: Gary Kramer - US fish and wildlife service

The EU is closely monitoring Swedish wolf hunting

Karmenu Vella, the commissioner for Environment, Maritime Affairs and Fisheries, has sent a reply to a letter from WWF, Swedish Society for Nature Conservation (SSNC), and the Swedish Carnivore Association (SCA). In the letter, Vella describe how “The Commission in July 2014 launched an infringement case against Sweden for failure to ensure appropriate access to justice, including to judicial review of administrative decisions, such as hunting decisions” and he goes on to write “Please be assured that the Commission is closely monitoring this issue and that it will not hesitate, if needed, to take all measures necessary to ensure that European Union environmental law is complied with in Sweden’s management of wolves”.

Wolf hunting in Sweden

Last december experts warned that Swedish wolf hunting may result in a fine of SEK 100 million if the issue goes to the European Court of Justice (SVD, 20 dec 2013). Thus, wolf hunting may become an expensive policy for taxpayers. That the Swedish Environmental Protection Agency (SEPA) granted licenced hunt for 16 wolfs last year lead to heavy criticism from the EU and an appeal by WWF, SCA and SSNC which resulted in a hunting ban awaiting the administrative court's sentence. The NGOs won the case but the sentence was appealed by SEPA and the Swedish Association for Hunters (SAH). The administrative court of appeal did however side with the three NGOs and sentenced the decision of 16 hunting licenses as unlawful. SEPAs motivation that hunting would lead to a decreased level of inbreeding in the Scandinavian wolf population lack sufficient evidence, according the the court. Even if the sentence would be appealed again it is unclear whether the Supreme Administrative Court would accept a trial.

Failure to comply with EU law

But now the government has opened up for hunting of more wolves, despite the administrative court of appeals decision that hunting 16 wolves was illegal. The general parliamentary motion period shows that many of the right-wing parties are positive to licensed wolf hunting. During 2014, 23 cases regarding hunting was brought up. But there is no general agreement on the topic (SVD, 2014) and SEPA has now transferred the decision-making to the county administrative boards in middle Sweden, which opens up for hunting licenses of up to 100 wolves according to some sources (SVD, 2014). Others claim the number to be around 44 wolves (Jönsson, 2014).


Facts about the Scandinavian wolf population

The wolf population in Sweden and Norway consist of a common Scandinavian population with spread over territorial boundaries. Yearly inventories are conducted over the entire Scandinavian peninsula winter time in respective country and also in Finland. During the winter 2013-2014 the Scandinavian wolf population has been estimated at 400 wolves in total (Viltskadecenter, 2014). Around 320 wolves are located only in Sweden, while 50 wolves are transboundary and 30 wolves live in Norway. In total 43 family groups have been documented. Finland registered 22 family groups in total, of which 14 live only in Finland and the rest are transboundary with Russia.The Scandinavian wolf population continues to increase. The population shows no significant change in growth rate during the last 16 years, with a yearly average growth rate of 15%. During this period the population has increased from 10 to 66 family groups. 40 wolf litters born during the spring 2013 were documented.

Family groups in Sweden during the winter 2013-2014. Source: SLU (2014)

The estimated average inbreeding coefficient of pups born in 2013 was 0.25. This is the next lowest number since 1998. During the winter 4 finnish-russian wolves were documented in Sweden. One male is located in Gävleborg and has produced four wolf litters during 2008,2009,2010, 2012. The female that was identified for the first time during the winter of 2010-2011, and was re-located by SEPA at several occasions, was also documented this year. The two wolves that were re-located during 2012-2013 from reindeer terrain in Norrbotten to the border between Örebro and Västra Götaland stayed and had a litter.
Annual number of wolf litters confirmed in Norway (red ),
 cross-border Swedish-Norway (yellow), and Sweden (blue)
during a 16-year-period, 1998-2013. Source: SLU

During 2013-2014, 58 wolves were confirmed dead, 44 were found in Sweden. These numbers are included in the population estimate. In Sweden 26 (of 58) wolves were shot, 14 in self-defence and 12 in protective hunting. 9 died in traffic and another 9 died of unidentified causes.

Public opinion, nation wide

According to one public poll conducted by YouGov in 2012 (1009 respondents), commissioned by SSNC, the difference in opinions among city people and country side people is much lower than often claimed. The question posed was “The Swedish wolf population today consist of 260-330 individuals according to SEPA. Do you think the wolf population should be lowered through hunting?" The results showed that 59% answered No and 21% answered Yes across the country. Below is a chart showing the percentages divided by city size.

EU:s habitat directive

In order to ensure the survival of Europe’s most endangered and vulnerable species, EU governments adopted the Habitats Directive in 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora. It sets the standard for nature conservation across the EU and enables all 27 Member States to work together within the same strong legislative framework in order to protect the most vulnerable species and habitat types across their entire natural range within the EU. Through the EU:s habitat directive wolves have returned to unlikely places in Europe. The return of breeding wolves to Germany during the last 14 years, and the recent arrival of dispersing wolves in Denmark is a striking example of how adaptable wolves are. And it brings optimism to carnivore conservation.The most important threats for wolves in Europe are: low acceptance among the rural communities, illegal killings, habitat fragmentation due to infrastructure development, and poor wildlife management structures.
Read More

TTIP trade deal and it's impact on democracy

Trade agreement being negotiated behind the scenes

In my last post I had a critical look at the trans-pacific partnership (TTP). And so to be fair and also bring this issue closer to home I will in this post have a look at the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP). TTIP is very similar to TTP, a proposed regional free-trade agreement, but between the European Union and the United States. Proponents of TTIP argue that it would result in multilateral economic growth, while critics argue that it would increase corporate power and make markets more difficult to regulate for public benefit. Like TPP this trade agreement has been delayed by leaked draft documents, due to it's secretive nature, but could be finalized by the end of 2014.

Corporate Control

Similar to the case of TTP a very controversial clause in the TTIP is the Investor-state dispute settlements (ISDS). The ISDS would allow corporations to sue governments, for any government action (at any level, including local government level) that limits a corporation's future profits. One example of how the ISDS clause in TTIP would impact countries can be found in the case of the Swedish, part state owned, energy company Vattenfall suing the German government over the issue of terminating nuclear power plants. Vattenfall demands payouts of 4,7 billion euros (Der Spiegel), and has caused outrage in Germany. Other examples includes tobacco companies suing the Australian government over health labeling of cigarettes, and fracking companies suing the Canadian government over environmental protection. The original justification for introducing ISDS in trade agreements was for trade deals with countries where the judicial system was weak in protecting foreign investors. But this is not the case with either the EU or the US. According to the latest UN report on the topic, ISDS cases has increased from 0 in 1992 to 514 in 2012.

Responses by civil society

There is now a growing civil society resistance to TTIP and ISDS inclusion in the TTIP negotiations. Last month there were 450 protest actions across 24 member states (The Greens Europe). The European NGO Finance Watch writes about ISDS that "the very principle of such a mechanism is anti-democratic, because it allows investors to challenge legitimate regulations and other rules that have been created and voted by democratic institutions with a view to protecting their citizens". Corporate Europe Observatory (CEO) has reported that of 560 lobby encounters that the European Commission trade department held to prepare the negotiations, 520 (92%) were with business lobbyists, while only 26 (4%) were with public interest groups (CEO). That must be considered corporate capture. A large number of European scientists have also voiced concern over ISDS legal nature, quote "there is little evidence linking the conclusion of the Treaties to increased flows of foreign direct investment, and there is little evidence that they contribute to other development goals, such as encouraging good governance" (University of Kent). And a recent study from Tufts University has concluded through modelling that TTIP could lead to: net loss in exports for the EU, a net loss in GDP, and a loss in employment of some 600 000 jobs, and the author conclude by stating that "In the current context of austerity, high unemployment and low growth, increasing the pressure on labor incomes would further harm economic activity" (Capaldo, 2014).

Impact on environment, health and food standards

Many environmental organisations fear that the TTIP will ignite a "race to the bottom" regarding environmental regulations in the EU, so that they come to resemble the US far weaker regulatory system. Most likely the TTIP will accelerate the privatization of public goods and services such as National Health systems. This could have tremendous effects on public health. And many analysts agree that TTIP would allow big food corporations to avoid food safety regulations and undermine sustainable agricultural practices in the rush for profits and trade. For example, the US has much weaker standards on animal welfare, ecosystem protection and GMO labeling. These are serious citizen concerns that has not been sufficiently addressed by governments wishing to take part of the TTIP.


Conclusion

Trade unions, consumer groups, environmentalists and digital rights activists are opposed to increasing corporate rights over sovereign nations. Almost all (centre-)left groups in the European Parliament have voted against ISDS. So have the French Assemble and the Dutch Parliament. In Sweden, however, both the moderates (M) and social democrats (S) are positive to the TTIP (ETC, 2013). The current prime minister, Stefan Löfven, has stated that he welcomes the TTIP but that "social justice issues should be included" (ibid). This is a paradox since the (S) representative Mikael Damberg in a leaked document to Cecilia Malmström, the EU commissioner for trade, has signed a letter pushing for ISDS inclusion in TTIP (TTippen.se). The most troubling issue is perhaps how much of the negotiations have been kept secret from public and governmental scrutiny, similar to the TPP. Moreover it seems that countries have become so desperate for economic growth that they are willing to throw everything they worked for, in terms of environmental and health regulation, out the window. I am also surprised that conservatives don't seem to react to this issue as much as the left, one might think that they should be even more concerned with national sovereignty.   
Read More

A critical view of the TPP

Trade agreement that upsets

The Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) is a regional free-trade agreement between the United States and some pacific countries. It threatens local economies self-determination over big corporations and any hope of a green trade deal that could ultimately do more to reduce carbon emissions. Critics have described the TPP as NAFTA on steriods (stoptpp.org) because of its focus on giving legal power to multinational corporations over nation states and their citizens. The proposed TPP is now, however, running into difficulties as the public learns more about it.

What is TPP?
TPP is a proposed regional free-trade agreement that as of 2014 includes twelve countries throughout the Asia-Pacific region (see map below). These countries combined represents an economic power of more than 40% of the worlds GDP, making the TPP the largest economic trade agreement to date. The agreement started with discussions in 2005 and should have finished by 2012 but was delayed because of major controversies and outrage due to leakages of secret documents around Intellectual Property and Environment Chapters in the proposed agreement by WikiLeaks. The push for this kind of an trade agreement probably started as a alternative way to WTO negotiations after 12 years of stagnation, partly due to well-organized public resistance in many countries. At the moment U.S. corporate interests are driving the agenda of the TPP (The Guardian).  It is according to many commentators no coincidence that leftist Latin American governments and China has been left out of the agreement.




Controversy
There has been extremely little transparency regarding the TPP negotiations. Few people have had access to the draft agreement and outermost secrecy has been in place. Large corporations and lobbyists, however, have been able to see chapters of the document. Thus when WikiLeaks first revealed parts of the TPP draft in November of 2013 many people and citizens rights groups got very upset. One part of the TPP which consist of giving corporations the right to directly sue governments for regulations that infringe upon profits or potential profits may explain why the TPP negotiators tried to hide the details from public awareness (Guardian, 2013). Because they knew it would evoke strong opposition, given the value people place in national sovereignty. Other parts of the draft, which have been leaked, includes:

 Intellectual Property (IP) Chapter
The IP Chapter covers topics from pharmaceuticals, patent registrations and copyright issues to digital rights. Experts say it will affect freedom of information, civil liberties and access to medicines globally. The latest 77-page document is a working draft from the negotiations in Vietnam, dated 16 May 2014. The IP chapter of TPP would, if signed, effectively let corporations monitor citizens online activities, cut off peoples Internet access, delete content, impose fines and pursue stronger criminal regulations related to online copyright (ComputerWorld). It would end up instituting very controversial laws such as SOPA and PIPA that would restrict internet freedoms and free speech to the benefit of corporations. Overly protective patent laws on medicines and biological seeds etc. would also increase health care costs and farming practices and thus have a major impact on public health and food security, especially in poorer nations. 

 Environment Chapter 
The environmental chapter in the TPP does not require nations to follow legally binding environmental provisions or other global environmental treaties. Pollution controls could vary depending on a country's domestic circumstances and capabilities. The chapter shows how trade above all is promoted, beyond environmental goals and values, basically stating that local environmental laws are not to obstruct trade or investment between member countries. Furthermore there is an emphasis on “...flexible, voluntary mechanisms, such as voluntary auditing and reporting, market-based incentives, voluntary sharing of information and expertise and public-private partnership”, but that even such measures should be designed in a manner that “...avoids the creation of unnecessary barriers to trade” (WikiLeaks). At a time of worldwide environmental challenges (including species die-offs, dangerous pollution of the oceans and climate change) people would expect that trade could be a tool to protect the planet, not hasten ecological collapse. 

 Conclusion
According to Noam Chomsky, the MIT professor, the TPP is not about "free trade" at all. He says “These are extreme, highly protectionist measures designed to undermine freedom of trade. In fact, much of what’s leaked about the TPP indicates that it’s not about trade at all, it’s about investor rights” (Huffington Post). Simply put, this proposed agreement protects corporations over citizens and profits over the environment. If signed, this agreement could further exacerbate economic inequalities and environmental degradation in many nations.
Read More

EU members positions on climate and energy targets 2030

Climate targets 2030


European member states are soon to vote for binding targets on greenhouse gas emission reductions and energy targets for 2030 (See last paragraph for update). Below are three maps that can be found on the energy in demand blog that display how EU members have positioned themselves in terms of voting for or against 40% greenhouse gas emission reduction targets, 30% increase in energy efficiency and 30% target for renewable energy by 2030. 

The new coalition government in Sweden seems to have decided to vote no for a binding target for 40% reduction in greenhouse gasses. Some say that the red/green majority got their proposal for higher targets (50%) voted down by the conservatives (M and SD). They may end up having to settle for a 40% reductions target. I'm not sure about the reasons behind the lower targets, no clear information or statements have been given on this issue and many commentators seem confused (Supermiljöbloggen). On the topic of energy efficiency and renewable energy Sweden still shows undecided but my guess and hope is that we will be in favor of the binding agreements as shown below (see in yellow "yes"). 

By the look of it European members are not really showing any strong leadership the year before UN Climate Change conference in Paris (2015). To reach the international goal of staying below 2 degrees warming the world's greenhouse gas emissions has to drop 80 % by 2050 (compared to 1990). Some environmental experts, such as Johan Rockström, argue that to even have a chance of reaching that goal the EU needs to have a target of at least 60% reduction in greenhouse gasses emissions by 2030. Decisions are to be made next week at the European Council. There is still time to take action! Below are two petitions you can sign to show your support for stronger European climate targets.

--> Demand European Climate Action - Act Now
--> EU: give children the future they want - Avaaz
Shows countries leaning towards 40% reduction in greenhouse gasses
Shows countries leaning towards 30% energy efficiency
Shows countries leaning towards the goal of 30% renewable energy

UPDATE! 24th October

The European Council decided Europe's climate future yesterday. The results are lower than many environmentalists and scientists hoped for, set at targets of 27% energy efficiency, 27% renewables and 40% GHG emissions to be met by 2030 (Supermiljöbloggen). The European Environmental Bureau (EEB) condemned last nights outcome which escalated into a race to the bottom. Jeremy Wates, EEB Secretary General, said that “With this abysmal result, Europe’s leaders have failed their citizens and failed the world. More and more extreme weather events such as flooding and wildfires are already hurting people and their communities all across Europe. Adopting a set of targets to cut energy waste by 40%, roll out sustainable renewables to 45% of the energy mix and cut emissions by 60% is what the science of climate change demands, and is also what will help Europe get on its feet.” (EEB Press release). Others say that it is a first good step, showing other regions of the world that Europe has ambitions to lower greenhouse emissions. However, any final decisions about targets may change in accordance with the UN climate summit in 2015. The Swedish representatives failed to reach higher targets and seems to have focused most of their energy on voting each other down. The conservatives voted down red/greens higher targets, after which S made up some new much less ambitious target that in the end only got the support of SD.
Read More

Storytelling drives change

Facts don't drive change

Facts are of course very important to making the right decisions in regards to environmental problems and potential solutions. But facts alone, don't engage people and drive change on a larger scale. For that to happen a wider cultural conversation is needed. Telling a story is a more effective way to send a complex message and start a dialogue. It goes through emotions and connects with logic, giving real examples of change.
Source: Story of stuff
Storytelling and adapting messages to specific target groups
Psychology plays an important role in how we humans view information and act based upon new facts. Environmental communication needs to understand this and focus on how to inspire people, rather than scare them. In this case, storytelling can be a successful way of communicating sustainability concerns and visions to the broader public or a specific target group. Communicating a coherent story is something many companies are good at but environmental organizations have only just begun using this strategy for outreach. Creative initiatives like the Story of Stuff have started to do this by helping to shift the conversation from the buying of more stuff to having less, but better, stuff. 

What makes a good story?
To help friends, colleagues and your community become more aware of environmental issues and sustainable development, use stories. The model suggested below can be applied as much to articles (e.g. blogs, newspapers) as to videos, podcasts, oral presentations or other media. Key ingredients for a good story include:
- It gets noticed!
- It tells a story of real people and/or real situations
- It gives a living example of the broader, more abstract message you wish to convey
- It expresses a single, main idea
- It adopts a tone (e.g. sad, happy, excited) to go with the issue
- It touches emotions by speaking to universal values (e.g. love, fear, bravery)
- It uses rational arguments, appealing to logic (e.g. using numbers and placing the issue within a broader context)

 Nature is speaking
Another interesting example of attractive storytelling can be found in the project natureisspeaking.org by Conservation International (CI). In this collaboration between companies (Virgin, Radical media, hp etc.) and CI, famous actors and actresses take on the voices of different parts of nature such as the oceans, the soil, and the rainforests. With stunning images, nature sounds and famous narrators this campaign makes for a compelling story about the human-nature relationship and our dependence on nature. 
Source: Nature is speaking
Read More

The tragedy of the science commons

How to communicate climate change science

One of the major problems to curbing greenhouse gas emissions in the United States, and thus to some extent globally, is the fact that a large fraction of the American public is skeptical about the proposition of human-induced climate change. According to a multiple-country study by Resources for the Future (RFF) released in 2010 only 40% of the American public think that environmental improvements should be a priority. This is in comparison to 77 % of the Chinese public and 62% of the Swedish public  (figure 1). Dan Kahan, a professor in law and psychology at Yale University, has studied this phenomenon which he calls the science communication problem, referring to “the failure of sound, widely disseminated science to settle public controversies over risks and other policy-relevant facts that admit of scientific investigation” (Kahan, 2012). This post will deal with the topic of understanding different cultural/group attitudes towards scientific information.

Figure 1. Source: Resources for the future
Ever since the 1970´s there have been many suggested reasons to why science has not been able to settle debates about e.g. climate change, gun control, and nuclear power in the U.S. and elsewhere. One common thesis is the so called "science denialism" which posits that we see disputes over risks because there is a significant portion of the population that doesn't accept the authority of science as a guide for policy-making. Suggested solutions related to that type of reasoning has thus been to promote more education and outreach. However,  Kahans research on this topic in the case of the U.S. shows that no cultural group favors policies that diverge from scientific consensus on climate change, for example. Rather, due to identity-protective cognition, groups are culturally polarized over what the scientific consensus is on those issues. 

A second common explanation is the "misinformation" thesis. Although there is plenty of misinformation on topics such as climate change Kahan argues that it may not be the case that misinformation is actually causing public controversy but rather that causation runs the other way. Meaning that people tend to find evidence supportive of erroneous but culturally supportive beliefs which in turn can set of a cascade of misinformers who benefit from this viewpoint being promoted e.g. coal industry. 

The third explanation comes from economics and is called "bounded rationality". To some people, controversy over climate change can be explained by deficits in the public's reasoning capacities. According to this view, ordinary members of the public know too little science and can't understand it anyway because they use faulty strategies for interpreting risk information. Although it's plausible Khan argues that even this explanation is wrong. He does so on the basis of evidence from his studies that higher levels of science literacy and quantitative reasoning ability did not lower the cultural polarization on climate change, but rather magnified it. This seems intuitively wrong to most people who would have guessed that with greater science literacy also comes increasing awareness of scientific truths. But Kahn explains this phenomena in terms of that people who are motivated to form perceptions that fit their cultural identities can be expected to use their greater knowledge to further facilitate erroneous beliefs about societal risks.

The fourth and last, less common but increasingly mentioned, explanation for why science has not been able to settle the public debate on climate change in the U.S. is termed "authoritarian personality". This explanation method posits that personality traits such as closed-mindedness on the one hand and conservative ideology on the other correlates, and that this would indicate differences in e.g. republicans and democrats positions on climate change. However, as Kahn shows in his cultural cognition studies, both republicans and democrats tested equally protective of their cultural beliefs whether they were wrong or not and open-mindedness did not matter as a factor. Moreover, the subjects most inclined to employ reflective reasoning were also the most prone to identity-protective cognition, agreeing with findings in disproving the third explanation mentioned above. This means that in the case of the U.S., at least, cultural cognition and group identity is a major problem to people trying to achieve a truthful and effective science communication. Different cultural and ideological values shape peoples risk perception on issues such as climate change as demonstrated in the figure below.
Source: adapted from Cultural Cognition 
The tragedy of the science commons
According to Kahn these results indicate that indentity-protective cognition is the problem to why science has not been able to settle certain debates such as climate change. It affects groups of all ideologies and interferes with the judgment of even the most scientifically literate and reflective citizens. The public space for debate can be defined as a common good. For this public space to benefit society at large, and not only certain cultural groups, standards has to be put into place to protect this common good. This would include not allowing pollution in form of erroneous but culturally protective beliefs to take over the space. Kahn thus suggests that there needs to be a separation between meanings and facts, allowing for a public space were discussions about policy-consequential facts can be fruitful. Leaving all that has to do with meanings outside of the science debate so to protect democratic societies from that which makes the science communication environment toxic. But to do this one also needs to understand how such meanings are formed, which today is still poorly understood.

References:
Carlsson et al. (2010). Paying for Mitigation: A Multiple Country Study. 
Kahan, D (2010). Fixing the Communications Failure. Nature 463, 296-297
Read More

Election Special

The Swedish Election 14 September

This post will deal with the upcoming Swedish election. For those who are unaware there is an election in Sweden on Sunday. There are a few key things that make this election somewhat exciting and controversial:

1. the center left social democrats (S) and the green party (MP) may get more votes than the center right liberals (M), (C), (FP) which would mean a change in government and party coalitions.
2. the anti-immigration party (SD) is probably going to get around 10 % of votes from dissatisfied Swedes who seems to believe "everything was better in the good old days". 
3. a small upcoming left party called feministic initiative (Fi) will maybe get into the government since many young city dwellers vote for them as a way to give voice to gender questions and gay rights.

Although Swedes seem to panic about political correctness these days, especially if you read the two largest daily newspapers, many Swedes actually vote "with their wallet" when it comes to down to it. Meaning that taxation and job creation issues are still the two main topics people care most deeply about. That is also why the center right has now been in power for 8 years because they promised to improve the Swedish economy and lower taxation. However, people now seem ready for some change. Most Swedes belong to a wealthy middle class which prioritize education and health care just as much as one percent more or less in taxes.   
party sympathies
Source: DN

Internationally the Reinfeldt, Bildt and Borg (M) government has become known for mainly their economic policies and the fact that Sweden did not suffer as much as many other countries after the 2008 financial crisis. However, while (M) certainly increased the governments budget surplus during their time in government private indebtedness has soared, especially in relation to the housing market which is now severely overheated. So while ordinary people have gotten lower taxes and more shopping malls they also have larger private debts. Moreover the attempt to open up thousands of new private schools has led to a big difference in education levels noticed in international tests. So while the center right may have done a lot for businesses and government budget not everyone feel too happy about their school and health reforms. And in the case of environmental policies a recent report showed that the  government had failed to meet 14 of 16 of the environmental goals they had set. 

Its funny to read NY Times analysis of the upcoming election. It mostly focuses on the issue of the Swedish economy and  business climate but also a bit on immigration. While the reporter isn't totally wrong i find it sad that the same argumentation goes on in every country where a right wing party claims that "businesses will flee do to increased taxation if the center left wins" which of course is totally relative and in the case of Sweden most large companies such as IKEA and HM already have shell companies located in international tax havens. Also why is no reporter questioning the assumed belief that politics should serve businesses in larger extent than the people? Large companies always complain about taxation no matter what but that does not mean that lower taxation is better for the people in terms of getting more jobs. Most large companies have totally mechanized most of the work being done in factories anyway. Also in Sweden most people work in the public sector and in small and medium companies (SMC). Moreover, one does not have to lower taxes to make it easier for SMC to hire people, one could instead make a tax shift from labor to for example heavy, extractive and polluting industries. 

Voter sympathies from 1967 to 2014, parties (top) and coalitions (below). Source: SVD


Anyway, the election campaigns so far have been more confusing than reassuring to most Swedes and the national radio broadcasting network SR reported that as of today 1/3 of Swedes are still undecided. Neither prime minister candidates have much charisma and (M) and (S) are basically so alike that people cannot tell their policies apart any longer. The smaller parties evoke more excitement from the public but also gets scrutinized harder by the media since there are some nut jobs the parties tries to get rid of just before election day. Most of the frenzy is of course about the SD party members since some have shady backgrounds in xenophobic organizations. Due to recent wars and conflicts (e.g. Syria, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Afghanistan) Sweden is likely to accept an even larger number of immigrants in the future (Sweden has one of the highest immigration numbers in the whole EU) which the SD party uses to scare people to vote for them, promising "all problems will go away when immigration numbers go down". Which is of course nuts! But segregation is a real problem that neither party has handled very well so more and more voters seem to vote for SD out of general dissatisfaction. However, one should not be fooled just because the party has cleaned up their act somewhat, they are still against most sound democratic things such as immigration, gay rights and abortion rights. 


Many commentators believe the red (S) and greens (MP) will win the majority, but much indicates it will be a close call. No party has addressed the very important question of what to do with our nuclear power plants, which are now old (40 years or so), should we replace them or turn to more solar, wind, water? Also no party has made any real suggestions how to lower unemployment, maybe they want to have some unemployment to keep inflation down. Moreover many parties seem to promise reforms which they are not sure how to fund, poor math skills is something politicians are well known for unfortunately. And finally, Swedish politicians may talk green but we are starting to fall behind, for example in protecting biodiversity and establishing nature reserves.  
Read More
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)