How to transform apocalypse fatigue into action on global warming | Per Espen Stoknes

How do we get people engaged
in solving global warming? I’d like to start with running
two short experiments with you all. So your task is to notice
if you feel any difference as I speak. OK? Here we go. We are seeing rising
carbon dioxide levels, now about 410 ppms. To avoid the RCP 8.5 scenario, we need rapid decarbonization. The global carbon budget for 66 percent likelihood
to meet the two-degree target is approximately 800 gigatons. (Laughter) OK, now let me try something else. We are heading for an uninhabitable earth: monster storms, killer floods, devastating wildfires, crazy heat waves that will cook us
under a blazing sun. 2017 is already so unexpectedly warm, it’s freaking out climate scientists. We have a three-year window
to cut emissions, three years. If not, we will soon live
in a boiling earth, a hellhole. OK. So — (Applause) Now your task: How did these ways
of speaking make you feel? The first, detached maybe
or just confused? What’s this guy talking about? The other, fearful or just numb? So again, the question I asked: How do we get people engaged
in solving global warming? And why don’t these two ways
of communicating work? You see, the biggest obstacle
to dealing with climate disruptions lies between your ears. Building on a rapidly growing body
of psychology and social science, I spent years looking
into the five inner defenses that stop people from engaging. When people hear news about the climate
coming straight at them, the first defense comes up rapidly: distance. When we hear about the climate, we hear about something
far away in space — think Arctic ice, polar bears — far away in time — think 2100. It’s huge and slow-moving —
think gigatons and centuries. So it’s not here. It’s not now. Since it feels so far away from me, it seems outside my circle of influence, so I feel helpless about it. There’s nothing I can do. In our everyday lives, most of us prefer to think
about nearer things, such as our jobs, our kids, how many likes we get on Facebook. Now, that, that’s real. Next defense is doom. Climate change is usually framed as a looming disaster, bringing losses, cost and sacrifice. That makes us fearful. But after the first fear is gone, my brain soon wants
to avoid this topic altogether. After 30 years of scary
climate change communications, more than 80 percent of media articles
still use disaster framings, but people habituate to and then — desensitize to doom overuse. So many of us are now suffering
a kind of apocalypse fatigue, getting numb from too much collapse porn. The third defense is dissonance. Now, if what we know, that fossil fuel use
contributes to global warming, conflicts with what we do —
drive, fly, eat beef — then so-called
cognitive dissonance sets in. This is felt as an inner discomfort. We may feel like hypocrites. To get rid of this discomfort, our brain starts coming up
with justifications. So I can say, for instance, “My neighbor, he has
a much bigger car than I do.” Or, “Changing my diet
doesn’t amount to anything if I am the only one to do it.” Or, I could even want
to doubt climate science itself. I could say, “You know,
climate is always changing.” So these justifications
make us all feel better, but at the expense of dismissing what we know. Thus, behavior drives attitudes. My personal cognitive dissonance comes up when I recognize that I’ve been
flying from Oslo to New York and back to Oslo in order to speak about the climate. (Laughter) For 14 minutes. (Laughter) So that makes me
want to move on to denial. (Laughter) So if we keep silent, ignore or ridicule facts
about climate disruptions, then we might find inner refuge from fear and guilt. Denial doesn’t really come
from lack of intelligence or knowledge. No, denial is a state of mind in which I may be aware
of some troubling knowledge, but I live and act as if I don’t know. So you could call it
a kind of double life, both knowing and not knowing, and often this is reinforced by others, my family or community, agreeing not to raise this tricky topic. Finally, identity. Alarmed climate activists demand that government takes action, either with regulation or carbon taxes. But consider what happens when people who hold
conservative values, for instance, hear from an activist that government
ought to expand even further. Particularly in rich Western democracies, they are then less likely
to believe that science. How is that? Well, if I hold conservative
values, for instance, I probably prefer big proper cars
and small government over tiny, tiny cars and huge government. And if climate science comes and then says government should expand further, then I probably
will trust that science less. In this way, cultural identity starts to override the facts. The values eat the facts, and my identity trumps truth any day. So, after recognizing
how these five D’s kill engagement, how can we move beyond them? New research shows
how we can flip these five defenses over into key success criteria for a more brain-friendly
climate communication. So this is where it gets really exciting and where we find the five S’s, the five evidence-based solutions
for what does work. First, we can flip distance to social. We can make climate feel
near, personal and urgent by bringing it home, and we can do that
by spreading social norms that are positive to solutions. If I believe my friends or neighbors, you guys, will do something, then I will, too. We can see, for instance,
this from rooftop solar panels. They are spreading from neighbor
to neighbor like a virus. It’s contagious. This is the power of peer-to-peer
creating the new normal. Next, we can flip doom to supportive. Rather than backfiring frames such as disaster and cost, we can reframe climate
as being really about human health, for instance, with plant-based
delicious burgers, good for you and good for the climate. We can also reframe climate
as being about new tech opportunities, about safety and about new jobs. Solar jobs, for instance,
are seeing an amazing growth. They just passed
the three million jobs mark. Psychology says,
in order to create engagement, we should present, on balance, three positive or supportive framings for each climate threat we mention. Then we can flip dissonance to simpler actions. This is often called nudging. The idea is, by better
choice architecture, we can make the climate-friendly behaviors default and convenient. Let me illustrate this. Take food waste. Food waste at buffets goes way down if the plate or the box size
is reduced a little, because on the smaller plate it looks full but in the big box it looks half empty, so we put more in. So smaller plates make
a big difference for food waste. And there are hundreds
of smart nudges like this. The point is, dissonance goes down
as more behaviors are nudged. Then we can flip denial by tailoring signals
that visualize our progress. We can provide motivating feedback on how well we’re doing
with our problem-solving. Say you improved your transport footprint or cut energy waste in your buildings. Then one app that can
share this well is called Ducky. The idea is, you log your actions there, and then you can see how well
your team or company is doing, so you get real-time signals. Finally, identity. We can flip identity with better stories. Our brain loves stories. So we need better stories
of where we all want to go, and we need more stories
of the heroes and heroines of all stripes that are
making real change happen. I’m proud that my hometown of Oslo is now embarking on a bold journey
of electrifying all transport, whether cars, bikes or buses. One of the people
spearheading this is Christina Bu. She is heading the Electric
Vehicle Association for years and she has been fighting every day. Now, the UK and France, India and China
have also announced plans for ending the sales of fossil cars. Now, that’s massive. And in Oslo, we can see
how enthusiastic EV owners go and tell their electric stories
to friends and neighbors and bring them along. So we come full circle
from story back to social. So thousands of climate communicators are now starting to use these solutions all over the world. It is clear, however,
that individual solutions are not sufficient
to solving climate alone, but they do build
stronger bottom-up support for policies and solutions that can. That is why engaging people is so crucial. I started this talk with testing two ways
of communicating climate with you. There is another way, too, I’d like to share with you. It starts with reimagining climate itself as the living air. Climate isn’t really
about some abstract, distant climate far, far away from us. It’s about this air that surrounds us. This air, you can feel in this room, too, the air that moves
right now in your nostrils. This air is our earth’s skin. It’s amazingly thin, compared to the size of the earth
and the cosmos it shields us from, far thinner than the skin of an apple compared to its diameter. It may look infinite when we look up, but the beautiful, breathable air
is only like five to seven miles thin, a fragile wrapping around a massive ball. Inside this skin, we’re all closely connected. The breath that you just took contained around 400,000
of the same argon atoms that Gandhi breathed during his lifetime. Inside this thin,
fluctuating, unsettled film, all of life is nourished,
protected and held. It insulates and regulates temperatures in a range that is just right
for water and for life as we know it, and mediating between
the blue ocean and black eternity, the clouds carry
all the billions of tons of water needed for the soils. The air fills the rivers, stirs the waters, waters the forests. With a global weirding of the weather, there are good reasons
for feeling fear and despair, yet we may first grieve
today’s sorry state and losses and then turn to face the future
with sober eyes and determination. The new psychology of climate action lies in letting go, not of science, but of the crutches
of abstractions and doomism, and then choosing to tell the new stories. These are the stories of how we achieve drawdown,
the reversing of global warming. These are the stories of the steps we take as peoples, cities, companies and public bodies in caring for the air in spite of strong headwinds. These are the stories of the steps we take because they ground us
in what we are as humans: earthlings inside this living air. Thank you. (Applause)

Comments 86

  • Global warming can be solved quite simply…. STOP SPRAYING CHEM TRAILS! End OPERATION SOLAR SHIELD! Stop Harvard University and their idiotic ideas!

  • Why would I have apocalypse Fatigue when the whole thing is made up?

  • There’s no big apocalypse. Just an endless procession of little ones.

  • #wedonotconsent

  • I would have been interested in any other type of Apocalypse other than the Climate BS.

  • Wow, a realistic non-alarmist take on global warming. Thumbs up.

  • This talk was really good.

    And then I read the goddamn comments.

  • Typical propaganda.

  • Same bullshit feel-good pseudo-solutions to the symptoms of the real problem. Wouldn't have expected anything less from an economist and armchair psychologist on TED.

  • Just plant more damned trees, here’s your simple solution for global warming, all that complicated green factories is way to complicated, do we need it? Sure why not, but simple solutions should be implanted first

  • The earth is flat.

  • The attempt to name those things in a way that they start with the same letter kind of backfired.

  • This Man's explaining too bring it to light is the same for the concern I attempt to share from my channel,, truthful , layman explained , and most all very connected with over 13 months of data , with obvious ecological change as a main reasoning of efforts being applied. look into my work and dream for a moment if what I share works for your mind, read a comment or two & see what others may think of my work. Peace and safety… Ian

  • If you are not vegan, you are principally an environmentalist hypocrite to claim you care about the environment as your lifestyle actions prove you don't actually care about environment by not refraining from the unnecessary use of animal agriculture, the leading cause of environmental destruction, climate change, etc., living non-vegan. If anyone truly cares about the environment, they would become vegan immediately and for life.
    Educate yourself the truth, about veganism, and make the transition to veganism everyone:
    Fully watch speech and Q&A to interpret the vegan message best:

  • Very good talk. My lecturer recommended this talk. Climate change is so much more than sea levels rising and the melting of ice caps. Ocean acidification and water scarcity are also amongst the dangers, but people are often not aware of the scale of climate change. Putting climate change into policies is also difficult as politicians need still to be popular. An Australian politician one tried to implement a carbon tax and she got eventually fired because nobody wanted that. Its important to put the problem of climate change to a local level as people seem to act better when its directly related.

  • How do we take action into a natural phenomenon that happens regardless of what we do? This btw caused the ice age…So, what can we do? Nothing….

  • Question. If it were proved 100% true that the climate change threat is real. Would the right-wing want to do anything about it considering it won't hit their generation and would mean making sacrifices?

  • We humans most of us, we are to stupid we have not evolve enough. We are easily brain wash to a very comfortable level for a higher inteligence to manipulate us.

  • This is how it made me feel, sounded like the same old bs they have been fear mongering us with for the last 40 years. According to global warming clowns we were all supposed to be dead by now.

  • Sustainable development nonsense.

  • Haha…global warming, what a joke. Its snowing in Houston. The reason why you dont get engagement is because the theory is wrong. You can only deny a belief, you dont deny science. If a scientific theory makes certain predictions, and all the predictions fail to manifest, does this not mean that the theory is false? How do you get people to engage in something that is false? You try to use propaganda and political rhetoric. But that only works for so long, until the actual science gets explored with testing and observations. CO2 is not pollution and is not the cause of any climate change. If you want to engage in a real solution, then open up scientific discussion to find the real source.

  • There are many many ways we can slow down climate change through hydro water, bulk up wind farms, increase huge amounts of battery storage, increase small (mini) nuclear energy factories, last but not least bulk up solar farms across the earth, then we can completely disconnect ourselves from burning fossil fuels.

  • My professor Stephan Mayer and his colleague Cindy Frantz have worked on this research! Look them up!

  • "My identity trumps truth any day." Welcome to America, friend.

  • Global warming is a scam. Climate change is real. Anyone still pushing for ‘global warming’ propaganda is a shill. Do your research. Climate change is what’s really happening.

  • Making people understand what they love and would like to protect by taking constructive, meaningful action.
    Thank you, I've wondering about that all the time.
    Personally I found my way of constructively going forward advertising green energy, CO2 compensation and electric cars, but it's good to hear that this is the only way to get the big solutions like CO2 tax and regulations we are fighting for.

  • The globe hasn’t warmed for two decades now. Fearmongering sells though.

  • to the climate change deniers, i dont care if climate change is manmade or not, it's a moot point. We are creating an environment that is hostile and toxic to humans , because we do not ration our resources. We have the technology, there's no need to return to caveman times! whats being asked is to be more aware of our behaviours to have as little impact on the world as possible. Manmade climate change or natural, killing our environment and all that support us needs to stop if the species is to continue. simples.

  • #Wedonotconsent. Solar radiation management,aresol injections, climate change happens, before they could control the weather.

  • remove profit motive. oh wait ofcourse every acceptable solution has to perpetuate the system which causes climate change, right.

  • Global warming (climate change) is really nothing but a science based religion. It’s an intellectual bait and switch scheme. If asked believers will supply you with a mountain of data. The data will do little more than vaguely suggest some alarming eventualities in the indeterminate future. If you then ask them to delineate the connection to carbon dioxide you can then expect to be called all kinds of derogatory names implying that you are self centered and don’t care about future generations.

    The revelation that global warming is a religion based loosely on science is hardly front page news. What is less well known is that the same can be said for aspects of meteorology, specifically the convection model of storm theory.

    My name is James McGinn. I am an atmospheric physicist and a science theorist laying the ground work for a brave new future of severe weather mitigation. I have an exciting new hypothesis on the cause of storms. Click the links below to see what all the excitement is about. Thank you for your support.

    James McGinn / Solving Tornadoes
    The ‘Missing Link’ of Meteorology’s Theory of Storms.
    Have you ever wondered why liquid H2O is so fluid?
    Can hurricanes be stopped or steered?

  • He is a real hero of mine!

  • So cows produce CO2? Do they mine the carbon? No. Cows eat grass, grass grown from the existing CO2 already in the atmosphere. Cows convert some carbon into methane, a trace green house gas. But methane naturally quickly degrades back to CO2 and Methane is thousands of times less present then H2O and CO2. The methane that is a global warming problem comes from petroleum mining.

  • Great, another science denying lunatic on TED…

  • Nope. The problem with climate change is that there is no way we can replace carbon-emitting technologies on a global scale in the next few decades, and after that it will be certainly too late, if it is not too late already now. For many technologies, there is no scalable substitute to the current carbon and fossil fuel dependent ones. For instance, the only way to transport 250+ people (and their luggage) from Tokyo to Paris in about 12 hours at a cost of more or less $1,000 is by the kind of planes we have been flying since the 1960s. There is no alternative to that. There will be no alternative in the foreseeable future. China is largely powered by coal, so is India and many other countries. They cannot switch to alternative energy anytime soon for a long series of reasons. Agriculture is massively depended on oil and it will continue in this way at least for decades. Indeed those who study this problem admit very openly that the energy mix we use today is NOT going to change significantly from now to 2040 or 2050. That is why emissions go up every year, not down. Since the 1997 Kyoto protocol we have seen a massive campaign about climate change, yet annual emissions are now 50% higher than in 1997. This is not the fault of climate change deniers, it is because the current technological civilisation cannot change so quickly, and in any case we do not have valid substitutes for C02 emissions. Whether we convince everybody in Norway or even the whole of the Western world to give up their cars will not make a significant change. The illusion is that we can avoid climate change with no significant diminution of out well being or our economic growth, and without massively reducing the human population. It is not possible and it will not happen. There will be climate change, and it will not be pretty. It is already factored in.

  • Global warming huh? 😊

  • I have the solution. Just get all the global warming hoax people to sign up personally to the Paris agreement and leave us out of it. The volcano that erupted in Indonesia recently released more CO2 in a few days than man has.

  • If we cannot deal with Inequality, there is no hope of fixing global warming. People at the bottom will back dangerous fascist leaders and wars will ensue. If we can, however, wrest control of the worlds money from the greedy who now have all of it, there is a chance for a soft-landing with actual shared sacrifices that would not be hard to bear, but extreme wealth (in both political parties) and their desire for animal dominance gives the masses nothing to loose – not a great way to deal with climate change.

    If a 'better life' is all used-up, people have no incentive to do the right thing or back good policy. They start thinking only about achieving whatever happiness is possible in the time they have left. This is NeoLiberalism's (much like Libertarianism's) ultimate curse – they are conditioned to think of the world as a fixed-pie, and this makes social trust, and any "greater good" impossible.

  • How about stop encouraging and creating the situations in the first place for starters. SUSTAINABILITY AKA AGENDA 21 is not the way to make the world better it is the plan for THE RICH to CULL the human population to make the PLANET EARTH their own to become KINGS AND QUEENS of what's left. The plan to make the world better is not the problem it is those that created the plan and whom they seem is fit to run it. If they are that worried tell them to just go to Mars. Oh wait that's right they can't because their outpost were destroyed due to GREED as usual. As for the Apocalypse do you not think if you warned the world if what is REALLY GOING TO HAPPEN and stop the massive division propaganda brainwashing on ALL OF THE PEOPLE then maybe we could all come together to create and maintain wait will be left. Imagine if all of humanity was aware of the true collective of knowledge that is being kept from them just to keep them all SLAVES for the New World Order agenda. You can't say that you are trying to make the world better while at the same time pushing to destroy what makes us HUMAN to begin with. Imagine what people would think if they Knew just to all of what is currently being done against them by their own government's per the NEW WORLD ORDER AGENDA 21 SUSTAINABILITY plans. Like DARPA.

  • Flat earth. Global warming is a farce. You are having propaganda shoved down your throat.

  • arguing in bad faith: a how-to guide

  • This alleged POS wastes more energy than 50% of the audience. My opinion.

  • To people who deny climate change or say that it is a natural phenomenon, we are killing of animal species, polluting waters, destroying forests through our existence. Ignoring climate change, these things need to be addressed, we are not independent of the natural world, we need to coexist in harmony. Its selfish that we destroy all other species and the natural world so our lifes can be comfortable

  • From my personal experience:
    After spending two months in temperatures over 40°C ( 110°F), and currently going through the driest, yet coldest winter in my life, I don't need further proof of climate change.
    I live in Morocco, North Africa

  • At 7 minutes,.. I guess I'll address the elephant in the room…

    Conservatives are incapable of change. They are simple-minded. The ability to change is evidence for intelligence…

    They want everything to stay the same because they know they are too stupid to adapt to the complexities of the emergence phenomena we all face as a species… the conservative are the simple-minded majority and the failure of democracy. They are and out of control cellular duplication, a cancerous mass on the biosphere, their phenotype expression is an invasive species.

  • Most of this is approaching everyone with Sesame Street gloves and perfecting your methods of manipulative honeydicking…

    Good intentions but it's not going to be sufficient…

    People are going to become aware of your nudging and manipulations, they will become desensitized to that as well and there will be a whiplash rubber-banding effect.

    The only way to achieve our goals is through better education and to prevent the stupid from overpopulating the planet… likely it's too late to fix either of those problems everywhere but some places have a chance to recover and survive, avoid the fight to the death of the last can of corn in the grocery store that is the fate of the majority of our population.

  • Bless, Per Espen & his Stokeness.

  • so, if I am conservative, I am driving a big car and generally an old-fashioned, pompous, careless person…..who told you this?
    I am hurt, I am triggered, I am victimised…. I just want to scream and talk only gibberish now!

  • Drawdown? Hm. Thanks. 🙂

  • Even though I don't believe in global warming in the sense that it's a human made issue I do understand we are not helping and what we do to this planet is terrible but you rarely hear any good solutions to the problem other than something that involves taking more money out of the pockets of people who are struggling already. Make people pay some sort of tax, fine people, charge a fee, buy thousands of dollars of solar panels, etc. How about building advance recycling plants that can literally get a pile of mixed items dumped into it and when it's done it has separated everything perfectly or a machine that and filter a massive amount of air or water or develop a solar panel that is small, cheap and would power your house entirely. These are things that would get more people on board and is something that money needs to be put towards vs just charging people money to live life. You have to be blind to not see that this entire issue has become a money and power grab just like other industries but it hides behind something good so no one really notices.


  • We need a energy revolution!

  • Одни не русские омагад

  • TED advocating in favor of emotionally manipulating people. Just when you thought they couldn't sink any lower…

  • Useless fear mongering. Climate has always been changing, and it's too complex for us to understand. If we can't understand it we shouldn't try to influence it.

  • How do you feel about having your income reduced to $300 per month?

    Paris Agreement wants CO2 emissions reduced to 10% of 1990 levels by 2050.

    Fossil Fuels are projected to provide greater than 80% of energy needs by 2050.

    Energy and GDP are intricately co-dependent. If you cut Emissions as per Paris Agreement you cut GDP by a similar amount.

    That means your income gets cut by a like amount.

    Consider there is no evidence that CO2 causes warming in our climate. Put a stop to the climate change hoax NOW.

  • 12:55 a man falls asleep in the crowd

  • The disembodied spirits of the giants(demons)inhabit the mindless masses/Freemasons.TRUTH.

  • Norway needs more energy per person than the USA
    Carry on the resources, but the next big volcano will capitulate us into the next ice age anyway
    Greetings from a swiss guy

  • Excellent solution to communicating this complex issue!

  • Great video. I'm sorry that so many uneducated deniers are still everywhere in the comment.

  • Humans causing global warming = U.N. Fraud

  • Um… Engineering > Activism. If you don't have a solution, shutup until you do have one.

  • Oh geez. Another "market will solve climate change" moron. The market does not and has never cleaned up one of it's messes. The market is only capable of destroying

    If we look to the past, the only way environmental issues were solved is when the government actually involved itself. When mercury was being dumped in our water the government made it illegal. When leaded fuels were spewing lead into our air the government made it illegal. The only way we'll prevent major climate change is by the government involving itself

    Also, if you're one of those "carbon tax" morons then get a new idea. The carbon tax does little for reducing emissions and just makes it harder for the poor to live, as they're the ones that are mostly hit by the tax. Corporations always find loopholes around it and just raise the prices to compensate for the tax. If you actually want to solve this issue you would advocate for carbon caps, as in restricting emissions produced, and/or just making it illegal to use fossil fuels to produce energy. There's plenty of better methods than a stupid carbon tax

  • The people have heard predictions for 30 yrs and where is the evidence? Just another salesman selling another yatta yatta.

  • Does the production of batteries and other forms of electric storage contribute to the climate change and pollution more than it helps climate change and pollution?

  • Thank you! You have brilliantly provided the methodology for loving, caring Christians to spread the good news of God’s gift to mankind. Something we have been struggling with as much as global warming folks have been with their message.

  • What a noble mind. I myself cannot get past doom resignation. The diabolical consequence of human plaguing is irreversible. Therefor there is no hope for humanity. The time to act was a generation ago. We've lost our chance and all that is left for us is to rearrange the deck chairs on the Titanic.

  • Ho hum more fascist propaganda from the parasite priviligentsia.

  • Get rid of all the conservative religion people. But then again the are lead around by the rig by their nose ring. Your to late.

  • The revelation that global warming is a religion based loosely on science is hardly front page news. What is less well known is that the same can be said for aspects of meteorology, specifically the convection model of storm theory.

    My name is James McGinn. I am an atmospheric physicist and a science theorist laying the ground work for a brave new future of severe weather mitigation. I have an exciting new hypothesis on the cause of storms. Click the links below to see what all the excitement is about. Thank you for your support.

    James McGinn / Solving Tornadoes
    The ‘Missing Link’ of Meteorology’s Theory of Storms.
    Have you ever wondered why liquid H2O is so fluid?
    Can hurricanes be stopped or steered?

  • No exact convention somewhere exist grand half cloud.

  • Interesting. This is actually the stages of grief (which is a specific version of the overall stages of learning). Just with pretty different terms. I explain these stages even more simply now with the four elements of fight, flight, freeze, then flow. Supporting people going through these stages in the healthiest, most playful and inspiring, way can indeed be the key to helping us all progress and make good decisions, rather than getting stuck.

  • Also, it's very, very, very clear that nearly all the people who commented here didn't watch the talk at all.

  • Honestly inspiring

  • People are too fixed in the climate change (true/fake) theme, when the contribution Per is offering is the knowledge on how to conduct narratives aimed to generate high engagement. He's drinking on the old learnings of social dilemma (conditions required for successful social movements, i.e. boycotts, protests etc) and current findings of neuroscience applied to business and behavioral economics (behavior change related to decision making in all fields, from personal consumption to public policy campaigns). From the doomsday approach to the inspirational one. From shock and fear to admiration and inner connection.

  • If Al Gore had expressed this narrative.. look at all the years lost

  • Great talk on how to frame the discussion to motivate people to act. Here is a great first step in taking action: join Citizens Climate Lobby:

    This nonpartisan, grassroots group has a fair, beneficial, politically viable policy proposal to put a fully rebated fee on carbon. Putting a price on carbon emissions is how many economists recommend motivating the transformation to a clean energy civilization. Returning all the money collected back to households was found to be the most beneficial thing to do with it:

    For a good TED talk about a similar policy, check out

    For a two minute overview of Citizens Climate Lobby, see

  • just notes:


  • To really connect with climate change, we need to move from:
    Distance to Social
    Doom to Supportive
    Dissonance to Simple
    Denial to Signal
    Identity to Stories

  • I mean, i dont get the coments. "We didnt warm the planet so we dont have to fix it". that isnt really a good argument. Ill go to the end to defend that global warming is caused by mankind, but even if it was caused by natural stuff or whatever its undeniable by reserch that the earth is warming and some kind of natural disaster is iminent. We have the tech to help by reducing C02 emissions, which is what is warming the planet (its called greenhouse effect), so we should do it because it will help. Even if we werent the main cause of global warming, we can still help stall it until we find a better solution.

  • It become very clear that we need quality assurance in the noble art of todays climate science to avoid people being told more nonsense posing as science.
    "The Earth shall boil due to man made global warming" and other exotic fables from people that guarateed not are clearvoyant og otherwise competent to foresee the future. Talk about voodoo science and mumbo jumbo – my foot!

  • So in others words going around saying "WHERE ALL GONNA DiE" is not helping. Someone tell the media.

  • a wonderful talk. We have actually acting on this inspiration and created a site where we collect your positive stories for a better future.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *