3 ms·

The chasm between politicians and science is staggering. For a truly terrifying example, there's the 2018 IPCC report. It's under 600 pages. The summary for pol

The chasm between politicians and science is staggering. For a truly terrifying example, there's the 2018 IPCC report. It's under 600 pages. The summary for policymakers is 25 pages, with the following 5 chapters each with an executive summary of about 2 pages. So let's say a 35 page read for politicians. For 170K a year, plus an expense account, plus a nice pension, we should expect each of the representatives of the United States Congress to slog through those 35 pages, right? If you want the terrifying truth, watch this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ZsHtpk0XII&t=217s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ZsHtpk0XII&t=217s Greta Thunberg, providing the United States Congress with a roughly 3 paragraph TLDR of the IPCC report, and even this is news to probably most of them. CP Snow's essay The Two Cultures is all too true.

eeh 7y ago
I interpret climate inaction not as science ineptitude, but as defecting in a prisoners dilemma sense. The high capita emitters (AU/US/CA/NZ) are refusing to slow down economic growth (each country has to slow down to different degrees, depending on their existing energy mix), and are relying on other nations to make progress. Rich countries will adapt. Poor country may not have the resources to do this, and thus climate inaction is an inequality issue, not just a scientific issue. Politicians respond to votes and slowing economic growth is not popular. Either rich countries will willingly sacrifice growth to help the poor of the world (not going to happen), or we encourage international cooperation. This is what's happening (Paris, Kyoto), albeit with defectors who need to be punished.
- ocschwar 7y ago
  > I interpret climate inaction not as science ineptitude, but as defecting in a prisoners dilemma sense. I interpret politicians not doing the reading as politicians not doing the reading.

eeh 7y ago

I interpret climate inaction not as science ineptitude, but as defecting in a prisoners dilemma sense. The high capita emitters (AU/US/CA/NZ) are refusing to slow down economic growth (each country has to slow down to different degrees, depending on their existing energy mix), and are relying on other nations to make progress. Rich countries will adapt. Poor country may not have the resources to do this, and thus climate inaction is an inequality issue, not just a scientific issue. Politicians respond to votes and slowing economic growth is not popular. Either rich countries will willingly sacrifice growth to help the poor of the world (not going to happen), or we encourage international cooperation. This is what's happening (Paris, Kyoto), albeit with defectors who need to be punished.

ocschwar 7y ago
> I interpret climate inaction not as science ineptitude, but as defecting in a prisoners dilemma sense. I interpret politicians not doing the reading as politicians not doing the reading.