The Challenge of Understanding Accumulation

By Stephan Lewandowsky
Professor, School of Experimental Psychology and Cabot Institute, University of Bristol
Posted on 15 March 2011
Filed under Cognition, Media

As the physical understanding of climate change within the scientific community has become more and more robust, paradoxically the public debate has become progressively more disconnected from the scientific literature.

It’s unsurprising, then, that Hans Schellnhuber, climate advisor to the German government and himself a natural scientist, recently argued that 90% of all research on global change ought to be conducted by social scientists. Indeed, it requires social science to understand this growing disconnect between scientific reality and public perception.

Many factors can be cited to explain this disconnect: Among them are the media’s misplaced attempts to “balance” scientific knowledge with the mere words of contrarian bloggers and political operatives, and the well-documented efforts by vested interests and political groups to sow doubts about climate science.

But in addition to such political or sociological factors, climate change also challenges our basic cognitive abilities.

In particular, people have considerable difficulty understanding the notion of accumulation, and how changes to one variable affect the accumulation of another.

Understanding emissions

To illustrate, consider first the relationship between total atmospheric CO2 (currently around 390 ppm) and global temperatures.

Atmospheric CO2 and global temperatures are coupled, such that any increase in CO2 will lead to further temperature rises in the long run. Stabilization of atmospheric CO2 is therefore a precondition for limiting warming.

But what about the relationship between annual CO2 emissions and atmospheric CO2 concentrations?

If we want to stabilize CO2 in order to stabilize the climate, how much do we have to reduce annual emissions?

In an elegant series of studies, MIT’s John Sterman has shown that even highly-educated people, such as engineering graduates, are unlikely to answer this question correctly without further specialized training (e.g., Sterman & Sweeney, 2007).

When shown the trajectory of annual CO2 emissions, which to date has exhibited an ever-accelerating increase, the majority of people will propose that stabilization of emissions, or a slight decrease, will be sufficient to stabilize atmospheric CO2.

This is completely and inescapably false.

Filling the global bathtub

In actual fact, to stabilize atmospheric CO2, emissions must be cut drastically, and the longer action is delayed, the more steeply emissions must be cut.

This is because CO2 accumulates in the atmosphere in the same way as the water level in a bathtub rises while the tap is on. Absent any leakage, the only way to stabilize the water level is to shut off the tap completely.

Similarly, we must eventually reduce emissions to zero if we wish CO2 levels to stabilise and then, by natural absorption, to ever so gradually reduce over time.

In a recent radio interview, Professor Tim Flannery (the chief of Australia's national Climate Change Commission) mentioned the fact that a reduction in global temperatures will take hundreds of years to materialize even if CO2 emissions were to cease completely and instantly.

In a rapid-fire display of ignorance, several national media figures and politicians, including the leader of the Federal opposition, mistook this statement to imply that cutting emissions was a useless and unnecessary endeavour. Of course it isn't.

Quite to the contrary, before we can even think about a reduction in temperatures we must cut emissions to prevent a further, potentially devastating rise in global temperatures.

The data by Sterman and colleagues show that people have difficulty with these essential physical relationships.

Because this cognitive limitation has until now translated into policy inaction, the climate problem gets bigger every day.

Any further delay of action translates into the need for ever-greater emission cuts: the fuller the bathtub, the more rapidly the tap must be shut to avoid an overflow.

The figure below, taken from Allison et al. (2009), illustrates this problem and compares the global emissions paths required to have any chance to limit warming to 2C, depending on when they peak. The longer we wait, the harsher the cuts.

Where we go wrong

Why do people have difficulty understanding the notion of accumulation, despite it being readily explainable with the bathtub analogy?

People often process information about dynamic variables on the presumption that the output of a complex system “looks like” the input.

So, if emissions are reduced, atmospheric CO2 levels are correspondingly assumed to fall, when in fact they continue to increase, albeit at a reduced rate.

And this cognitive strategy bites us a second time; namely, when it comes to mitigation efforts. One plausible reason that fear campaigns arguing emission cuts will decrease our wealth have gained traction is that in the past, wealth accumulation has paralleled the increase of CO2 emissions.

By again applying the strategy that variables in a complex system “look alike”, people can easily be convinced that reducing emissions will also reduce wealth.

This presumption is as false as the presumption that cutting emissions will reduce atmospheric CO2.

According to most economic modelling, cutting emissions will not cut wealth. Emission cuts will not even abolish economic growth; they will merely slow the rate at which our society accumulates wealth.

According to the Australian Treasury, cutting emissions by 90% by 2050 would still see per capita GNP rise from the current $50,000 to around $80,000.

In light of this clear path forward towards increasing wealth in a safe climate, the current state of public debate in Australia and other western countries is indeed sadly misguided.

 

(A variant of this article first appeared on The Conversation on 5 April 2011. It has been modified and updated slightly for posting here)

References

Allison, I.; Bindoff, N. L.; Bindschadler, R. A.; Cox, P. M.; de Noblet, N.; England, M. H.; Francis, J. E.; Gruber, N.; Haywood, A. M.; Karoly, D. J.; Kaser, G.; Le Quéré, C.; Lenton, T. M.; Mann, M. E.; McNeil, B. I.; Pitman, A. J.; Rahmstorf, S.; Rignot, E.; Schellnhuber, H. J.; Schneider, S. H.; Sherwood, S. C.; Somerville, R. C. J.; Steffen, K.; Steig, E. J.; Visbeck, M. & Weaver, A. J. (2009).
The Copenhagen Diagnosis 2009: Updating the World on the Latest Climate Science. Technical Report, University of New South Wales.

Sterman, J. D. & Sweeney, L. B. (2007). Understanding public complacency about climate change: adults' mental models of climate change violate conservation of matter. Climatic Change, 80, 213-238.

 

 

As our physical understanding of climate change has become more and more robust, public debate has become progressively more disconnected from the scientific literature.

It’s unsurprising, then, that Hans Schellnhuber, chief climate advisor to the German government and himself a natural scientist, recently argued that 90% of all research on global change ought to be conducted by social scientists.

As ANU’s Professor Will Steffen recently noted, what passes for public debate in contemporary Australia has deteriorated into a nearly “infantile” discussion about some fundamental physical facts.

Many factors can be cited to explain this disconnect between scientific reality and public perception.

Among them are the media’s misplaced attempts to “balance” scientific knowledge with the mere words of contrarian bloggers and political operatives, and the well-documented efforts by vested interests and political groups to sow doubts about climate science.

But in addition to such political or sociological factors, climate change also challenges our basic cognitive abilities.

In particular, people have considerable difficulty understanding the notion of accumulation, and how changes to one variable affect the accumulation of another.

Understanding emissions

To illustrate, consider first the relationship between atmospheric CO2 (currently around 390 ppm) and global temperatures.

Atmospheric CO2 and global temperatures are couple, such that any increase in CO2 will lead to further temperature rises in the long run. Stabilization of atmospheric CO2 is a precondition for limiting warming.

But what about the relationship between annual CO2 emissions and atmospheric CO2 concentrations?

If we want to stabilize CO2 in order to stabilize the climate, how much do we have to reduce annual emissions?

In an elegant series of studies, MIT’s John Sterman has shown that even highly-educated people, such as engineering graduates, are unlikely to answer this question correctly without further specialized training.

When shown the trajectory of annual CO2 emissions, which to date has exhibited an ever-accelerating increase, the majority of people will propose that stabilization of emissions, or a slight decrease, will be sufficient to stabilize atmospheric CO2.

This is completely and inescapably false.

Filling the global bathtub

In actual fact, to stabilize atmospheric CO2, emissions must be cut drastically, and the longer action is delayed, the more steeply emissions must be cut.

This is because CO2 accumulates in the atmosphere in the same way as the water level in a bathtub rises while the tap is on. Absent any leakage, the only way to stabilize the water level is to shut off the tap completely.

Similarly, we must eventually reduce emissions to zero if we wish CO2 levels to stabilise and then, by natural absorption, to ever so gradually reduce over time.

In a recent radio interview, Professor Tim Flannery mentioned the fact that a reduction in global temperatures will take hundreds of years to materialize even if CO2 emissions were to cease completely and instantly.

Puzzlingly eager to display their ignorance, several media figures and politicians, including the leader of the opposition, mistook this statement to imply that cutting emissions was a useless and unnecessary endeavour.

Quite to the contrary, before we can even think about a reduction in temperatures we must cut emissions to prevent a further, potentially devastating rise in global temperatures.

The data by Sterman and colleagues, uncannily given a public display by Mr Abbott, show that people have difficulty with these essential physical relationships.

Because this cognitive limitation has until now translated into policy inaction, the climate problem gets bigger every day.

Any further delay of action translates into the need for ever-greater emission cuts: the fuller the bathtub, the more rapidly the tap must be shut to avoid an overflow.

The figure below illustrates this problem and compares the global emissions paths required to have any chance to limit warming to 2C, depending on when they peak. The longer we wait, the harsher the cuts.

 

The later the peak in emissions is reached, the steeper their subsequent reduction has to be.

Where we go wrong

Why do people have difficulty understanding the notion of accumulation, despite it being readily explainable with the bathtub analogy?

People often process information about dynamic variables on the presumption that the output of a complex system “looks like” the input.

So, if emissions are reduced, atmospheric CO2 levels are correspondingly assumed to fall, when in fact they continue to increase, albeit at a reduced rate.

And this cognitive strategy bites us a second time; namely, when it comes to mitigation efforts. One plausible reason that fear campaigns arguing emission cuts will decrease our wealth have gained traction is that in the past, wealth accumulation has paralleled the increase of CO2 emissions.

By again applying the strategy that variables in a complex system “look alike”, people can easily be convinced that reducing emissions will also reduce wealth.

This presumption is as false as the presumption that cutting emissions will reduce atmospheric CO2.

According to most economic modelling, cutting emissions will not cut wealth. Emission cuts will not even abolish economic growth; they will merely slow the rate at which our society accumulates wealth.

According to our Treasury, cutting emissions by 90% by 2050 would still see per capita GNP rise from the current $50,000 to around $80,000.

In light of this clear path forward towards increasing wealth in a safe climate, the current state of public debate is sadly infantile indeed.

 

Bookmark and Share

37 Comments


Comments 1 to 35:

  1. Wow what a Great Information about World Day its very nice informative post. thanks for the post.
    how to get followers
  2. subscription services
  3. thanks for the tips and information..i really appreciate it..
    kosten hochzeit dj
  4. This is really a nice and informative, containing all information and also has a great impact on the new technology. Thanks for sharing it
    free likes
    increase youtube views free
  5. This was really an interesting topic and I kinda agree with what you have mentioned here!
    Neurofuse from getfreestuffonlinenow.com
  6. It is a great website.. The Design looks very good.. Keep working like that!.
    Build my list 2.0 bonus
  7. This is a great inspiring article.I am pretty much pleased with your good work.You put really very helpful information...
    how to get likes on facebook photo
    free youtube views increaser
  8. Hi! Thanks for the great information you havr provided! You have touched on crucuial points!
    facebook auto like bot how to gain views on youtube
  9. brad.haddon234 at 17:01 PM on 7 December, 2015
    I read your site much of the time and I just thought I'd say keep up the stunning work! health articles
  10. amsbosstoolsmobi at 21:26 PM on 11 December, 2015
    I have bookmarked you to check out new stuff of your blog. A must read!!!!
    startup platform india
  11. amsbosstoolsmobi at 18:00 PM on 17 December, 2015
    You have a very inspiring way of exploring and sharing thoughts. Really Motivating.
    Fundraising platforms India
  12. amsbosstoolsmobi at 20:39 PM on 17 December, 2015
    I have bookmarked you to check out new stuff of your blog. A must read!!!!
    www.webseobuy.com
  13. brad.haddon234 at 00:12 AM on 16 January, 2016
    Please continue this great work and I look forward to more of your awesome blog posts. how to buy real instagram followers buy likes and followers on instagram
  14. brad.haddon234 at 23:33 PM on 5 February, 2016
    Much appreciated such a great amount for this data. I need to tell you I agree on a few of the focuses you make here and others might require some further survey, however I can see your perspective. transfert film
  15. Great article with excellent idea!Thank you for such a valuable article. I really appreciate for this great information.. http://www.micoley.com/
  16. Awesome blog. I enjoyed reading your articles. This is truly a great read for me. I have bookmarked it and I am looking forward to reading new articles. Keep up the good work! up bed online registration
  17. This is a great article thanks for sharing this informative information. I will visit your blog regularly for some latest post. I will visit your blog regularly for Some latest post. http://www.getallparts.com/
  18. japan.comp234 at 19:32 PM on 2 March, 2016
    Thanks for taking the time to discuss this, I feel strongly that love and read more on this topic. If possible, such as gain knowledge, would you mind updating your blog with additional information? It is very useful for me. Video Takeover Review
  19. japan.comp234 at 19:56 PM on 3 March, 2016
    I would like to thank you for the efforts you have made in writing this article. I am hoping the same best work from you in the future as well.. Holiday
  20. japan.comp234 at 19:38 PM on 9 March, 2016
    hi was just seeing if you minded a comment. i like your website and the thme you picked is super. I will be back. Go Here to small business seo by marketing1on1.com
  21. japan.comp234 at 19:05 PM on 10 March, 2016
    Very good written article. It will be supportive to anyone who utilizes it, including me. Keep doing what you are doing – can’r wait to read more posts. 100k Factory Ultra Edition review
  22. japan.comp234 at 20:00 PM on 11 March, 2016
    Thanks for taking the time to discuss this, I feel strongly that love and read more on this topic. If possible, such as gain knowledge, would you mind updating your blog with additional information? It is very useful for me. Salesenvy Review
  23. Awesome and interesting article. Great things you've always shared with us. Thanks. Just continue composing this kind of post.
    Hindi Lyrics
  24. japan.comp234 at 18:35 PM on 17 March, 2016
    It was a very good post indeed. I thoroughly enjoyed reading it in my lunch time. Will surely come and visit this blog more often. Thanks for sharing. Email spike review
  25. japan.comp234 at 18:07 PM on 22 March, 2016
    Thanks for the nice blog. It was very useful for me. I'm happy I found this blog. Thank you for sharing with us,I too always learn something new from your post. van hire in Birmingham
  26. japan.comp234 at 22:45 PM on 28 March, 2016
    nice post, keep up with this interesting work. It really is good to know that this topic is being covered also on this web site so cheers for taking time to discuss this! Inbox Blueprint 2.0 review
  27. brad.haddon234 at 20:20 PM on 1 April, 2016
    I have a hard time describing my thoughts on content, but I really felt I should here. Your article is really great. I like the way you wrote this information. van hire in Birmingham
  28. japan.comp234 at 23:18 PM on 6 April, 2016
    This is actually the kind of information I have been trying to find. Thank you for writing this information. mihran kalaydjian
  29. japan.comp234 at 19:05 PM on 13 April, 2016
    I really loved reading your blog. It was very well authored and easy to understand. Unlike other blogs I have read which are really not that good.Thanks alot! Cars for Modern Women
  30. japan.comp234 at 15:46 PM on 16 April, 2016
    I would like to thank you for the efforts you have made in writing this article. I am hoping the same best work from you in the future as well. Thanks... The Psystrology Method
  31. japan.comp234 at 18:00 PM on 18 April, 2016
    Very good points you wrote here..Great stuff...I think you've made some truly interesting points.Keep up the good work. wettanbieter bonus
  32. japan.comp234 at 18:10 PM on 22 April, 2016
    Awesome blog. I enjoyed reading your articles. This is truly a great read for me. I have bookmarked it and I am looking forward to reading new articles. Keep up the good work! Sure Success Tuition
  33. japan.comp234 at 16:47 PM on 23 April, 2016
    Is it okay to post part of this on my website basically post a hyperlink to this webpage? Jaguar C, D-Type Overview
  34. japan.comp234 at 20:34 PM on 26 April, 2016
    Thanks for this article very helpful. thanks. dil kursu
  35. japan.comp234 at 17:32 PM on 27 April, 2016
    Hello, I have browsed most of your posts. This post is probably where I got the most useful information for my research. Thanks for posting, maybe we can see more on this. Are you aware of any other websites on this subject. college paper
Comments Policy

Post a Comment

You need to be logged in to post a comment. Login via the left margin or register a new account.