National / International News
As economic actors, we all act in accordance with costs and benefits, right? Gas prices are down 30 percent, there’s benefit there.
But what of the long-term environmental costs of climate change? We tend not to be urgent about that. And economists and social scientists are entirely not surprised by this.
There are countless examples of people failing to plan long-term: smoking, grabbing that third doughnut, failing to save for retirement, burning fossil fuels.
The cost or benefit is too far away.
“Imagine somebody offered you some investment,” says behavioral economist Dan Ariely of Duke, author of Predictably Irrational. “And they say here’s an investment you can pay now. And you can win 1,000 times more. But in 200 years. Would you invest in that? And people are just not designed to do this."
People do react when emotions are stirred. Imagine an enemy burning the globe.
“If we thought that the Martians were trying to bake us, imagine there was a conspiracy theory that global warming was not manmade but these Martians were really trying to cook us and they have these devices,” Ariely says. “We would have spent a tremendous amount of money creating spaceships and so on to fight them back, because there was a way to direct our emotions.”
It’s not that scientists aren’t loud about climate change. The latest report warns of “irreversible impacts” of global warming, and 95 percent confidence that humans are the main cause.Courtesy of IPCC
We just don’t listen to them.Courtesy of Yale/George Mason University
Global Warming's Six Americas.
“If you’re green, you’ll trust Bill McKibben. And if you’re brown, you’ll trust George Will,” says risk perception consultant David Ropeik, author of “How Risky Is It, Really?” “It doesn’t matter what the facts are. It matters whether you trust who is giving them to you, because you want to be true to the tribe.
In fact, some go so far as to argue there’s too much science out there.
“We’re well past the point where messaging the science or trying to communicate about the science more effectively is going to change anyone’s opinions,” says Northeastern University communication scholar Matthew Nisbet. “If anything, that’s going to move people to the poles.”
That’s poles, not polls. In this year’s midterm, climate was hardly an issue. According to a Pew poll, voters ranked it eighth in importance out of 11 issues.
Many people have written it off as faraway problem.
“People have been hearing about climate change for a couple decades now,” says environmental scientist Ezra Markowitz of the University of Massachusetts Amherst. “The earliest messages that were put out there about this issue was it was an issue that was going to affect other people, other species, not us today. It’s very difficult, if not impossible, to just get rid of the things that people already know and think about an issue, especially a complex issue like climate change.”
Markowitz and others say the key is to bring a long-term issue closer to people’s lives and everyday thoughts. One bank website even takes your photo and ages you electronically, to make your future more real.
If that doesn’t work, events will eventually focus people’s minds, perhaps first in low-lying areas and those with more irregular weather patterns.
“In the summer of 2010 there was a horrible heat wave in Moscow,” says Matthew Kahn, UCLA economist and author of Climatopolis. “And it killed thousands. Nobody in Moscow had an air conditioner. In the aftermath of that event, thousands of people have purchased air conditioners there. The people have adapted and changed their lifestyle to be ready for the next shock.”
Adaptation may come too late for some. But self-interest is a true climate-change motivator.
Social scientists weigh in on why we don't care about climate change
A crash course in climate change sociology
Social scientists understand that people aren't that concerned about climate change. And yet they still see climate change as a huge issue. Here are some tools to help get inside the mind of a social scientist and see things from their perspective starting with some key concepts and terms.
Availability heuristic: people think of immediate examples when evaluating a topic, concept, method or decision. Things that come to mind easily are thought to be more common and accurate reflections of the world. This can cause people to make bad assessments of risk.
Free-rider effect: individuals in a population who consume more than their fair share of a common resource, or pay less than their fair share. Or a person who gets something without effort or cost.
Cultural Cognition: the tendency of individuals to conform beliefs about disputed matters to values that define a cultural identity. People conform their beliefs with the group they are in.
Identifiable Perpetrators: the tendency of individuals to offer aid or punishment when a specific identifiable person is observed, rather than a large, vague group.
Population of Mister Spocks v. Homer Simpsons: I think this one speaks for itself.
Kevin Ashton created an internet celebrity named Santiago Swallow for 68 dollars.
He blended three faces from portraits from Google images to create Swallow’s face using a free trial of Adobe Lightroom. He made a website. He bought Swallow 90 thousand Twitter followers online.
As part of his social experiment, Ashton used an online application called Status People. The website claims to tell you how many of your Twitter followers are real, inactive or what they call fakers, also known as Twitterbots.
I was suspicious. How can Status People actually differentiate between a bot and a real person?
For example, according to Status People only about 40 percent of Justin Bieber’s Twitter followers are real. So that would mean 33.6 million (give or take a point million) of his 56 million followers are fake or inactive.
Social status today is defined in part by social media. The difference of a few million or even a few thousand Twitter followers is huge. It determines your Twittersphere hierarchy, your social media power ranking, your on and offline reputation.
So I started thinking: who else? What about Lizzie O’Leary?
Turns out, according to Status People, Lizzie’s Twitter followers are 21 percent fake, 29 percent inactive and 50 percent real, active, contributing members.
And what about the official Marketplace Weekend account?
And of course, what about me?
I am far from a Twitter celebrity: At 188 followers (more or less depending on the day) and only about 300 tweets, I realize that by Twitter standards I’m not exactly a big deal. But come on, I had to know.
According to Status People only 1 percent of my followers are fakers and 23 percent are inactive. That’s pretty good—or at the very least better than Bieber. But mid-gloat I hit a snag.
When the site analyzed my followers, its metric determined that two of them were fakers. This whole time, I thought this app was weeding out robots, but both of my “fakers” are real people. Like, I-know-them-in-real-life, real people. One of them is my grandma.
So my suspicions were confirmed: Status People isn’t guaranteed to differentiate between bots and humans.
On Status People’s website, they list part of their methodology like this: “On a very basic level spam accounts tend to have few or no followers and few or no tweets. But in contrast they tend to follow a lot of other accounts.”
So it makes sense why Status People thought my grandma was a bot. She has zero tweets, zero followers and she is following one person—me.
The process of telling the difference is tricky, according to Dr. Steven Gianvecchio, co-author of the paper “Detecting Automation of Twitter Accounts: Are You a Human, Bot, or Cyborg?”
“I think that one of the problems you run into with Twitter is there are a lot of shades of grey,” he said.
Dr. Gianvecchio said sometimes accounts are partially automated, like if someone auto-tweets their blog. And most people don’t have a problem with that sort of automation.
Profiles like my grandma’s, however, would be considered unwanted, according to Gianvecchio.
“Those accounts, most people would consider to be unwanted because for the most part you really want to be interacting with other people,” Gianvecchio said.
So while Status People isn’t perfect at differentiating between bots and humans, it does weed out these unwanted followers who aren't interacting.
This is what I labeled the “grandma paradox.”
On one hand, my grandma serves no purpose on Twitter. She’s not a contributing member of social media, so there’s really no reason for her profile to exist. Sorry grandma, you might as well be a robot.
But on the other hand, my inner narcissist says, go ahead, grandma! In fact, tell all your grandma friends to make useless profiles and follow me too. The more the merrier, as long as my follower account is high.
And that’s probably how Justin Bieber feels too. It doesn’t matter that millions of his followers are robots, or might as well be, as long as some of his followers are real and interacting.
Gianvecchio emphasized quality over quantity. “I think that the number of followers that someone has is a meaningless metric at this point,” he said.
Is it legal for a state-sponsored health exchange to provide subsidies that help people pay insurance premiums? That's the point in question, and one that's still being considered by an appeals court.
This week, we spotted the technology to test who you are and where you come from, parked across the street from New York's Grand Central Station. It's a mobile DNA truck, offering access to a technology that, not too long ago, wasn't readily available.
Lizzie O'Leary met the owner, Jared Rosenthal, outside his truck.
After two recent high profile accidents: the crash of Virgin Galactic's spaceshiptwo, which killed the pilot and injured the copilot, and the explosion of Orbital Sciences Antares rocket, we wanted to know more about the future of commercial space.
Mike Gold, the chairman of the FAA's Commercial Space Transportation Advisory Committee also works extensively with Bigelow Aerospace as their Director of DC Operations. Bigelow is a space start-up planning to launch their own space station in the future.
"I don't think anybody sees these failures and says, 'Well, that's a great thing.' I can certainly assure you it wasn't beneficial. But what was extraordinary to us was the success, the amazing consecutive successes that the Falcon 9 and the Antares had up to this point," Gold says. "Not that there was a failure. So if anything the performance, particularly of the pace X systems, have exceeded our expectations."
"We hear far too often that commercial entities will be less safe than government programs when exactly the opposite is the case. You talk about Mercury and Apollo and other programs. They to an extent could suffer failure more easily than a commercial program because if you look at the activities of these purely commercial entities, such as Virgin Galactic, it's their own money, their own investors, and they don't necessarily have the depth of resources," Gold says. "Which is why, quite frankly I think there is at least an equal if not a stronger focus by these commercial and private sector companies on safety and success because if we fail, our jobs go away, the programs go away. And that's not necessarily the cause with government programs."
The Labor Department just released the jobs report for October. It says the economy added 214,000 new jobs last month.
The unemployment rate fell to 5.8 percent, from 5.9 percent.
But there's more to the jobs picture than just those numbers:
There's a missing piece of the puzzle - and it's wage growth. Pay checks aren't going up much.
Today's jobs report showed average hourly earnings up by 3 cents last month. Wages were flat in September.
Part of the reason for that may be that there's still some slack in the job market.
Employers aren't having to raise pay to attract workers. They have plenty to choose from.
"The fact that wages have not really moved suggests that there is a lot of slack and that employers are still holding all the cards," says Elise Gould, senior economist at the Economic Policy Institute. "There are still many workers out there for every job opening."
The Federal Reserve is watching these numbers closely, as it tries to decide when to raise interest rates.
It's not going to be in any rush to raise interest rates, as long as there's still that slack in the labor market.
When we start to see the slack going away - when wages start going up more - then the Fed will start thinking it may be time to hike interest rates.
Which, by the way, have hovered near zero for almost six years.