THOUGHT EXPERIMENT: Some 70% of people, depends how you ask, accept the global emergency. Climate system destabilisation is one aspect, declining biodiversity and increasing pollution is another. I ask: what would actually *break* if humanity responded decisively? 1/

This #NewYear we must get serious about climate change. A big obstacle: our brains.

Current risks are vastly different from our ancestors, but our brains are wired the same. Knowing the science behind decision-making helps us better talk about climate threats & spark action. 1/

I’ve dedicated my career to understanding what factors influence our perceptions of risk & shape behavioral outcomes, especially around climate action.

We clearly do not judge risks accurately. Let’s try this example. What is more likely to kill you:

Ppl often say shark attacks even though plane parts are 30x more likely to kill us. Attacks are more sensational/easier to recall.

Brains react in certain ways to risks around us, rapidly scanning environmental cues (e.g. snake’s stance) with subliminal and automated processing.

How does brain wiring relate to climate action? We're influenced by triggers such as if we can see risk or if we trust who communicates it to us.

Bluntly, we overestimate unserious risks like vaccinating children and underestimate seemingly far away risks like rising sea levels.

Sociology shows how even political identities influence risk perception. A human evolutionary trait allows us to avoid cognitive dissonance from info 1) that isn’t pleasant or 2) contradicts beliefs integral to our identity/tribe. We’re wired to make snap judgements for comfort.

It's (nearly) five years since the Paris Agreement was gaveled through… but was it any good? Tricky question. Based on emissions, temperature data and impacts, no. *But...* (thread)

The team at @SystemIQ_LTD have crunched the numbers & reviewed how far + fast sectors have shifted since 2015. Their take is the global economy could be a decade away from seismic tipping points that see the world move fast towards low carbon.

In 2015, zero-carbon technologies and business models could rarely compete with incumbent carbon-solutions. In 2020, zero-carbon solutions are competitive in sectors representing around 25% of emissions. In 2030 the figure’s looking like 70%.

What does this mean for a COVID-smashed world, where 2021 is shaping up to be a hellish mix of recessions and mass unemployment? Well, the 2020s could see a net increase of 35 million low carbon jobs if governments roll out the right policies + invest wisely.

Can the low carbon acceleration be pinned to Paris? Not entirely, but partly. In 2014 no-one talked of net zero targets. Now 120+ countries either have these plans or are working on them. By mid 2021 the US, China, EU, UK, Japan, Korea, Canada will have these targets.

Daily Bookmarks to GAVNet 01/01/2021

It's #FigureFriday, so let's chat about my favorite subject: color palettes 🎨 for climate science visualization! (1/12)

First, why is it important? Put simply: a beautiful figure can communicate your results more effectively than text. It can make a figure more understandable to a public audience. So it is worth it to put care into your figure design. (2/12)

First, if you're plotting up climate model data, especially anomalies, I highly recommend Cynthia Brewer's palettes on ColorBrewer. BrBG is my go-to for precip anomalies, and RdBu is a natural for temperature. (3/12)

The sequential palettes are also great if you've got data going in one direction. Here's the Brewer "blues" at work for a figure showing LGM T change. (4/12)

But what about line graphs? If you are paleoclimatologist like me, you are probably plotting a bunch of squiggly lines. For this, I suggest designing a palette for your *entire paper* ahead on time, and then plot stuff in this palette in every figure. (5/12)