Why world can't agree over climate change
O Fareed Zakaria GPS é quase sempre muito interessante (CNN, domingos, 12h). Partindo da perspectiva norte-americana é um programa com uma grande atenção à política externa apesar de não fazer deste tópico um exclusivo. Os temas do momento, como o shutdown, a desigualdade ou o relançamento da economia, são sempre abordados com particular atenção. Mas tendencialmente dominam temas internacionais do momento.
Esta semana, que é como quem diz daqui a pouco, estará em destaque o programa de vigilância norte-americano numa conversa com Michael Hayden, que já esteve à frente tanto da NSA e da CIA.
Para quem não acompanhe o programa acaba por ter uma parte dos conteúdos no blogue do programa. E é do blogue que retiro um excerto de um dos segmentos do programa da semana passada em que se referia um artigo, saído na semana anterior se não me engano, que abordava as alterações climáticas e as razões dos sucessivos bloqueios em negociações:
"(...) So, if the science is not really in dispute, why is it so difficult for us to actually do something about it? There’s a clever explanation. To understand it, we need to tell you about one more study. This one is a game –but one played with real money.
Six participants get 40 euros each to invest in a “climate account.” Every round, these players get to pick one of three options – either they put 4 euros, 2 euros, or zero money, into the account. The investments are anonymous, but the participants can see the total amount going into the pot.
Here's the objective. If, at the end of ten rounds, the pot of money grows to 120 euros – which is about 20 euros a person – then the team has successfully averted "dangerous climate change" – in other words, it wins the game. Each participant gets a 45 euro prize in addition to the money they each have leftover. But if the pot does NOT grow big enough, the team loses the game, and they don't get the prize – and remember, this is real money, so the players have a real incentive to win.
The game was played with three different sets of rules. In the first scenario, the 45 euro award would be handed to the participants the next day. Seven out of 10 groups won the game. In Scenario 2, the cash would be paid out seven weeks later. This time, only four of the 11 groups succeeded. In the third, the prize money would go toward planting oak trees, which would sequester carbon, and thus provide the greatest benefit to future generations.
What happened? Zero of 11 groups reached the target.
The study was published in Nature Climate Change this week. The report's lead author, Jennifer Jacquet of New York University, expanded on the findings when we spoke with her. (...)"