riassunto A. Hoffman, "How culture shapes the climate change debate", Slide di Geografia

Scarica riassunto A. Hoffman, "How culture shapes the climate change debate" e più Slide in PDF di Geografia solo su Docsity! GEOGRAPHY OF GLOBAL CHALLENGES 2020 1 A CULTURAL SCHISM The case of the Polar Vortex. This phenomenon was first studied in 1853, it is a cyclone that circles at the poles; in January 2014 it appeared in eastern and southern America as a sudden plummet of temperatures that killed 20 people and affected 60% of Americans. Instead of accepting the scientist’s take on the event, the public turned the issue into a topic in the so-called cultural-wars: one side tried to endorse the scientific view, the other exploited the event as a political tool to belittle the other. Rush Limbaugh1 called the polar vortex an invention of the Liberal Left, Fox News and Trump said that global warming could not be true because it was so cold, National Review mocked who endorsed the global warming issue as alarmists. On the other hand, Time magazine, Climate Centre and the Weather Channel claimed that global warming was indeed the cause of the Polar vortex and that «the melting of ice makes cold snaps more likely [to happen] – not less» Scientist tried to explain that global warming is about global changes in climate, not regional deviation. John Holdren, director of the White House Office of Science and Technology, made a 2- minute video to explain the Polar Vortex and the general science behind climate change, but this too was bashed by the adverse media. The public and the debate on climate change. Given the state of the matter, the public is confused, and the physical scientists frustrated. Social scientists (philosophers, psychologists, anthropologists, sociologists) on the other hand try to make sense of why the public does not accept scientific facts as such. They concluded that climate change is not just a scientific issue but a cultural issue too. The public does not understand the issue because it avoids, intentionally or unintentionally, the information, not because it lacks it. There are four points that can summarize this avoidance: 1) Cognitive filters – scientists don’t have the last word on scientific issues because we filter them through our own worldviews. Through motivated reasoning we related the new issue with our belief system, we search for evidenced and finally evaluate the issue as true or false – it doesn’t mean that we will reject them if our community will, but that we’ll certainly evaluate them differently. 2) Cultural identity – our own system of beliefs tends to be consistent with that of the community we identify with. We tend to endorse the views that will strengthen the bonds we have within our social groups. This applies to scientific positions as well. 3) Cultural identity overpowers scientific reasoning – when a scientific issue contrasts with our cultural beliefs, the more we know – may the evidence be positive or negative – the more our position – May it be in support or contrary – strengthens. An Oklahoma SU research reports that increased education/self-reported understanding increases the concerns about climate change only in those who already accept it, decreases it in those who don’t. More scientific education won’t convince does who are sceptical about climate change. In order to do so the social issues that trigger that scepticism must be addressed. 4) Context and inertia for change – Our economic, political, technological contexts both enact our values and create inertia towards changing them. I.e. fossil fuels a) their presence allows our lifestyle as we know it, hence it is difficult to replace them and b) their production, and distribution etc. involves political and economic interests which are threatened by the climate change issue. To tackle the problem, the series of infrastructures around it must be tackled too. Cultural values act both as a road maps (they furnish us with the information on how the world works) and as lenses, so that when different people see the same science, they see different things. The international debate on climate change is not about the science behind it but about ow that science is viewed and how to eradicate those values and beliefs that make that science unbelievable. 1 Host of the most listened-to radio talk show in America (13.25 million listeners), died recently. How culture shapes the climate change debate, HOFFMAN A. J. 2 In the US cultural worldviews are heavily related to political ones, in the case of climate change, Republicans are generally contrarians while Democrats are supporters of the science. The debate between the two has exacerbated so much that we now talk of a cultural schism. The division happens because we tend to group up with people that share our beliefs, in the long term we consider them “our tribe” and so are more prone to agree with their set of beliefs. When the positions in the conversation are extreme communication and solution by discussion becomes hardly possible. We need social sciences as they can furnish us with a theory of change – how to understand better the debate and how to change it to become more pacific, namely by gaining people’s trust before trying to change their worldviews. The scientific consensus on climate change 5 ways we can see that a) climate is changing and b) humans are – partly – causing it. 1. UN-IPCC2 reports – the thousands of scientists in this organization have expressed their position in “consensus statements”. In 1995 they wrote that human influence was discernible based on the balance of evidences, in 2007 the statement was reiterated. In 2013 “warming of the system” was deemed “unequivocal” and changes to it “unprecedented” 2. Statements by nearly 200 scientific agencies around the world – including the G8 countries (Italy, France, Germany, UK, Japan, Canada, USA, Russia)3. 3. Independent scientific literature – in 2013 Environmental research letters was published, a collection 11944 abstracts from peer reviewed journals dated 1991-2001 that expressed consensus on anthropogenic climate change. 4. Surveys on scientists – a 2011 survey on the members on the American Geophysical Union and the American Meteorological society revealed that 97% of the scientists agreed on the rising of temperatures and 84% on the anthropogenic cause. 5. The Joint Academic Statement (2005) – a statement of both the US National Academy of science and American Association for Advancement in Science says that there is a consensus that the cause of recent earth warming is anthropogenic. Consensus does not mean that the scientific work is done P. Edwards compares the science of climate change to a “jigsaw puzzle with few missing pieces”, there is still working to do to find the remaining pieces and complete it, but it cannot be that the support over the existing ones is a hoax. The lack of social consensus The data A 2013 report of the YPCC4showed that  63% of Americans believe that GW is happening.  49% believes in anthropogenic causes  30% believes that it’s mostly happening in for natural causes A 2010 Gallup5survey over 12 countries found that in America 47% of adults attributed GW to natural causes, in the other 11 countries only 14% thought the same. 2 United Nation’s International Panel on Climate Change. 3Although the book was published in 2015 it still bears the definition G8 – the 8th country, Russia, was suspended in 2014 following the annexation of Crimea. 4Yale Program on Climate Change Communication 5Gallup, Inc. is an American research-based, global performance-management consulting company, the company became known for its public opinion polls conducted worldwide. GEOGRAPHY OF GLOBAL CHALLENGES 2020 5 We act as cognitive misers7: we only spend our limited time and energy on issues that are resonate particularly with us. We don’t have enough time to investigate every relevant issue, so we turn to trusted sources to summarize them for us. Max Weber and the black boxes We could not get through modern life if we had to investigate every process around us. This is why we activate black boxes, hollow packs of knowledge that we assume as known and on whose results we count on. Weber’s example was the metro: none of use knows how it works unless they’re a physicist, but we count on its predictable behaviour in order to move. Most Americans have a climate change black box too, despite assuring that they’ve read on the issue before forming an opinion; this is shown by some reports:  California Academy of Sciences: majority of US public cannot pass a scientific literary test  The National Science Foundation: 2 3⁄ of USA citizens don’t understand the scientific process US citizens result scientifically illiterate, still, 83% thinks they have “great deal” or “moderate” understanding of climate change, as per a Carsey Institute survey. Four forms of distrust that animate the public debate Not everyone shares our beliefs and our attitude towards science (whichever those might be). In order to engage those with different opinions we must acknowledge which are the forms of distrust that people have towards scientific process. Professor Mike Hulme of Cambridge thinks that climate change is not just a scientific phenomenon but also a cultural one and it is re-shaping the way we think about ourselves and the words around us. There are four forms of distrust: of the messengers, of the process that created the message, of the message itself, of the solutions that come from the message. Distrust of the messengers Three different messengers have been pointed out: 1. Environmentalist – some believe that asking for environmental policies is just a covert way to push the socialist agenda, diminishing personal freedom and eventually dismantling capitalism. The descriptor “watermelon” is used for this group – green outside, red inside. 2. Dem politicians – CC is a wedge issue8 whose split maps out on party lines. In 2009 – the Clean Energy and Security Act was opposed by all but 7 House Republicans. In 2013 – all 31 House Republican refuted to vote on the issue whether CC exists or not. The Dem man perhaps most hated by the political Right is Al Gore, who created great attention around CC with his doc An Inconvenient Truth and was subsequently accused of pursuing the CC agenda for his own gain. 3. Scientists This form of distrust takes places because of two beliefs: i) That universities are full of liberals – studies found this to be true, in elite universities Dem outnumber Reps 6 to 1. ii) That scientist act like vigilantes, only report what is – this way elevate reason over faith and emotion; they are seen as studying issues beyond the ordinary man’s understanding but that can determine its fate. Distrust of the process that created the message Some deny scientific evidence in CC because they deem the process itself as flawed and thus the existence of a consensus on the issue. Contrarians equal peer review with ‘pal review’ thus they think 7 Avari cognitivi, «a person who hoards wealth and spends as little money as possible» (OED) 8 A wedge issue is a political or social issue, often of a controversial or divisive nature, which splits apart a demographic or population group. How culture shapes the climate change debate, HOFFMAN A. J. 6 that study grants and publications are given not on the basis of merit but of the conformance of the work to the values of those in editorial positions. Climategate helped the increase of this form of distrust. Moreover, the very nature of one of the most prominent institution in the field, the IPCC, is source of distrust: it is in fact an offspring of the UN, organization that contrarian opposed as they think it challenging national sovereignty. Distrust of the message itself People are in denial that such a threat as climate change might be present in the world as they know it, two lines of literature embody this denial: 1) Just World Theory People are seen to possess deeply held beliefs that the world is just, orderly, and stable and that cannot change as much as to threaten their lifestyle. 2) Terror Management Theory People tend not to think about such a catastrophic thing as CC because it tends to arise ideas about their own mortality and death. These biases lead to a sense of risk that, as that of death, people tend not to think about: they either don’t want to support the economic cost or deem the data on CC too big, thus they come to consider the science as a hoax. Some see that to think that humans can influence climate change is an act of hubris and challenges their own belief of God – whereas some religious community have tried to endorse CC views many have seen green actions as pagan, as ways of “worshipping the environment”. Distrust of the solutions that come from the message. Whether we collectively share the responsibility of the solution to CC and what solution that should be is a complex question. Some think that more governmental regulations will solve the problem – the market must be kept in check by the state or it will destroy the environmental commons. Some fear that too much government intervention will at the end lead to social engineering, and when human-planning overtakes society freedom seems to be lost. Those who, on the other end, believe in CC thinks that the system as it is now will take us all towards the irreparable. Two are the major views on this issue: the eco-centric one (that intrinsically values the environment over progress) and the anthropocentric (that thinks of nature as an economic asset and values it for the resources that provides to humans for their progress). Speaking in different languages Language is key in the debate about CC and GW: the sides resulted from the shift tend to use different vocab with different purposes. GW and CC – contrarians us GW more than CC, supporters use the two equally. GB is a more political term than CC and elicits different responses. - One 2011 survey found that 66% of Republicans were found to believe the phenomenon if referred to as CC, only 44% if referred to as GB. - Two 2014 studies found that the terms are now used more interchangeably and that conservatives react to both dismissively. The science – contrarian authors also focus on the science, defining it with terms such as “hoax, hype” and to the supporters with “hysteria, alarmists, and socialists”. Economy and risk – contrarians tend to focus on the policies that could mitigate climate change and present them as a source of loss of jobs. Ad personam – both sides spend more time criticizing certain persons in the other faction than their ideas, i.e. GW Bush and Al Gore, and accusing them of supporting or dismissing the issue for personal gain. GEOGRAPHY OF GLOBAL CHALLENGES 2020 7 Three ways forward (or three evolutions of the CC debate). 1) Optimistic path How it works: Easiest way. To eliminate the cultural problem, we eliminate the technological one. What could make it happen: a new affordable, pollution-free, reliable technology? It’d work because: people wouldn’t have to renounce their lifestyle or change their values, so would have no problem in accepting this solution. Governments wouldn’t have to take austerity measures. This path is enforced because: research shows that 80% of humanity has an optimism bias, we systematically ignore evidence about the risk and hope for a new solution to solve the problem instead. This means that we won’t do anything until it’s too late. 2) Pessimistic path How it works: worst case scenario. Differences between the factions escalate and both depict the other as either defending the environment regardless of the rest or defending economics regardless of the rest. What could make it happen: a polarized debate base on coercion and domination (and in which contrarians are far more likely to have the upper-hand than supporters)? 3) Consensus based path How it works: resolution is found focusing on the common views, moving forward from the factions. It’s about values, not science Presently, it seems that we are pursuing the pessimistic path. Many scientists (included the author) have received hate mail from the general public and have also being dissed by personalities on the contrarians’ side. This sort of attacks transcends party affiliations: MIT’s Kerry Emmanuel, a self- described Republican received a “frenzy of hate” after being interviewed by Climate Desk. They also come from both sides: some environmentalists NGO went as far as pleading the FOIA9 in order to go oppose contrarians. This is an evidence that people don’t engage in the debate to criticize or support the science, but to defend a set of values that they think a under attack. SOURCES OF ORGANIZED RESISTANCE One problem of the climate change movement: its constituency is indeterminate. Since a good environment is a public good of the broader kind there are no natural advocates, instated supports of the cause can come from any side of society. Unlike civil rights or gender equity movements, climate protection ones don’t bring to their advocates any personal benefit, only communal ones – as for personal gain, it might be easier to explain the contrarians’ than the supporters’ position. Brief history of the debate Climate change threatens economic interests Corporations are the first front of organized resistance o CC mitigation policies. Climate change does constitute a shift in the economy. It is directed both by the demand-supply process and state policies. Specifically, regulations that address climate issues are likely to change the prices of fossil fuels, which will alter virtually the entire economic system. As in all the market shifts there will be downsides and upsides. 9 The Freedom of Information Act – Signed into law under President Johnson in 1966, it gave the journalists access to previously undisclosed government files. It was amended in 1970 and 1996 to offer the press access not just to paper files but to telematics files as well. How culture shapes the climate change debate, HOFFMAN A. J. 10 c) Ways which these are recounted. Three cases in point 1) Publication of Silent spring Thesis of the book: there is a web of life, all organisms are interconnected; no man-made change can happen without harming the environment; arrogance of man: we cannot expect to fully govern nature a) Some criticized her for going against DDT and Monsanto parodied her book, though the public received it enthusiastically b) Kennedy had his Science Advisory Committee dig into the pesticides use c) Carson, a scientist, was not the first to write about DDT nor discovered their dangers, but wrote accessibly and in a moment in which the public was ready to receive her message. 2) Santa Barbara oil spill of 1969 A platform spilled 12.3 ML on the coasts of southern California a) Not the first or the worst spill, but happened in a upper class place, so it reached national news b) Nixon imposed a moratorium on off-shore development c) Media coverage was so upfront that it led to public outcry and subsequent governmental policies, also leaving a longstanding legacy 3) Hurricane Sandy and Katrina a) Sandy gained more public relevance than Katrina as it struck a whiter, more politically prominent region of the US. Also, Sandy happened right before the presidential election. b) Bloomberg, the then-mayor of NY, was vocal about the connection between the event and climate change. c) While Bloomberg acted as an authoritative spokesperson for the event, spokespeople for Katrina presented the matter incongruously and fragmentally. → Events per se do not create social change, but in the way they are constructed for the general public and communicated they can become opportunities for social change (“Never waste a good crisis”). Tactics for bridging the cultural schism It is important to frame CC scientifically while levering up on emotions: emotions are pivotal in making well-judged decisions and should be taken in account when making an argument in order to persuade someone. In order to engage in a constructive debate one must always recognise the complexity of the issue at stake and the impact it might have on someone else’s belief system. What to do: 1. The messenger is as important as the message We’re all more prone to accept a message if it comes from someone we trust → if an individual has credibility on both sides of the isles it can act as “climate broker”. The best climate brokers emerge from the market and the ideological right, as these factions are those whose interests are threatened/those who deny climate science’s truth claim:  Business leaders: can frame the issue as a matter of loss of capital/resources, disrupted supply chain etc.; can frame solution as a matter of competitiveness in tech or “green tech”.  Ideological right: can frame solutions to climate inside long-standing conservative interest with liberty, freedom, individuality (i.e. some congress people opposed Arizona’s largest electricity supplier from charging people who installed solar panels citing everyone’s liberty to choose their own energy source) 2. Address the process by which the message was created Don’t combine all issues into big statement, break down the concept:  Is greenhouse gasses’ concentration increasing? yes GEOGRAPHY OF GLOBAL CHALLENGES 2020 11  Does this lead to a general warming of the planet? yes  Has climate changed over the past century? yes  Are human partially responsible for it? Not sure, but mostly yes  What will the overall impact of such change be? Most difficult to answer → avoid catastrophic scenarios, they’re counterproductive: a sense of powerlessness sinks in and people are not urged to move. Always separate the problem from the solution: if the solution threatens one’s cultural values, they will be dismissive of the problem as well. 3. Chose message that are personally accessible People access information both analytically and experientially, they respond to what’s salient and personal. CC in particular is often characterized as a distant threat in either space or time. → Emotional impact of concretization of abstract risk is a better motivator than analytical understanding. → speaking to values is as important as presenting facts; as people are part of different reference groups is important to “be multilingual” and speak the language of the target. For example: 1. Framing CC as a national security or public health threat → CC was seen as a close menace as the focus shifted on protecting relatable people’s security or health. 2. Framing CC as a moral concern → can go well with some audiences but not with others, as word have multiple meanings in different environments i.e.  “green”: cons → “liberal agenda”  “uncertainty”: scientists → statistical variations; laypeople → science just don’t know 4. Present solutions for a commonly desired future  Overcome the belief that “it’s too big a problem for individuals to tackle”  Bridge left and right ideology →it’s a problem for people to solve, regardless of their political ideology. →must make a collective effort and meet halfway in order to preserve the “American way of life” (the solution is presented as preservative, not as disruptive).  Better communication and divulgation of science and the scientific process: → many are not prepared to understand some nonlinear yet significant relationships within climate models, so they’re not equipped to question it (WSJ spread the – false – belief that more CO2 meant increase in plant growth, and people did not question it).  Scholars should step out of the traditional venues and into more popular ones: scholars too often lack the skills of the educator or communicator. → in order to change this we need to train differently future scientists and stop fostering their reclusion in specific communities in favour of having them mingle with laypeople. All-in instead then us-versus-them  Endeavour to change society in order to tackle CC is better than prosing one’s theory and expect the general public to acquiesce.  Analogy: every member of the global society has the same disease but there’s no doctor who certainly knows the rule nor healthy people that have us understand what health looks like. HISTORICAL ANALOGIES FOR CULTURAL CHANGE If we accept that we, as a species, can alter the climate then we must consider climate change as the ultimate tragedy of the commons10with a twist: as a mean to improve our life, we are actually encouraged to deplete natural resources, we don’t just act on self-interest. 10 Situation in a shared-resource system where individual users, acting independently according to their own self-interest, behave contrary to the common good of all users by depleting or spoiling the shared resource. How culture shapes the climate change debate, HOFFMAN A. J. 12 → Shift in global ethics is needed: we won’t act until it’s compelling. Two examples of deep culture shifts 1) Cigarettes and cancer: from scientific consensus to social consensus We have social consensus over something when we teach our young that it is the truth. Science doesn’t have the final word: controversial topics trigger ideological and economic interest. A link between smoking and lung cancer had been suspected as early as 1946; in 64’they were confirmed by the US General Surgeon. Despite this, measures were taken only in 1998 with the MSA, which: 1) Happened between the four more prominent tobacco companies; 2) Banned certain marketing practices; 3) Compelled the 4 companies to make annual payments to the 46 participant states in order to write off the cost of smoke related medical bills. This issue is controversial: Ideologically – resulted in serious government overreach: states changed the law to win in court against the tobacco companies and extorted a quarter trillion $ settlement. Economically – companies helped create confusion about the topic in order not to lose billions in revenues. CC debate is now in a state of post-scientific but pre-social consensus → just as in the case of smoking and cancer, states are beginning to take companies to court. I.e. Connecticut VS American State Power (2010) 2) Abolition of slavery: scale of the culture change Scale of the cultural shift: 75% of the world’s population was in slavery as to the 18th century; Great Britain especially relied on slavery for labour (which led to wealth and power) → abolition of slavery led to a collapse of the economy/way of life → we live a petrol-fuelled society end economy, taking it away would lead to the same collapse. Exactly as it took a hundred years to abolish slavery and as of today it’s still not fully eradicated, switching away from fossil fuels will be an enduring battle. Paths of change: slavery was abolished through a consensus based path in the UK (negotiations, social campaigns) but through a pessimistic path in the US (civil war) → these should war us all against all- or-nothing positions and demonizing your adversaries: we should cooperate more than antagonize and maintain hope and optimism. Economic and political resistance: Both fossil-fuels and slavery power a certain type of lifestyle, which nor slave-owners neither modern society are willing to forsake, although those who benefit from fossil-fuels do not bear the brunt of such practice. In the case of slavery, the cost was shifted to the slaves themselves; the cost of climate change is shifted even on future generation and weaker parts of society. THE FULL SCOPE We can’t just lecture and scold people if we want to move them into the climate-change-fighting ranks. We’ll need to actually engage with them and in a durable, consistent way. How to engage the general public: 1. Recognize the political landscape Everyone hears something different when we speak of climate change; these because each person is differently situate in the political/social landscape. Three main points on how to read the room and address the subsequent issues: 2. Focus on the middle Focusing on extremes takes us back to antagonizing mind-set; also, it is easier to swing the people in the middle than the die-hard contrarians. GEOGRAPHY OF GLOBAL CHALLENGES 2020 15 Annex II Member parties = a subgroup of Annex I parties: EU, members of OECD in 1992 excluded those that were EITs Targets: - Provide financial resources, pay for the cost - Enable developing countries in reducing GHG emissions - Promote development and share sensible technologies and information with other countries Annex III Member parties: least developed or developing countries, 49 in number Targets: none Special considerations: considered especially vulnerable to the effects of climate change, and deemed worthy of help on account of their limited reactive capacity. Principles that guide the protocol 1. Common but differentiated responsibilities and capabilities 2. Precautionary principle 3. Cooperation between parties The Kyoto Mechanisms → remember! Annex B parties are countries/EU that have accepted targets for limiting or reducing emissions and are legally committed to do so. Each party has specific AAUs12 that must not exceed. International Emissions Trading (IET) Allows parties that have emission units to spare - emissions permitted them but not "used" - to sell this excess capacity to countries that are over their targets. Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) Allows an Annex B party commitment to implement an emission-reduction project in DC and thus earn CER13 which can be counted towards meeting Kyoto targets. Joint implementation (JI) Allows an Annex B party to earn ERUs14 from an emission-reduction or -removal project in another Annex B Party which can be counted towards meeting Kyoto targets. Problems - Protocol only binds developed countries → developing economies such as China and India are not accounted for their high GHG emissions. ADAPTATION VS MITIGATION Both are strategies that have to do with confronting a crisis. Both need to be implemented not just by individuals, but also by institutions → climate change is often a matter of power, as power imbalances can decide who bear the brunt of what and how well events are confronted; → climate change must be both an outcome and a driver for our actions. 12 Assigned Amount Units. 13 Certified emission reduction; 1 CER = 1t CO2. 14 Emission Reduction Units; 1 ERU = 1t CO2. Notes and extras 16 Comparisons Adaptation costs way more than mitigation → this is a problem for LDCs, as their ability to confront CC is financially and structurally limited but they’re also the more likely to face graver events. The most vulnerable of this countries are listed in the Vulnerability Index (2017). Mitigation Def. reducing climate change – involves reducing the flow of GHG into the atmosphere through political and technical means. Is done either by reducing sources of these gases or enhancing the “sinks” that accumulate and store these gases. Adaptation Def. adapting to life in a changing climate – involves adjusting to actual or expected future climate. The goal is to reduce our vulnerability to the harmful effects of climate change. It also encompasses making the most of any potential beneficial opportunities associated with climate change. Two ways of conceptualizing Coping mechanism → a response: marshal old strategies into confronting a crisis Revise old ways, act on new ones → a process: an opportunity to understand what’s wrong, make better arrangements for the future, exploit the current situation for the good. Three processes or phases These are well distinguishable at a theoretical level, but less at an empirical one. 1. Resilience Adaptation as resilience is the blander form: it only implements change that allows the existing processes to endure. Capacity of a system to face a threat and maintain its internal functions by developing new strategies. A system’s degree of elasticity → since real change only happens when the vulnerability threshold is reached, adaptation threatens resilience. A resilient system has 3 key features: Diversity: d. in structure and functions → d. in responses to shock; Modularity: groups internal to the system work together but are not totally dependent → if one is taken down the others can keep on functioning; Tight response: other parts of the system can respond quickly and effectively when others have been it. → a specific form of resilient adaptation is migration. 2. Transition Adaptation as transition is an intermediate form: it is aimed at setting everyone in governance to do their job rather than change the governance altogether. → Latouche’s de-growth. - Comprise both bottom-up and top-down processes: citizen participation in public affairs and governance is vital in this form of adaptation → The Transition Town Movement. - Stands the fact that oil is a finite, non-renewable resource that we are using too freely (petroleum interval – 200 years during which society has come to rely completely on oil); if we keep the drilling at this rate there will soon be both no more oil and no more time for it to re-generate (we’ll be at peak oil). 3. Transformation Adaptation as transformation is the deepest form: aims at total change in governance and strategy. It involves: holding governing classes accountable, including experts in the debate, change in people’s mind-sets and understanding of the world. is a complex process that can be heavily influenced by climate change MIGRATION Push-pull factors can be         Historically: push pull factors distribution of flows impacts on territories migratory models - Economic conditions - Political or cultural circumstances - conflicts - Environment: degradation or climate crisis - better shot at life The right to migration as a way of escaping dangerous situations in one's country is guaranteeed by the UDHCR         Nowadays: crime human rights integration Mass: invasions or flights iniltration: only few and selected moved  Temporary: - agriculture, grazing - tourism  - communting elements studied by geography voluntary forced voluntary or forced international  internal international or internal international or internal types of migration - majority of today's mobility - driven by poverty or lack of opportunity - diaspora - slave trade - internal or internation refugees - started after the discovery of the americas - boosted after WWII - as of 2017 there are 257 M migrants causes: economic, social, environmental Environmental are the major causes of this sort of migration 1. this migration is a form of resilient adaptation 2. as of 2017 there were 30.6 M of IDPs; they'll be 200 M by 2050 3. rapid-onset environmental events are the major cause of internal displacement as ap rocess itdepends on 1. the need 2. the desire 3. the ability to migrate 1. trapped people: does who lack the ability to migrate 2. internally dispacled persons: internal migrants for climate causes (IDPs) 3.  The lack of a definition(forced or voluntary? refugees or migrants) inhibits legal actions that could help them and leaves them at the mercy of each state's legislation.  various definitions for climate-related migrants factors on which models are based