1) Why, according to Jones, is Mauna Loa (in Hawaii) a suitable place to measure changes in global atmospheric CO2 levels?
Mauna Loa was selected as the best place to measure changes in global CO2 levels because of it’s the best location to see large atmospheric averages. The volcano rises to 3400 meters in the middle of the ocean and, as a result, the air mass being sampled is already well mixed due to the inputs and outputs of CO2 that is far below and away. Additionally, the site is located on a volcano, meaning the lava will burn all nearby plants and consequently, any possible CO2 emissions by respiration from those plants.
3) How do Nordhaus and Shellenberger use political psychology to explain why people have tended to be consistently, but weakly, committed to action on climate change? …show more content…
The first reason is similar to the philosophy of ‘if it doesn't affect me, i don't care’, because it’s difficult to visualize the threat of climate change, and the actual ‘threat’ of climate change won’t affect them right at this moment. The other reason is the dominant climate change solutions contradict established ideologies and identities, otherwise known as ‘system justification theory’. System justification suggests that people want to maintain a positive view of the existing social order, leading people to believe that the current state of social order is fair and desirable, even if they are put at a
Mauna Loa was selected as the best place to measure changes in global CO2 levels because of it’s the best location to see large atmospheric averages. The volcano rises to 3400 meters in the middle of the ocean and, as a result, the air mass being sampled is already well mixed due to the inputs and outputs of CO2 that is far below and away. Additionally, the site is located on a volcano, meaning the lava will burn all nearby plants and consequently, any possible CO2 emissions by respiration from those plants.
3) How do Nordhaus and Shellenberger use political psychology to explain why people have tended to be consistently, but weakly, committed to action on climate change? …show more content…
The first reason is similar to the philosophy of ‘if it doesn't affect me, i don't care’, because it’s difficult to visualize the threat of climate change, and the actual ‘threat’ of climate change won’t affect them right at this moment. The other reason is the dominant climate change solutions contradict established ideologies and identities, otherwise known as ‘system justification theory’. System justification suggests that people want to maintain a positive view of the existing social order, leading people to believe that the current state of social order is fair and desirable, even if they are put at a