Environmentalists may fervently hope that if everyone just had complete information about the climate science, they would forsake short-term pleasures and convenience in the name of saving the planet. But a recent study out of the University of Texas at Austin shows that even with full information about the short and long term benefits of a decision, people still go for the "quick payoff."
From the press release:
"You'd think that with more information about your options, a person would make a better decision. Our study suggests the opposite," says Associate Professor Bradley Love, who conducted the research with graduate student Ross Otto. "To fully appreciate a long-term option, you have to choose it repeatedly and begin to feel the benefits."
Since the "Death of Environmentalism" was published in 2004, Breakthrough has been working to motivate a transition to a clean energy economy that aligns with near-term expectations, needs, and human values - specifically advocating for decarbonization through "technology-led policy" that can have real impact on economic development, energy security, and climate change.
The hypothetical fully-informed and reasonable actor may not really exist after all. So much for all of the economic, educational, and political theory built on this assumption. Even when people have ample information, they will still tend to act in ways that are contrary to their self-interest. The science is called neuro-economics.
Posted by: Wilmot McCutchen at April 9, 2010 8:47 AMFor example: Two subjects, A and B, are approached with the following deal: B gets to decide how to split $10 between them, and if A doesn't like the split, both A and B get nothing. It turns out that $3 is the resistance point -- even if A stands to gain $2 by acquiescing in B's split ($8 for B, $2 for A), A will reject profit so that B doesn't prosper. The same dynamic is at work in policy discussions. People will tend to reject good ideas simply because they wish ill on the proponents.