TH!NK post

Climate Change is NO Chuck Norris

Published 24th October 2010 - 7 comments - 5219 views -

    Thanks for reading this post. You should also check out my declaration of love to nuclear power and learn why developing countries should be encouraged to pollute more.

     Background info: a google search on “climate change” returns 156.000.000 pages. A google search on “terrorism” returns 30.300.000 pages. Some people wear Superman pijamas. Superman wears Chuck Norris pijamas. / When Chuck Norris crosses the street, the cars have to look both ways. Now let’s see why climate change is a marginal topic in ordinary people’s minds.

1. Think globally, act locally. Corporations are hungry for profit so they exploit developing countries, where we have a lack of power and of organisation. (child labour, taking natural resources without thinking about the environment, externalisation of pollution eg. Concrete factories moved from western Europe to Romania and so on)

2. Think locally, act locally. People from developing countries think like this. As we know from economics man is regarded as homo economicus. That’s to say if one shop sales a bar of soap for 1 dollar and another shop sells it for .99 cents then any man will buy the .99 cents one. To make it catchy and give an example at the same time here’s how a „developing” man thinks: I want money -> I have trees -> they want trees -> I cut trees -> I sell trees -> I have money.

     From 1. and 2. we must deduce that the extremly rich and the extremly poor generally don’t care about climate change. Now a look at the rest of the world.

3. Climate change is too vague, too scientifical, too far away.

    Too vague because climate change means: cutting down trees, building a concrete factory, buying a V12 muscle car or a sunny day in December ! Similar to quality of food: fast-food is bad for you, food with E-s is bad for you, food grown with chemicals/fertilisers is bad for you and so on. At one point you have 2 choices: just starve  or spend a fortune on organic food. Which grows in polluted air and is watered by rain that falls from the polluted sky. So you just ignore it all and go out for a burger.

    Too scientifical because it’s about the ozone layer, carbon emissions and full of studies that contradict one another. Why can’t it be like pop science ? Then everyone will watch. You must know the „british scientists have discovered that ...” or MythBusters or How It’s Made and co. Climate change should be presented like that ! 

    Too far away because climate change is gonna make living on Earth suck in 2050. Or 2062 or 2078 or maybe never. Depends which research paper you read. Or what documentary you watch. My finance teacher stated the first rule of finance: 1$ today is always worth more than 1$ tommorow. Paraphrase: Dying it the near future is always more worrying than dying in the far far away future. If we compare climate change and terrorism we find out why. Terrorism is simple: bad guy – bomb – you die. Climate change might do some things (everyone guesses on what they might be) in a certain period of time (generally one that people regard as long term).

     These are the reasons why climate change is NO Chuck Norris. More like a Steven Seagal. And you won’t find how-cool-is-Steven-Seagal facts on the web.

 

Category: Climate History, | Tags:



Comments

Maracineanu Alexandru-Ciprian on 25th October 2010:

Well.. I have to work for a house, for a car, for my future.. so I don’t have time to spend being green! If it doesn’t kill me now.. and will kill me when I’m 75.. dunno.. I’m know .. I’m selfish.. You will talk about the future of my kids.. I don’t have.. so:) MB in the future I’ll care more:D Go go Chuck Norris!:D

Dragos Irimia on 25th October 2010:

@Cipri - thanks for sharing with everyone smile

Lara on 28th October 2010:

I agree that ordinary people are not too interested in the subject as it’s not going to feed the kids or buy a yacht or decorate the house. Yet, I find it difficult to believe that people being interested in it would make a significant change. People would usually act when they know that the others will do the same. But, they need to make a decision (to act or not to act) in a serious case of asymmetric information. If they don’t know or they’re not sure that everyone else will do something about it, they will choose the easiest option at the time, which most frequently is not to act.

Dragos Irimia on 29th October 2010:

@Lara - nicely phrased. My thoughts exactly.

Dan on 29th October 2010:

http://chuckmynorris.com/Global Warming

Dan on 29th October 2010:

Actually it did not take the whole URL. But you get the picture…

Dragos Irimia on 01st November 2010:

@Dan - indeed we do smile

  • Remember my personal information

    Notify me of follow-up comments?

    --- Let's see if you are human ---

    Apples grow on what? Add a questionmark to your answer. (6 character(s) required)