Norway recently announced a new program to fund renewable energy and carbon mitigation programs in developing nations. The Energy+ Partnership unites several developed countries in an effort to provide universal access to energy while cutting emissions from global energy production. Norway has pledged NOK 1.8 billion ($300 million) to the effort, which is set to launch in June of this year. Investments are “results based”: recipient countries are required to demonstrate increasing public access to energy and decreasing overall emissions. Energy+ builds on the success of Norway’s REDD+, an initiative for reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation in developing countries.

Countries and organizations currently partnered (or committed to becoming partners) include: Kenya, Bhutan, Liberia, Ethiopia, Maldives, United Kingdom, Switzerland, France, the World Bank Group, Asian Development Bank, African Development Bank, United Nations Industrial Development Organisation, United Nations Development Programme, United Nations Environment Programme, International Energy Agency, World Business Council on Sustainable Development, Global Village Energy Partnership, United Nations Foundation. (January 18, 2012)

http://tinyurl.com/8xljdsr

Nature Magazine: “Pollutants key to climate fix”

This article from Nature Magazine presents a comprehensive review of several recent studies highlighting the importance of mitigating methane and soot emissions. Most recently, Science Magazine commented on the this subject in the article “Simultaneously Mitigating Near-Term Climate Change and Improving Human Health and Food Security.” This article interviews co-author Veerabhadran Ramanathan. “We’re in a gridlock over carbon dioxide, and we’re losing time,” notes Veerabhadran Ramanathan. “This is one way to buy back some of that time, and the co-benefits are huge.”

The article also presents the United Nations Environment Programme’s (UNEP) contributions to this topic. In a publication released last June, the UNEP analyzed hundreds of options for reducing soot (“black carbon”) and ozone emissions, and ranked them according to their potential for total climate impact. For methane, the UNEP targeted 14 measures across the coal, oil, landfill, wastewater, livestock, and rice industries.

Although the benefits of reducing methane and soot emissions are clear, the article highlights the need to remain committed to long-term CO2 reductions. Kevin Trenberth, climate scientist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colorado, is quoted as warning against decreased attention to CO2 levels: “The fundamental problem with long-term climate change is CO2, and anything that takes us away from addressing that doesn’t really solve the problem,” he says. “It just puts it off.” (January 17, 2011)

http://tinyurl.com/6wy8yy3

“China set to launch first caps on CO2 emissions”

Beijing has recently asked five cities and two provinces to set emissions caps in anticipation of China’s forthcoming regional carbon trading scheme. The cities of Beijing, Shanghai, Tianjin, Chongqing, and Shenzhen, as well as the provinces of Hubei and Guangdong will participate. The trading scheme will not place a cap on overall carbon emissions, but rather carbon intensity. Carbon intensity refers to the amount of greenhouse gasses emitted per unit of GDP. This relative measure of carbon emissions is considered a more development-friendly approach to curbing emissions. China’s current plan, beginning in 2011 and culminating in 2015, targets overall carbon intensity reductions of 17 percent.  (January 17, 2012)

http://tinyurl.com/872fug6

China’s Premier Discusses Energy Plans

Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao’s outlined China’s commitments to carbon reductions in a recent speech given at the World Future Energy Summit in Abu Dhabi. The speech drew attention to the rapid rate of urbanization in China, and the energy-demand implications of this development. Jiabao noted that China is expecting vast surges in energy demand as the country continues to urbanize. To prepare for this increase in demand, Jiabao focused on the need for a diversified energy supply, as well as advancements in transmission and efficiency. He also reaffirmed China’s commitment to research and development of advanced clean technologies. (January 20, 2012)

http://tinyurl.com/6vnl3jd

“European Offshore Wind Industry Key 2011 Trends and Statistics”

The European Wind Energy Association recently released its 2011 report The European Offshore Wind Industry Key 2011 Trends and Statistics. The report describes the major developments in European offshore capacity in 2011. The following chart describes the key findings of the report with regard to installed and total capacity in 2011.

In terms of future outlook, the report describes nine projects currently underway that will increase capacity by a further 2,375 MW once completed. The EWEA’s target for installed EU offshore wind power capacity by 2020 is 40,000 MW, producing approximately 4% of the EU’s total electricity consumption.

Justin Wilkes, Policy Director of EWEA, noted that “[d]espite the economy-wide financial squeeze, 2011 saw a 40 per cent increase on the previous year in offshore non-recourse debt financing, up from 1.46 billion Euros in 2010 to 2.05 billion Euros in 2011.” He continued: “[t]he strong project pipeline and financial developments highlight the importance of countries continuing to provide and develop stable long-term frameworks for offshore wind power in order to allow the industry to continue its development.” (January 20, 2011)

For the report, see: http://tinyurl.com/7zc2lbd

“Study: 95% Of All Trips Could Be Made By [Electric Vehicles]”

A recent study by two doctoral students at Columbia University found that electric vehicles could make approximately 95% of all single-destination trips. The study used data from a 2009 National Household Travel survey, and found that only about 1% of all single-destination trips covered distances greater than 70 miles. The data also suggested that about 95% of all such trips were less than 30 miles in length. The authors  – Garret Fitzgerald and Rob van Haaren – calculated the average commute of American workers at 13.6 miles.  (January 17, 2011)

http://tinyurl.com/6uft3na

“Renewables rising – [UK] wind power passes the six gigawatt threshold”

The United Kingdom’s wind sector now has over six gigawatts of installed capacity, or even to supply electricity to 3,354,893 homes. The Chief Executive RenewableUK[1], the trade association representing the renewable energy industries, commented: “This is a landmark achievement. There’s a great feeling of pride throughout the industry that we’ve reached a record high of 6 gigawatts, and there’s a further 19.5GW of capacity under construction, consented, or in planning.” (January 18, 2012)

http://tinyurl.com/6rmbtc9

“Alstom and SSE Renewables create joint venture to co-develop world’s largest wave farm off the coast of Orkney, Scotland”

Alstom and the leading Scottish marine developer SSE Renewables have signed a joint venture agreement to develop the Costa Head Wave Project. The project will produce up to 200 Megawatts (MW) of wave energy in Scotland. The site will use AWS-III wave energy converters, a technology currently under development by AWS Ocean Energy Ltd. The floating device has a rated power output of 2.5 MW. Each AWS-III will be connected to a central offshore substation via a high-voltage umbilical link. (January 17, 2012)

http://tinyurl.com/77vb3qv

“Zayed Future Energy Prize Announces Winners”

The winners and runners up of the 2012 Zayed Future Energy Award were recently acknowledged by His Highness General Sheikh Mohammed bin Zayed Al Nahyan, Crown Prince of Abu Dhabi and Deputy Supreme Commander of the UAE Armed Forces. The Zayed Future Energy Prize is awarded annually to large corporations, individuals and small and medium-sized enterprises, and non-governmental organizations that have significantly impacted global sustainability.

This year’s prize in the small and medium enterprises and non-governmental organizations category went to the Carbon Disclosure Project. Based out of the UK, the Carbon Disclosure Project operates the world’s only global emissions reporting system. The Project compiles and organize vast quantities of data on global emissions, and then make the data available for use by a wide audience including institutional investors, corporations, policymakers and their advisors, public sector organizations, government bodies, academics and the public. They were awarded $3.5 million from the Zayed Future Energy Prize. Orb Energy of India, and the Environmental Defense Fund of the United States were selected as runners up. (January 19, 2012)

http://tinyurl.com/6v2f2sx

“Apps4Africa: Winners In East Africa Contest”

Apps4Africa: Climate Change recently announced the winners of its 2011 East Africa contest.[2] The first place prize went to the Grainy Bunch, from Tanzania. The Grainy Bunch is a national grain supply chain management system that monitors the purchase, storage, distribution, and consumption of grain across Tanzania. It was developed with the idea that selling “the effects of efficiency” to actors in the grain supply chain is much easier than selling “the effects of climate change”.

The second place prize went to Mkulima Bora of Kenya. Mkulima Bora is an application that allows farmers to predict crop yields for a given location and time of year. It does this by cross-referencing the farmer’s input of crop type with meteorological data. Third place went to Agro Universe of Uganda. Agro Universe provides a regional agriculture and livestock marketplace. The mobile and web-based application connects buyers and sellers of agriculture and livestock. (January 23, 2012)

http://tinyurl.com/7gqqubw

Here’s the full article:

Udacity and the future of online universities

January 23, 2012 @ 12:32 pm

By Felix Salmon

A recent study published in the journal Science argues that scientists and policy-makers should refocus their attention on methane and soot in their efforts to curb global warming. In short, they argue that curbing methane and soot emissions are a more practical “quick-fix,” and focusing on them can free-up capital for more long-term solutions to carbon reduction.

Methane comes primarily from landfills, farms, drilling for natural gas, and coal mining. Soot, called black carbon by scientists, is a byproduct of burning and comes primarily from cook stoves using wood, dung and coal in developing countries and in some diesel fuels worldwide. Carbon dioxide is still considered the lead contributor to global warming, accounting for 48 percent of the phenomenon, while soot contributes 16 percent, and methane contributes 14 percent.  Importantly, however, a molecule of methane or soot causes substantially more warming then a carbon dioxide molecule over a 20-year period. If certain measures were adopted, the scientists calculate that would reduce projected global warming by 0.9 degrees Fahrenheit (0.5 degrees Celsius) by the year 2050. Without the measures, global average temperature is projected to rise nearly 2.2 degrees Fahrenheit (1.2 degrees Celsius) in the next four decades.

The study also addresses health benefits of curbing soot and methane emissions, and concludes that the suggested measures would prevent about 14,000 air pollution deaths in people older than 30 by the year 2030. (January 12, 2012)

For the reviewing article, see: http://tinyurl.com/82ybnmy

For the article in Science, see: http://tinyurl.com/7szvom2 (requires subscription)

In China, Power in Nascent Electric Car Industry

This New York Times article by Keith Bradsher reviews policy and financial developments in the Chinese electric car industry. Several years ago China set the ambitious policy goal of being able to produce at least 500,000 hybrid or all-electric cars and buses a year. It has not met the goal – it currently produces only a few thousand all-electric vehicles a year – but it has made significant strides towards creating the infrastructure to support an all-electric fleet. Importantly, China’s state-run electric companies are leading the effort.  There are also international competition issues at stake. Bradsher writes that “[t]he [Chinese] government wants to build an electric car industry that can export vehicles all over the world. But it does not want to someday face W.T.O. trade complaints from other countries that might accuse China of violating free-trade export rules by subsidizing the industry’s development.” Bradsher writes that “[t]he most promising trade strategy for China to avoid legal pitfalls might be for the government first to subsidize the development of a network of charging stations for electric buses and other municipal vehicles… Mass transit subsidies are hard to challenge at the W.T.O. because they involve an almost purely domestic government service.” (December 26, 2011)

http://tinyurl.com/7d99vq5

Federal judge blocks Calif. low-carbon fuels rule

On December 29, 2011, Fresno-based U.S. District Court Judge Lawrence O’Neill ruled that the low-carbon fuel rules violate the U.S. Constitution’s commerce clause by discriminating against crude oil and biofuels producers located outside California. California Air Resources Board spokesman Dave Clegern disagreed, saying the fuel rule is “an evenhanded standard that encourages the use of cleaner low carbon fuels by regulating fuel-providers in California.” Clegern said the Board plans to ask the judge to stay the ruling, and appeal if necessary to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. (December 30, 2011)

http://tinyurl.com/6ss36dg

A Tempestuous Year

This New York Times article links erratic and destructive weather patterns in the United States with the need for Climate Change and atmospheric research. The article then describes how funding for such research will be significantly curtailed in 2012. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, for example, which is the hub of much of the government’s research into the effects of climate change on weather, will receive 10% less than its requested funding. (December 31, 2011)

http://tinyurl.com/73tmbsw

Top climate change stories of 2011

This article reviews the several of the most important Climate Change developments of 2011. It focuses partly on scientific research. The article reviews two studies published in the journal Nature that showed that manmade global warming is playing a tangible role in influencing some types of extreme weather events. The first study analyzed rainfall patterns and found that the growing amount of heat-trapping gases in the atmosphere have likely increased the frequency of heavy precipitation across this region. The second study used computer models to predict the probability of floods. The model showed that global warming increased the risk of a flood in the U.K. in 2000 by at least 20 percent. Two-thirds of other simulations showed larger increases in flood risk. The article also reviews the Berkeley Earth Study, a study that sought to examine whether – and to what extent – the Earth is warming. The study confirmed that there has been 0.911 degrees Celsius of land warming (+/- 0.042 C) since the 1950s, or about 1.8 degrees Fahrenheit. (January 4, 2011)

http://tinyurl.com/86kx3a9

For the first study analyzing rainfall patterns, see: http://tinyurl.com/3zbv7bl

For the second study modeling flood probabilities, see: http://tinyurl.com/7vkaqqc

For the Berkeley Study, see: http://tinyurl.com/6l9j2ac [Note, the Berkeley Study is also discussed in the CTC3 Blurb released on November 13, 2011.]

U.S. Weighs Retaliation Over Europe Aviation Law

The Obama Administration is considering possible responses to the recent passage of the European aviation law requiring global airlines to pay for carbon emissions on flights to and from Europe. One possibility is to charge European airlines for access to the United States. U.S. airline companies strongly oppose the law on the grounds that the costs will be passed to consumers at a time of historically low demand for air travel. China, India, and other nations also oppose the law on the grounds that it infringes on national sovereignty. They also argue that Europe should not have acted unilaterally in implementing the law, but rather should have used existing United Nations frameworks.  (January 9, 2012)

http://tinyurl.com/7h59kcu

China looks at carbon tax, official says in US

Su Wei, China’s lead negotiator on Climate Change, recently visited Washington to discuss a potential carbon tax in China. The proposed tax would levy a 10 yuan ($1.59) charge per ton of carbon within the next three years, and would target large users of coal, oil and natural gas. Su is also observing existing state trading schemes in the United States during the visit. The article concludes by noting how many US lawmakers and commentators are cynical of these efforts. John Lee, a fellow at the Hudson Institute, for example, notes how the tax imposes no limit on emissions. “China therefore can keep up emissions while enjoying political cover or can transfer the burden of the tax to export manufacturers, many of which are foreigners.” (January 12, 2011)

http://tinyurl.com/7xyy3db

A great TED talk by Antonio Damasio about the biology of consciousness.  He is right to state that understanding consciousness is incredibly important for understanding society and culture, and I am here to emphasize it is important for understanding aspects of our legal system.  Obviously the most important implications would come for criminal law, but I think his talk also touches on the important implications for animal law.  It seems more and more we are discovering that animals are not as different from us as we once thought.

Every time I read about a new discovery regarding consciousness, I am amazed at how little we understand about ourselves.  With new brain imaging technology and better computer processing power, hopefully a truly better understanding of one of life’s most basic questions will come to pass.

While numerous academics have chiseled away at the “intrinsic aptitude” theory, a new study by Jonathan Kane and Janet Mertz entitled, “Debunking Myths About Gender and Mathematics Performance” has finally put it to rest.  In fact, the article finds that the gender gap is entirely caused by those “lesser factors.”  Here is a great article summarizing the findings.

In my opinion the most important aspect of the paper is the finding that both boys and girls do better in math in a society where there is greater equality.  This makes sense intuitively, because when women are equally educated and earn equal pay their children will do better.  This finding is extremely important, as it contradicts those that see advancing the welfare of women as a “female problem.”  This is just another piece of evidence to demonstrate that when women are treated equally, we all benefit.

Now if only someone would do a study that finds women also aren’t intrinsically better at cleaning and taking care of children, we might actually get somewhere.

This Economist article reviews the recent Durban agreements, and aggregates the coverage from several reputable sources. The Financial Times appear optimistic. “Finally the world agreed that every country, no matter how rich or poor, would cut its greenhouse gas emissions under a global pact with ‘legal force’.” The Council of Foreign Relations had a more measured reaction. Michael Levi notes that the ultimate agreement – “a process to develop a protocol, another legal instrument or an outcome with legal force under the Convention applicable to all Parties” – might refer to almost anything, regardless of its impact on Climate Change. David Roberts from Grist.org is similarly pessimistic. His report on the talks highlights the indeterminate and relatively non-binding nature of the promise to develop an agreement by 2015. (December 12, 2011)

For the article (Economist), see http://tinyurl.com/8924hqe

For the Financial Times coverage, see http://tinyurl.com/7momlzm

For the Council on Foreign Relations coverage, see http://tinyurl.com/7o6ssgr

For David Roberts and Grist.org, see http://tinyurl.com/73enpy7

“Climate accord: ‘Good but not good enough’ ”

The top UN Climate Change official Christiana Figueres hailed the outcome of the Durban talks “ground-breaking,” but several environmental groups are less supportive. A core criticism is that the 2020 implementation date is simply too late given that scientists have predicted that emissions must peak before in order to maintain stable global temperatures. Greenpeace International wrote that the current accord could lead global temperatures “over the 2C threshold [at which] we pass from danger to potential catastrophe.” (December 11, 2011)

http://tinyurl.com/76wqzsj

“International Energy Agency welcomes climate pact”

The International Energy Agency (IEA) welcomed the Durban agreement to hold talks on a new agreement covering all major emitters as “good news.” The Agency’s approval comes off the heels of a recent admonition by the IEA for prompt climate action. The Agency welcomed the Durban road map for a new climate pact as a positive step towards avoiding catastrophic climate change but warned countries not to use to the talks as a reason to ease off on immediate action. Chief Economist for the IEA Fatih Birol celebrated the collaboration of different governments: “The good news is for the first time, we have a road map that is supported and signed by all the governments.” But he warned against complacency: “[h] owever the question mark I have in my mind is, I hope this road map wouldn’t lead some of the countries not to act for the next 10 years or to act inefficiently which would be … closing the door.” (December 12, 2011)

http://tinyurl.com/6lk6h6s

“Climate Sensitivity Greater Than Previously Believed”

Research performed at the University of Gothenburg suggests that the mitigating effects of plants on global carbon or carbon-equivalent emissions is greater originally thought. Plants contribute emissions to the atmosphere, and these emissions become “secondary organic aerosols” (SOAs) once they condense and form particles. These particles then interact with other atmospheric particles to influence weather patterns. But the exact effect of SOAs is largely unexplored. Kent Salo, the lead researcher, writes that “[t]oday, we do not have a fundamental understanding of how SOA particles are formed and the properties they have, despite them being an important component of, for example, climate models.” (December 20, 2011)

http://tinyurl.com/8x5pyp8

“Why We’re All Confused About Climate Change”

This Huffington Post article links recent research in psychology to mass perception of risk, in this case Climate Change. Research shows that “the less [people] know about complex issues– the economy, energy, and the environment– the more they avoid becoming well informed about them.” This “ignorance is bliss” approach has negative implications for confronting Climate Change and other issues, and the authors conclude that resisting this tendency is key. “Climate science is complicated and scary, fair enough: but our contributions don’t have to be. Even a child can start by learning how much energy we save annually by turning off a light switch, or get permission to watch An Inconvenient Truth . . . Despite risks to our psychological comfort, we hope that a fear of climate catastrophe will motivate action, not avoidance.” (December 22, 2011)

http://tinyurl.com/86ktrc2

“Solar subsidy changes could deal ‘fatal blow’ to industry” (United Kingdom)

The British Government is planning to make key changes to its solar programs. The plans include restricting a building’s access to funds if it meets a certain level of energy efficiency. Another key change is the reduction of the existing feed-in tariff from 43p per kilowatt-hour to 21p. The proposed changes are in response to lower than anticipated solar costs, resulting in what may be an overly aggressive solar program. The main criticism of the changes is that they are too abrupt and put jobs at risk as a result. This Guardian article reports on the recent conclusion of two parliamentary committees that the “[p]lanned government changes… on solar power may deal the industry a fatal blow.” (December 21, 2011)

http://tinyurl.com/7effz3x

“Europe’s high court upholds cap-and-trade carbon plan for airlines, rejects US appeal”

The European Court of Justice upheld the European Union (EU) plan to impose an airline cap-and-trade carbon market on December 21, 2011. U.S. and Canadian airlines brought suit through the industry trade organization Airlines for America, and were supported by airlines from China, India, and other international carriers. The principal contention was that the program infringed on national sovereignty and undercut international aviation treaties. The European high court dismissed both arguments, holding that the European Union was within its rights to impose the scheme on commercial airlines that choose to operate at European airports. U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton wrote the EU Commission before the high court’s determination. Secretary Clinton wrote that the U.S. opposed the program on “legal and policy grounds,” and indicated that the U.S. would respond with “appropriate action.” (December 21, 2011)

http://tinyurl.com/6p54zzs

“Google’s Driverless Car Gets Patent”

Google has been granted a patent for their “mixed-mode autonomous vehicle.” The patent allows Google to prohibit competitors from utilizing the technology. In autonomous mode the car uses a combination of video cameras, radar, and laser range finders to drive around. In manual mode the driver is in complete control of the vehicle. Such vehicles have already logged around 140,000 miles on America’s roads. The vehicles stand to improve automotive efficiency in many ways. The vehicles may produce fewer accidents and reduce fuel consumption, for example. (December 23, 2011)

http://tinyurl.com/72mn3ye

—

Thinking about Thinking

An Interview with Daniel Kahneman

Daniel Kahneman is an extraordinarily interesting thinker. As a psychologist, he received the 2002 Nobel Prize in Economics for his work with Amos Tversky on decision-making. Here is what Steven Pinker, my previous interview subject, recently wrote about him:

Daniel Kahneman is among the most influential psychologists in history and certainly the most important psychologist alive today. He has a gift for uncovering remarkable features of the human mind, many of which have become textbook classics and part of the conventional wisdom. His work has reshaped social psychology, cognitive science, the study of reason and of happiness, and behavioral economics, a field that he and his collaborator Amos Tversky helped to launch. The appearance of Thinking, Fast and Slow is a major event.

Kahneman was kind enough to take time out of a very busy book tour to answer a few of my questions.

***

Much of your work focuses on the limitations of human intuition. Do you have any advice about when people should be especially hesitant to trust their intuitions?

When the stakes are high.  We have no reason to expect the quality of intuition to improve with the importance of the problem.  Perhaps the contrary: High-stake problems are likely to involve powerful emotions and strong impulses to action. If there is no time to reflect, then intuitively guided action may be better than freezing or paralysis, especially for the experienced decision maker. If there is time to reflect, slowing down is likely to be a good idea. The effort invested in “getting it right” should be commensurate with the importance of the decision.

Are there times when reasoning is suspect and we are wise to rely on our snap judgments?

As Gary Klein has emphasized (Sources of Power is one of my favorite books), true experts—those who have had sufficient practice to detect the regularities of their environment—may do better when they follow their intuition than when they engage in complex analysis. Tim Wilson and his collaborators have demonstrated that people who choose between two decorative objects do better by following their impulse than by protracted analysis of pros and cons. The critical test in that experiment is how much they will like the chosen object after living with it for a while. Affective forecasting based on current feelings appears to be more accurate than systematic analysis that eliminates those feelings.

What is the difference between the “experiencing self” and the “remembering self”?

The experiencing self lives in the moment; it is the one that answers the question “does it hurt?”  or “what were you thinking about just now?”  The remembering self is the one that answers questions about the overall evaluation of episodes or periods of one’s life, such as a stay in the hospital or the years since one left college. It involves both retrieval and temporal integration of diverse experiences. In the context of studies of subjective well-being, the happiness of the experiencing self is assessed by integrating momentary happiness over time (in the 19th century, the economist Francis Edgeworth spoke of “the area under the curve”). Experienced happiness refers to your feelings, to how happy you are as you live your life. In contrast, the satisfaction of the remembering self refers to your feelings when you think about your life.

Isn’t the remembering self just the experiencing self in one of its modes?

Of course. Thinking about your life is an experience that you have. But it is useful to distinguish these relatively rare moments from the routine emotional quality of your life. The distinction is especially important in evaluating an individual’s well-being, because the determinants of experienced happiness and life satisfaction are substantially different.

How should the split between these two points of view affect our understanding of the good life?

Some conceptions of the good life take the Aristotelian view to the extreme of denying altogether the relevance of subjective well-being. For those who do not want to go that far, the distinction between experienced happiness and life satisfaction raises serious problems. In particular, there appears to be little hope for any unitary concept of subjective well-being. I used to hold a unitary view, in which I proposed that only experienced happiness matters, and that life satisfaction is a fallible estimate of true happiness. I eventually concluded that this view is not tenable, for one simple reason: people seem to be much more concerned with the satisfaction of their goals than with the achievement of experienced happiness. A definition of subjective well-being that ignores people’s goals is not tenable. On the other hand, an exclusive focus on satisfaction is not tenable either. If two people are equally satisfied (or unsatisfied) with their lives but one of them is almost always smiling happily and the other is mostly miserable, will we ignore that in assessing their well-being?

Are there ways to get the two selves to converge? If so, would this be normative?

There is a road to convergence, but few will want to take it:  we could suggest to people that they should adopt experienced happiness as their main goal, and be satisfied with their lives to the extent that this goal is achieved. This idea implies the abandonment of other goals and values, which is surely unappealing.

The other possibility is a redefinition of momentary happiness in terms of a more global evaluation. That is the route we took in an article I published in 1997 with Peter Wakker and Rakesh Sarin. We suggested that the first step is to evaluate lives (or segments of life) as profiles of experience, and rank the lives. In the next step one would rescale momentary utility to transform the profiles so as to achieve the same ranking   So, for example, if the frequency and intensity of aesthetic experiences are important to our global evaluation of lives, then the value (or utility) of moments of aesthetic joy would be raised accordingly. The problem, of course, is that we no longer accept the subject’s own judgment of how happy they are at any moment. So this approach is difficult as well.

To what extent to do you think true self-deception (as opposed to simple bias) exists?

I don’t know how you expect to distinguish true self-deception from simple bias. Suppose you like someone very much. Then by a familiar halo effect you will also be prone to believe many good things about that person—you will be biased in their favor. Most of us like ourselves very much, and that suffices to explain self-assessments that are biased in a particular direction. You will believe these biased assessments regardless of whether they are about you or about someone else. We resist evidence that threatens our positive image of people we love. And perhaps we love ourselves more intensely than we love most (or all) others. When does this become self-deception?

This paper by Hannah Bowles, Linda Babcock, and Lei Lai explains shows that there’s a very good reason women shy away from negotiation and self-promotion: they are socially penalized if they do.

Here are are the Discussion and Conclusions portions of the paper: (Or click here for the full paper.)

We posed the question at the beginning of this paper of whether women’s greater reluctance (as compared to men) to initiate negotiations over resources, such as higher compensation, could be explained by the differential treatment of male and female negotiators.

The results of these experiments suggest that the answer to this question is yes. In the first three experiments, male evaluators penalized women more than men for attempting to negotiate for higher compensation. In Experiment 4, women were more reticent than men about attempting to negotiate for higher compensation with a male evaluator, and nervousness about attempting to negotiate explained this gender difference. The results of the mediation analyses in Experiments 2 and 3 were consistent with the proposition that women encounter resistance when they attempt to negotiate for higher compensation because such behavior is a status violation. Men were significantly more inclined to work with nicer and less demanding women who accepted their compensation offers without comment than they were with those who attempted to negotiate for higher compensation, even though they perceived women who spoke up to be just as competent as women who demurred.

The behavior of female evaluators differed across Experiments 1, 2 and 3. When evaluating written descriptions or transcripts of the candidates’ interview responses (Experiments 1 and 2), female evaluators penalized women more than men for attempting to negotiate for higher compensation. After watching and listening to the candidates respond to the interview questions on video (Experiment 3), female evaluators were disinclined to work with both men and women who initiated negotiations. Interestingly, the behavior of the participants in Experiment 4 mirrored most closely the results of the video-based experiment; there was no difference in men’s and women’s propensity to initiate negotiations with a female evaluator.

Previous video-based research on gender and social influence produced a similar pattern of results to those reported in Experiment 3, with men demanding a higher degree of likeability from female than from male targets to be persuaded by them and women perceiving likeability to be important to the persuasiveness of both men and women (Carli et al., 1995). More theory and research are needed to explore more deeply the role of the gender of the evaluator in the reinforcement of prescriptive sex stereotypes and to disentangle the inconsistencies in the effect of the gender of the evaluator observed across these studies and in the broader literature on prescriptive sex stereotypes (Heilman & Chen, 2005). The current set of studies suggests that future research on the effect of the gender of the evaluator should explore potential methodological as well as contextual moderators (Carli, 1990; Deaux & LaFrance, 1998; Deaux & Major, 1987; Kanter, 1977).

Negotiation and the Distribution of Organizational Resources

This research has important implications for the distribution of resources and opportunities within organizations. If men have more freedom to negotiate for themselves than do women, particularly with senior men, then that could help to explain phenomena, such as the gender wage gap and glass ceiling. In most organizations, those who control organizational resources and opportunities for advancement tend to be men. If women are justifiably less inclined than men to initiate negotiations with men, then they may have fewer opportunities to increase their compensation and promotion potential.

It is not clear from the results of these experiments that men consciously resist women’s attempts to negotiate. The results of Experiment 4 indicated that women (as compared to men) were more reticent about negotiating with a male evaluator because the idea of doing so made them more nervous and not because they anticipated more backlash. It warrants further investigation whether men’s resistance to women who initiate compensation negotiations is also motivated more by a feeling of aversion or discomfort than by a conscious decision that such behavior by women should be discouraged. Research on the challenges to women of breaking the glass ceiling, for instance, indicates many male CEOs think that women should take more initiative to signal their interest in critical developmental experiences (Ragins, Townsend, & Mattis, 1998). Future research should explore whether raising awareness about the systemic reasons for gender differences in the initiation of negotiations might help to mitigate the social risks for women. Moreover, both male and female managers should keep in mind that negotiation is a fundamental form of social interaction within organizations, and a potentially important mechanism for the retention and attraction of talented labor (Rousseau, 2005). More research is needed to understand better the organizational implications of inhibiting the initiation of negotiations over issues such as compensation.

The Decision to Negotiate

Whether our participants’ behavior was optimal, in terms of weighing the actual social and economic costs and benefits of initiating compensation negotiations, remains an open question. The benefits of initiating negotiations in this type of context would obviously include the expected compensation gains, and the costs would include the risks of undermining potentially important working relations and missing out on desirable work opportunities. If the expected economic gains were large enough to outweigh the social costs, then the rational course of action would be to initiate negotiations, in spite of the social costs. If the social costs and their long-term career implications outweighed the benefits of higher compensation, then reticence would be the more prudent choice. We cannot claim, based on our research, that either men or women are initiating negotiations too much or too little. We show with this research that women’s disinclination relative to men to initiate negotiations over resources, such as compensation, may be traced to the higher social costs that they face when doing so.

It deserves highlighting that, on average, both men and women in Experiment 4 preferred the no-negotiation to the negotiation plan for responding to a question about their salary and benefits offer. This may be attributable in part to the artificiality of choosing between two predetermined scripts rather than choosing one’s own words to negotiate. However, research on the propensity to initiate negotiations reveals relatively low overall rates of initiation. For instance, studies of the salary negotiations of graduating professional school students suggest that less than a third of students initiate compensation negotiations (32% in study by Babcock & Laschever, 2003; 21% in study by Gerhart & Rynes, 1991). In recent laboratory research, only 12% of participants initiated negotiations when they knew they might earn more if they asked (Babcock, Laschever, Gelfand, & Small, 2003). These low baselines of negotiation raise important questions about the decision to negotiate that have yet to be addressed in the literature. Future research should investigate the motivations for this hesitancy, particularly in situations in which the economic costs to not negotiating are substantial.

Limitations

One limitation of our experimental design was the artificiality of the negotiation and nonegotiation scripts. If the candidates had been able to choose their own words, it is possible that men and women would have presented themselves differently (Barron, 2003). We weighed this limitation, however, against the benefits of enabling us to test the effects of gender of participant, gender of evaluator and gender identification on perceptions of a specific set of behavioral choices and to test in Experiments 2 and 3 how evaluators would perceive men and women enacting the precise behaviors that the participants assessed in Experiment 4. Future research should explore whether men and women initiate negotiations in different ways and whether variation in accounts (Scott & Lyman, 1968) or self-presentation style (Carli, 1990; Carli et al., 1995) would moderate the evaluation of their negotiation attempts.

Contributions

Our findings reinforce the importance for negotiation scholars and practitioners of considering the social as well as economic outcomes of negotiation (Curhan, Elfenbein, & Xu, in press; Morris, Larrick, & Su, 1999). This work adds to this understudied area of research in negotiation by providing another demonstration that the social costs of engaging in certain negotiating behaviors may not outweigh the economic benefits (Morris et al., 1999). When focusing primarily on economic outcomes of negotiation, we fail to appreciate fully the costs and benefits of negotiation processes and their products.

The current research also contributes to the growing body of literature on gender in negotiation in at least four respects. First, whereas previous research has focused on internal motivations for gender differences in the propensity to initiate negotiations (Babcock et al., 2006), this set of studies demonstrates clearly that men and women face different social incentives when deciding whether to initiate negotiations over issues such as compensation. This advancement is important because it should shift the discussion of prescriptive implications away from fixing the women to addressing the social conditions that motivate these gender differences (Watson, 1994b). Second, by demonstrating that there are contextual explanations for gender effects in negotiation behavior, we contribute empirical research to a long line of theoretical work that has criticized the sex-difference approach to the study of gender in negotiation (Gray, 1994; Kolb & Putnam, 1997; Kolb & Williams, 2000; Wade, 2001; Watson, 1994a, 1994b).

Third, this research adds to the recent body of work on sex stereotypes in negotiation by

illuminating the influence of prescriptive, as opposed to descriptive, sex stereotypes (Burgess & Borgida, 1999) – or, in terms of social role theory, stereotypes about gender roles as opposed to sex-typed skills (Eagly, 1987). Whereas previous research has demonstrated various ways in which gender-based performance expectations shape negotiation outcomes (Kray et al., 2002; Kray et al., 2004; Kray et al., 2001), this research shows that gender-based norms of appropriate behavior may influence whether individuals decide to negotiate and the social outcomes of their negotiations. Future research should continue this exploration of how gendered expectations of appropriate negotiating behavior may influence negotiation performance (Wade, 2001).

Fourth, this work contributes to the documentation of situational moderators of gender effects in negotiation. Contrary to the proposition that women are always more reluctant than men to negotiate, we found that women were only more reluctant than men to attempt to negotiate in the situation in which the relative social risk was greatest (i.e., with a male evaluator). Future research should draw motivation from developments in the study of situational moderators of gender effects in negotiation (Bowles et al., 2005; Kray & Thompson, 2005; Walters et al., 1998) and continue to explore the boundaries of gender differences in the propensity to initiate negotiations. For instance, the activation of explicit sex stereotypes favoring men or of implicit sex stereotypes favoring women might prompt women to initiate negotiations more often than men (Kray et al., 2002; Kray et al., 2001). To the extent that men and women differ in relational orientation (Cross & Madson, 1997; Gabriel & Gardner, 1999), manipulation of the current or potential future relationship between negotiating parties might moderate gender effects in the propensity to initiate negotiations (Gelfand, Major, Raver, Nishii, & O’Brien, 2006). Gender differences in the propensity to initiate negotiations might also be influenced by the prospective negotiator’s representation role (i.e., for self vs. other). Previous research suggests that women are more motivated in compensation negotiations when they are representing someone else as opposed to themselves (Bowles et al., 2005).

Finally, these findings have important implications for the teaching and practice of negotiation, because they show that one-size-fits-all prescriptions may not turn out to be “best practice” for both male and female negotiators. This research suggests that gender differences in the initiation of negotiations cannot be resolved simply by encouraging women to speak up more. Addressing this issue requires an understanding of the situational circumstances that motivate gender differences in the propensity to initiate negotiations and a set of prescriptions that alter the behavior of evaluators as well as negotiators.

Pope Benedict XVI and Rowan Williams, the Archbishop of Canterbury, called on world leaders to meaningfully address climate change at the coming negotiations in Durban. Pope Benedict told Romans that he “hope[s] all members of the international community will agree on a responsible, credible and united response to this worrying and complex phenomenon.” Rowan Williams urged leaders to show “real moral leadership.” He also urged rich nations to clearly detail how pledges for the Green Climate Fund will be fulfilled. Nobel Peace laureate Desmond Tutu called climate change a “huge, huge enemy” and noted how “no country can fight that enemy on his own.” (November 28, 2011)

http://tinyurl.com/cob5kmz

“At Meeting on Climate Change, Urgent Issues but Low Expectations”

This New York Times article begins, “[w]ith intensifying climate disasters and global economic turmoil as the backdrop, delegates from 194 nations will gather in Durban, South Africa, starting Monday to try to advance, if only incrementally, the world’s response to dangerous climate change.” The article addresses the “monotonously familiar” negotiation process of international climate negotiations, but notes that the process is being internally criticized. Poorer nations risk being marginalized at the negotiations, and are keen to establish a meaningful presence at the meetings. The article also addresses the Kyoto Protocol issue, namely whether the international community will agree to extend the agreement. (November 27, 2011)

http://tinyurl.com/7zmxpbt

“Renewable Power Trumps Fossils for First Time as UN Talks Stall”

The title of this article is somewhat misleading. The key statistic is that renewable energy power-plant investments have surpassed fossil fuel power-plant investments. Wind, solar, biomass, and other renewable sources of energy drew about $187 billion in investments in 2010, as compared to roughly $157 billion for natural gas, oil, and coal. The data come from Bloomberg New Energy Finance. The article discusses the subsidies that encouraged this “boom.” (November 25, 2011)

http://tinyurl.com/7rmw58r

“Denmark Aiming for 100% Renewable Energy by 2050”

Denmark’s latest renewable energy target proposals envision wind power supplying about half of total electricity supply by 2020, and a comprehensive renewable energy mix providing 100% of total energy supply by 2050. Wind power currently accounts for 20% of Denmark’s electricity supply, and coal accounts for about 44%. Minister for Climate, Energy, and Building Martin Lidegaard commented: “This is an historical effort to become even better at saving energy and create an even more competitive and energy-effective company culture in Denmark, also for households.” (November 27, 2011)

http://tinyurl.com/ce726u9

Brookings Institution: “Thoughts on a Carbon Tax”

This paper by Adele Morris addresses the economic benefits and political challenges of implementing a carbon tax. Morris supports the broad “canonical carbon tax” and suggests embedding the tax into broader climate policy goals. Morris also addresses the political hurdles that face carbon tax implementation. In the paper’s abstract, Morris notes that “[d]espite the strong economic case, the political challenges to a carbon tax are many, and they aren’t just from anti-tax Republicans who don’t believe in the science of climate change. Some of the headwind to a carbon tax derives from tepid enthusiasm from Democrats and the environmental community.” (November 7, 2011)

http://tinyurl.com/d3nd3k5

“Durban prepares to host the world”

This article outlines the major challenges the city of Durban has faced in hosting the United Nations’ 17th Conference of the Parties (COP-17). Durban is poised to host thousands of delegates and other interested parties in connection with COP-17. The South African city has some experience in hosting large events: the World Cup of 2010 was partially hosted by the city. But there are several key differences. First, the budget for COP-17 is “less than 1% of the World Cup,” says Sue Bannister, acting head of the eThekwini municipality’s Strategic Projects Unit. And second, COP-17 visitors will stay for roughly two weeks in the city, whereas World Cup visitors left quickly after a game ended. (November 21, 2011)

http://tinyurl.com/7j4h9rt

Vestas: Three orders for nearly 200 MW (WA, ME, MI)

Vestas recently received orders for a total of 198 MW in the USA. These projects include: (1) a 104.4-MW Palouse Wind project in Whitman County, Washington; (2) a 34.2-MW Bull Hill wind power plant in Hancock County, Maine; and (3) a 59 MW order from Exelon Wind for the Harvest II Wind Project in Huron County, Michigan. (November 15 & 22, 2011)

For the press releases, see:

http://tinyurl.com/6pqa58w

http://tinyurl.com/7ml9l8o

“(Arizona) Wind farm nears completion”

The Perrin Ranch Wind Energy Project, located in Coconino County, Arizona, is set to be completed by the end of 2011. The project is part of a comprehensive effort by the Arizona Public Service (APS) to comply with state regulations requiring a 10% renewable energy portfolio by 2015. The project has a capacity of 99 MW, and cost roughly $200 million. (November 16, 2011)

http://tinyurl.com/d5cs47b