Making information work

Let’s face it: I thought of, created and paid for the funniest and best Facebook poll of all time. I asked “Would you ever answer a Facebook poll?” Here are the final results:

Great, I know. But there is more. Facebook provides a rather detailed demographic breakdown of the results when a poll is finished. Here is the breakdown for this particular poll:

What does it tell us? Well, everything - for example, it seems as if more males either found the irony of the question funny or were dumb in comparison to females. Also, the age group 18-24 seemed to also either find it funny or not be thinking.

I admit that this poll is without value. But the system is not. I can be highly specific with who I chose to target a poll, and I can get results quickly. For me the amount of responses is limited to 100 (for some reason … why do they not want more of my money?) but that is a descent sample. I would not base any huge decisions on a Facebook poll, but I can get an indication of different views with ease.

The cost? $26 for 100 results. The results are delivered as shown above, and are also available in .csv format. I could not ask for more.

These polls will flourish and develop, I hope.

There has already been some poll-spamming, where the question clearly has no merit, but rather tries to generate traffic to another website (dating sites I recall).

I hope that the developments will allow more information about the people who answer the polls to become available. For a cost, I assume, but that is fine. There should be no doubt that integrity is kept, but I would like to know perhaps the top 10 movies of the collected “Yes”-answerers, or perhaps how many of the “No”-people are in a relationship.

If I can filter this deeply, and ask a larger group of people, I think we have a revolution around the corner. You will see Facebook poll-results in mainstream media, and TV news-anchors will start sentences with “according to a recent Facebook poll …”

And why not? Take the questions to the place where the people are active and open about demographic details. A researcher can not ask for more.

David

I have often been accused of being naive, and it is something I work with constantly. I try to control my feelings to ensure that I do not make statements without good factual support. When I start engaging myself in the climate crisis, this internal fight was very difficult indeed. In fact, I lost the fight at first. The result of me losing the fight was a general attitude of “save the world” and “decrease carbon emissions to zero”.

This changed with increased levels of research and knowledge. In fact, based on the 20 or so books and hundred or so peer reviewed scientific articles I have read, four things are perfectly and painfully obvious:

1. Greenhouse gas levels in Earth’s atmosphere are dramatically increasing as a direct result of human activities
2. Increased levels of greenhouse gases in Earth’s atmosphere directly and indirectly effect climate
3. Even relatively small changes in climate (say a global average temperature increase of two degrees Celsius) have massive implications on the way humans and other animals live and die on Earth
4. Humanity’s efforts to thwart this disaster must have realistic targets and focus on improving, not removing

The last point is of particular importance to me personally. I subscribe to the general attitude of doing what you can in the climate battle without dramatic (for the rich western world) sacrifices to life quality and personal finance. In this attitude I am far from alone. However, I also believe that the poor parts of the world should not be forced to reduce their carbon emissions as dramatically as some argue that the current third world carbon emissions justify. Why? Because much of these countries’ emissions are generated from deforestation using fire, and primitive energy generation plants. I like to call it subsistence emissions. The western world, in sharp contrast, produces large amounts of luxury emissions. In this attitude I stand somewhat more alone.

This means that I applaud any and all efforts made by companies and organizations, profit driven or not, to reduce carbon emissions while maintaining or increasing quality. My beloved Boeing 787 Dreamliner is a great example. The fact that commercial aviation is one of the biggest carbon polluters is undisputed by all, including me. But the thought of removing or even dramatically restricting our access to flight is (you guessed it) naive. The Dreamliner will dramatically reduce the amount of greenhouse gases produced, but it will still be a polluter of enormous proportions.

Those openly critical of me and my attitude, who oddly more often are fellow environmentalists than right wing deniers, most often denounce my efforts by claiming that “it is not enough”. They argue (almost correctly) that the carbon emission reduction represented by technical progress such as the Dreamliner are rather insignificant in the grand scheme of things. After all, if reality is even close to the worst case scenario, we need to reduce carbon emissions by almost 75% within 50 years to avert a modern disaster on a scale not known or understood.

This is a powerful accusation, but it is based on several logical fallacies. First of all, a mass of people not acting because my own actions do not amass to enough change is at the very least odd. Secondly, they imply with their accusation that the world would function without the western world’s main pollutants (aviation, fossil fuels, power plants) is again (you guessed it) naive. Thirdly, the overall worst case scenario is created using a long line of worst case case variables. As a complete combination of worst cases is a highly unlikely outcome, I believe that we have more than 50 years. (In fact, I believe that the disproportionate exposure of the worst case scenario has created widespread hopelessness and apathy, and as such had the exact opposite effect intended.)

Now, with all that stated, what can we do? First of all, we need to continue developing technology which improves life quality and reduce carbon emissions. Secondly, we need to gently make improvements available to the third world. Thirdly, we need to educate ourselves, and create and disseminate a concrete action plan within reach of all. (Widespread implementation of low energy light bulbs, for example.)

I am doing something else as well. I am immersing myself in emissions trading, and spreading the word. The economic incentives involved in emissions trading is genius, and I think it is a good step towards engaging large companies in change. That being said, I believe (possibly naively) that the climate crisis battle will be won in the homes and heads of civilians. We will change our behavior, we will save money, and we will gradually become climate neutral. We are simply too smart not to.

David