Archive for the ‘Harvard’ Category

Political trilemma?!

Interesting article about the “trilemma” of democracy, national sovereignty and globalization.  According to Dani Rodrik at Harvard one can’t have all three without one of them getting compromised. You can have democracy and a strong nation state, but then have to limit globalization. You can have democracy and globalization, but then you’ll have to limit the nation state and opt for some kind of global governance system.

I often think and discuss this issue. Today you can’t wake up in the morning, get dressed and have breakfast without having had connections with the whole world. The clothes you wear are produced in Asia, you eat food from Africa and Europe and drink coffee from Latin America. We have strong nation states and globalization, but somehow democracy is compromised as the consequences of our decision making process is no longer only affecting (or even chiefly affecting) the populace with the right to vote. I personally love the benefits of globalization, but we will have to instigate effective and democratic global governance systems in order to make it work better and better respond to crisis such as global warming or financial turmoil.

Porter or Pollution Haven?

A research paper that I wrote while at Harvard last year has been awarded by the Swedish Competition Authority (Konkurrensverket) and on May 25th (my birthday) I’ll receive 10,000 Swedish crowns at an award ceremony in Stockholm, nice! The paper study what effect the cost of complying with environmental regulations have on the competitiveness of emissions intensive industries and you can download it here: porter-or-pollution-haven-jakob-rutqvist

An evolutionary explanation for the inaction on global warming

This article from 2006 has been widely cited and is very interesting, therefore I want to share it with people who hasn’t yet read it. It’s written by Daniel Gilbert, an American social psychologist, and explains that our brains are wired to react to imminent and fast coming threats where other human beeings are the perpertrators. It’s only in the last couple of hundred years that we’ve became good at understanding and preventing other kinds of threats and our brains are not fit to act reasonably to them. This is, according to Gilbert, why the peoples of the world spend much more money on preventing things like global terrorism, a fast threat coming from other human beings, than things such as global warming, a much greater threat but one that’s coming slowly and not from other people wanting to harm us. His points are worthy of some consideration and can be used to understand other human reactions as well, for example the hysteria surrounding the Swine Flue.

Published on Sunday, July 2, 2006 by the Los Angeles Times
If Only Gay Sex Caused Global Warming
Why we’re more scared of gay marriage and terrorism than a much deadlier threat.
by Daniel Gilbert

No one seems to care about the upcoming attack on the World Trade Center site. Why? Because it won’t involve villains with box cutters. Instead, it will involve melting ice sheets that swell the oceans and turn that particular block of lower Manhattan into an aquarium.

The odds of this happening in the next few decades are better than the odds that a disgruntled Saudi will sneak onto an airplane and detonate a shoe bomb. And yet our government will spend billions of dollars this year to prevent global terrorism and … well, essentially nothing to prevent global warming.

Why are we less worried about the more likely disaster? Because the human brain evolved to respond to threats that have four features — features that terrorism has and that global warming lacks.

First, global warming lacks a mustache. No, really. We are social mammals whose brains are highly specialized for thinking about others. Understanding what others are up to — what they know and want, what they are doing and planning — has been so crucial to the survival of our species that our brains have developed an obsession with all things human. We think about people and their intentions; talk about them; look for and remember them.

That’s why we worry more about anthrax (with an annual death toll of roughly zero) than influenza (with an annual death toll of a quarter-million to a half-million people). Influenza is a natural accident, anthrax is an intentional action, and the smallest action captures our attention in a way that the largest accident doesn’t. If two airplanes had been hit by lightning and crashed into a New York skyscraper, few of us would be able to name the date on which it happened.

Global warming isn’t trying to kill us, and that’s a shame. If climate change had been visited on us by a brutal dictator or an evil empire, the war on warming would be this nation’s top priority.

The second reason why global warming doesn’t put our brains on orange alert is that it doesn’t violate our moral sensibilities. It doesn’t cause our blood to boil (at least not figuratively) because it doesn’t force us to entertain thoughts that we find indecent, impious or repulsive. When people feel insulted or disgusted, they generally do something about it, such as whacking each other over the head, or voting. Moral emotions are the brain’s call to action.

Although all human societies have moral rules about food and sex, none has a moral rule about atmospheric chemistry. And so we are outraged about every breach of protocol except Kyoto. Yes, global warming is bad, but it doesn’t make us feel nauseated or angry or disgraced, and thus we don’t feel compelled to rail against it as we do against other momentous threats to our species, such as flag burning. The fact is that if climate change were caused by gay sex, or by the practice of eating kittens, millions of protesters would be massing in the streets.

The third reason why global warming doesn’t trigger our concern is that we see it as a threat to our futures — not our afternoons. Like all animals, people are quick to respond to clear and present danger, which is why it takes us just a few milliseconds to duck when a wayward baseball comes speeding toward our eyes.

The brain is a beautifully engineered get-out-of-the-way machine that constantly scans the environment for things out of whose way it should right now get. That’s what brains did for several hundred million years — and then, just a few million years ago, the mammalian brain learned a new trick: to predict the timing and location of dangers before they actually happened.

Our ability to duck that which is not yet coming is one of the brain’s most stunning innovations, and we wouldn’t have dental floss or 401(k) plans without it. But this innovation is in the early stages of development. The application that allows us to respond to visible baseballs is ancient and reliable, but the add-on utility that allows us to respond to threats that loom in an unseen future is still in beta testing.

We haven’t quite gotten the knack of treating the future like the present it will soon become because we’ve only been practicing for a few million years. If global warming took out an eye every now and then, OSHA would regulate it into nonexistence.

There is a fourth reason why we just can’t seem to get worked up about global warming. The human brain is exquisitely sensitive to changes in light, sound, temperature, pressure, size, weight and just about everything else. But if the rate of change is slow enough, the change will go undetected. If the low hum of a refrigerator were to increase in pitch over the course of several weeks, the appliance could be singing soprano by the end of the month and no one would be the wiser.

Because we barely notice changes that happen gradually, we accept gradual changes that we would reject if they happened abruptly. The density of Los Angeles traffic has increased dramatically in the last few decades, and citizens have tolerated it with only the obligatory grumbling. Had that change happened on a single day last summer, Angelenos would have shut down the city, called in the National Guard and lynched every politician they could get their hands on.

Environmentalists despair that global warming is happening so fast. In fact, it isn’t happening fast enough. If President Bush could jump in a time machine and experience a single day in 2056, he’d return to the present shocked and awed, prepared to do anything it took to solve the problem..

The human brain is a remarkable device that was designed to rise to special occasions. We are the progeny of people who hunted and gathered, whose lives were brief and whose greatest threat was a man with a stick. When terrorists attack, we respond with crushing force and firm resolve, just as our ancestors would have. Global warming is a deadly threat precisely because it fails to trip the brain’s alarm, leaving us soundly asleep in a burning bed.

It remains to be seen whether we can learn to rise to new occasions.

Way to go India!

Read through this article about the outcomes of a high level technology summit in India last month. I’m excited and fully support the proposals, in fact what’s proposed is more or less exactly the same ideas as I and GlobalFOCUS have expressed in different contexts, e.g. the 12 Climate Entrepreneurs report and the next move for Chu article.

End of semester

The end of the semester, and thus of our year here in the U.S., is approaching fast and we are beginning to feel bad about having to leave our friends, schools and Beacon Hill behind. It’s been an amazing year full of amazing people, a fascinating election and political, cultural and personal developments. On Thursday I’m writing the GMAT test which I need for a program I’m applying for this fall, I did a test-test today and scored in the 93 percentile, so it felt good. In a few days I have two papers due and next week I have my last final. Some hard work and then summer!

Mobile photos

May9th at Harvard

On May 9th we are arranging a great event at harvard:

A Harvard and MIT joint event where students can learn how to find a role in, and benefit from, turbulent times and a changing world.

Let’s use the recession as an opportunity!
Welcome to an event designed to help students find their roles in the globalized, hot, flat and crowded world of the 21st century. We do not plan to inform you about the problems the world faces, but instead talk about solutions, opportunities and how to capitalize and build a professional life around the transition we find ourselves in today.

Find more information at www.may9th.org

Globalization!


More American Workers Outsourcing Own Jobs Overseas

Obama on Jay Leno

First sitting American president on such a TV-talkshow. New times, new leadership.

The latest sollution for the economy

Have you heard about the latest solution for rescuing the ailing economy and everyone in it? Talk things up!

Everyone seems to agree these days that if just Obama and other political and business leaders would say that the economy is going to get fine - it will. If we would just tell ourselves that everything is great; consumer confidence will pick up, stock and house prises rise and all will be just fine. I say this is largely just BS and that it’s time for a reality check.

There is a real economy out there where real value is created and where real changes happen. If we get our leaders to pretend like there is no problem, it ain’t gonna change anything central to the economic reality (hope, imaginations and expectations aren’t real in that sense). Sure, if Obama would go out tomorrow and say that the problem is solved, stock markets would most likely surge. But what about next week?

It’s obvious that expectations and confidence is key for financial markets and through that more broadly the general economy (thourgh consumer confidence, interest rates, corporate investments etc.). But if the reason for a lack of confidence and low expectations are real and well founded, pretending that they are not isn’t going to solve anything. Fixing the real economy is a requirement for any credible talk about the economy getting better and to fix the real economy we don’t primarily need naive talk, we need demand stimulus, help for defaulting homeowners and other troubled lenders and smart investments in structural changes like new energy, infrastructure and education. I’m not saying rhetoric’s doesn’t matter but that we shouldn’t fool ourselves that talking is going to do the trick.