9/20/2019
Women with more children show declining concern for climate change
On the occasion of today's Global Climate Strikes #FridaysForFuture demonstrations this serves as a slight damper.
Eco-Moms and Climate Change: The Moderating Effects of Fertility in Explaining Gender Differences in Concern
Women typically report greater concern for the environment, including climate change, than men. The eco-mom theory-the belief that women have greater environmental concern than men because mothers primarily care about the health and safety of their children, while fathers primarily care about the economic support of their household-is often proffered as an explanation for this difference.
We look at fertility in relation to concern for climate change using the 2010 General Social Survey. We find no differences in concern for climate change between women who have children and those who do not. Modeling fertility, we find that having more children is associated with less concern for climate change for women but not men. .. ,
Our findings, that women report greater concern for global climate change than men, echo scores of previous studies of environmental concern. However, when looking at a popular explanation for this difference-the eco-mom theory we found no support for the notion that motherhood, in and of itself, explains women's higher levels of concern, even when using a measure of parenthood that is more encompassing than previous studies. Yet, when examining fertility, we find that the number of children a parent has is associated with decreased concern for global climate change for women (but not for men)...
Other researchers have shown that fundamentalist Christians and Republicans tend to have lower average environmental concern. However, we control for Republican Party affiliation, fundamentalist Christian religious values, and frequency of religious attendance in our models. Even with our broader definition, we find no evidence to support the idea that women are motivated to care about global climate change because they have children, as the eco-mom theory asserts.
Men's concern for climate change does not vary, regardless of the number of children they have. Thus, to the extent that men are concerned about global climate change, that concern does not appear to be motivated by their role as fathers. Women do demonstrate a relationship between concern for global climate change and number of children, and that relationship is negative. Although we can reasonably assume that those concerned about climate change may limit their fertility, this relationship should not produce gender differences. A more reasonable explanation for our finding is that having more children represents greater salience of traditional gender roles for women. In other words, having children (and more of them) potentially changes gender roles for women more than for men, and these roles are reflected in women’s declining concern for climate change.
Eco-Moms and Climate Change: The Moderating Effects of Fertility in Explaining Gender Differences in Concern
Women typically report greater concern for the environment, including climate change, than men. The eco-mom theory-the belief that women have greater environmental concern than men because mothers primarily care about the health and safety of their children, while fathers primarily care about the economic support of their household-is often proffered as an explanation for this difference.
We look at fertility in relation to concern for climate change using the 2010 General Social Survey. We find no differences in concern for climate change between women who have children and those who do not. Modeling fertility, we find that having more children is associated with less concern for climate change for women but not men. .. ,
Our findings, that women report greater concern for global climate change than men, echo scores of previous studies of environmental concern. However, when looking at a popular explanation for this difference-the eco-mom theory we found no support for the notion that motherhood, in and of itself, explains women's higher levels of concern, even when using a measure of parenthood that is more encompassing than previous studies. Yet, when examining fertility, we find that the number of children a parent has is associated with decreased concern for global climate change for women (but not for men)...
Other researchers have shown that fundamentalist Christians and Republicans tend to have lower average environmental concern. However, we control for Republican Party affiliation, fundamentalist Christian religious values, and frequency of religious attendance in our models. Even with our broader definition, we find no evidence to support the idea that women are motivated to care about global climate change because they have children, as the eco-mom theory asserts.
Men's concern for climate change does not vary, regardless of the number of children they have. Thus, to the extent that men are concerned about global climate change, that concern does not appear to be motivated by their role as fathers. Women do demonstrate a relationship between concern for global climate change and number of children, and that relationship is negative. Although we can reasonably assume that those concerned about climate change may limit their fertility, this relationship should not produce gender differences. A more reasonable explanation for our finding is that having more children represents greater salience of traditional gender roles for women. In other words, having children (and more of them) potentially changes gender roles for women more than for men, and these roles are reflected in women’s declining concern for climate change.
9/19/2019
What you think you know about the climate is probably wrong
Tomorrow the Global Climate Strikes are set to start. So this article in 'The Conversation' is more than apt and H/T goes to Richard Murphy.
Here is a snippet:
We humans have a natural tendency to focus on negative stories. We tend to assume things are worse than they really are, and going downhill fast. We forget how bad things were in the past and how far we’ve come.
In reality, the world is often better — and getting better — than we think, something I wrote about in my book, The Perils of Perception: Why We’re Wrong About Nearly Everything. Murder rates, deaths from terrorism and extreme poverty are all down. Life expectancy, health and education levels are up. And yet, there is one vital, urgent exception to this rule: we still don’t realise how badly wrong our global climate and environment have gone.
A new survey of Britons which tested understanding of some key facts about the environment reveals the extent of environmental misperceptions. Rather than asking people what they thought might happen, this study instead focused on assessing knowledge of the world as it is right now.
One question, for example, was how many of the past 22 years have been the hottest on record?
The answer is 20, but the average guess was just 12. And one in five people guessed five or fewer.
Britons also overestimated some facts, such as how much air travel contributes to greenhouse guesses. The average guess was that 20% of global greenhouse gas emissions come from air travel, when in fact it only accounts for around 2%. Respondents also assumed that air travel’s emissions are about equal to that of all other forms of transport put together, when in reality, the latter contributes about ten times as much as flights. This is due to the relative rarity of flights compared to other forms of transport.
Full article here.
Here is a snippet:
We humans have a natural tendency to focus on negative stories. We tend to assume things are worse than they really are, and going downhill fast. We forget how bad things were in the past and how far we’ve come.
In reality, the world is often better — and getting better — than we think, something I wrote about in my book, The Perils of Perception: Why We’re Wrong About Nearly Everything. Murder rates, deaths from terrorism and extreme poverty are all down. Life expectancy, health and education levels are up. And yet, there is one vital, urgent exception to this rule: we still don’t realise how badly wrong our global climate and environment have gone.
A new survey of Britons which tested understanding of some key facts about the environment reveals the extent of environmental misperceptions. Rather than asking people what they thought might happen, this study instead focused on assessing knowledge of the world as it is right now.
One question, for example, was how many of the past 22 years have been the hottest on record?
The answer is 20, but the average guess was just 12. And one in five people guessed five or fewer.
Britons also overestimated some facts, such as how much air travel contributes to greenhouse guesses. The average guess was that 20% of global greenhouse gas emissions come from air travel, when in fact it only accounts for around 2%. Respondents also assumed that air travel’s emissions are about equal to that of all other forms of transport put together, when in reality, the latter contributes about ten times as much as flights. This is due to the relative rarity of flights compared to other forms of transport.
 |
| Misperceptions about the source of greenhouse gas emissions. The Policy Institute, King's College London |
Reading Lounge
1. Singapore is 2nd-worst globally for workplace diversity
2. What makes Slavoj Žižek mad?
3. Married CEOs are more committed to social issues than non-married peers
4. Germany’s very generous green bond
5. Architecture in a world without economic growth
6. Vending machines with engagement rings
7. How many days a year did people work in England before the Industrial Revolution?
2. What makes Slavoj Žižek mad?
3. Married CEOs are more committed to social issues than non-married peers
4. Germany’s very generous green bond
5. Architecture in a world without economic growth
6. Vending machines with engagement rings
7. How many days a year did people work in England before the Industrial Revolution?
9/18/2019
Staatsministerin für Kultur und Medien Grütters, was sind die Kriterien der Bundesregierung für Sperrung auf Twitter?
cc Bayer. LSG München und SG München
Guten Tag Frau Staatsministerin für Kultur und Medien Grütters,
Zwei Emails im August/September 2018 an Frau Henschen blieben unbeantwortet. Also nutze ich die Gelegenheit und versuche es erneut:
Zugang zur Öffentlichkeitsarbeit der Polizei in sozialen Medien („Twitter“), © 2018 Deutscher Bundestag WD 3 - 3000 - 044/18
Ich frage, weil das BMFSFJ (in typisch deutscher Weise) auch nach einer E-Mail am 06. Sept. 2018 vom
Büro Chef vom Dienst
Presse- und Informationsamt der Bundesregierung
Dorotheenstr. 84, 10117 Berlin
geschwiegen hat.
Nach der Zusendung meines PDF mit diesem Inhalt wurde der Twitter Account innerhalb von 48 Stunden geblockt. Falls Sie nach Lektüre etwas erstaunt sind, ja, es hat sich so zugetragen. Es gibt solch primitive, hinterhältige und dumme Beamten. Das BMAS hatte schon früher geblockt, ebenso wie die Bundesagentur für Arbeit. Laut dem Magazin 'Faktum' ist Deutschland Weltmeister beim Blocken von Twitter Accounts.
Ich bin wirklich nicht geneigt, einem Berliner Verwaltungsgericht eine Grundgebühr von 438 Euro zu zahlen, um Auskunft zu erstreiten. Noch weniger spüre ich irgendeine Neigung, Urkundenunterdrückung durch das SG München und das Bayer. LSG (dessen Litispendenz in dieser Sache belegend) finanziell zu entertainen.
In den USA wird die Frage offen behandelt "Can Elected Officials Block Critics On Their Social Media Pages?". Das ist wohl der Unterschied zwischen einem First Amendment und einem angeblichen Art. 5 GG.
Nicht umhin kommen will ich, Ihnen für die Erinnerung an die Civilité allemande auf Sozialen Netzwerken zu danken.
Mit bestem Dank
Guten Tag Frau Staatsministerin für Kultur und Medien Grütters,
Zwei Emails im August/September 2018 an Frau Henschen blieben unbeantwortet. Also nutze ich die Gelegenheit und versuche es erneut:
Welche Tweets haben die Sperrung des Twitter Accounts @ErebusSagace durch BMAS und BMFSFJ notwendig gemacht und was sind die allgemeinen Kriterien der Bundesregierung für die Sperrung auf Twitter?Ich unterstelle dabei, Ihnen ist dieses Papier bekannt:
Zugang zur Öffentlichkeitsarbeit der Polizei in sozialen Medien („Twitter“), © 2018 Deutscher Bundestag WD 3 - 3000 - 044/18
Ich frage, weil das BMFSFJ (in typisch deutscher Weise) auch nach einer E-Mail am 06. Sept. 2018 vom
Büro Chef vom Dienst
Presse- und Informationsamt der Bundesregierung
Dorotheenstr. 84, 10117 Berlin
geschwiegen hat.
Nach der Zusendung meines PDF mit diesem Inhalt wurde der Twitter Account innerhalb von 48 Stunden geblockt. Falls Sie nach Lektüre etwas erstaunt sind, ja, es hat sich so zugetragen. Es gibt solch primitive, hinterhältige und dumme Beamten. Das BMAS hatte schon früher geblockt, ebenso wie die Bundesagentur für Arbeit. Laut dem Magazin 'Faktum' ist Deutschland Weltmeister beim Blocken von Twitter Accounts.
Ich bin wirklich nicht geneigt, einem Berliner Verwaltungsgericht eine Grundgebühr von 438 Euro zu zahlen, um Auskunft zu erstreiten. Noch weniger spüre ich irgendeine Neigung, Urkundenunterdrückung durch das SG München und das Bayer. LSG (dessen Litispendenz in dieser Sache belegend) finanziell zu entertainen.
In den USA wird die Frage offen behandelt "Can Elected Officials Block Critics On Their Social Media Pages?". Das ist wohl der Unterschied zwischen einem First Amendment und einem angeblichen Art. 5 GG.
Nicht umhin kommen will ich, Ihnen für die Erinnerung an die Civilité allemande auf Sozialen Netzwerken zu danken.
"Sarkasmus und Ironie führen in virtuellen Gesprächen schnell zu Missverständnissen."Menschen anderer Nationen könnten auf die verquere und Image schädigende Idee kommen, diese Deutschen hätten Humor. Comme c'est gênant.
Mit bestem Dank
German government advises against using irony on social media
Germans and humor are like water and oil. So it comes as no surprise when the Minister of State for Culture and the Media cautions against using sarcasm and irony on social media networks.
Here is Robin Williams on German humor.
 |
| German government advises against using irony on social media |
Please do not forget: people communicate here.
In these channels, people with different backgrounds and opinions communicate with each other. Treat your counterpart as you would like to be treated yourself. Please bear in mind: Sarcasm and irony quickly lead to misunderstandings in virtual conversations.
Thank you for your understanding - and for a good dialogue!It would not be Germany if your personal background was not an issue. IOW, the kind of family you come from and the kind of education you have had. Your social and racial origins, your financial status, or the type of work experience that you have.
As important as the information is the dialogue with you.
We are looking forward to constructive and factual discussions.Basically, make your input "constructive and factual" or just bugger off you uneducated sod.
Here is Robin Williams on German humor.
Since we are at it, here's George to make it final and fucking clear.
9/17/2019
Reading Lounge
1. The Italian Stallion restaurant
2. Draghi’s last stand
3. Do chess players live longer?
4. A hotel where you can speak with the deceased
5. To address hunger, many countries may have to increase carbon footprint
6. Resellology
7. How a scientific attempt to demystify Buddhist meditation yielded astounding results
8. The grandmaster diet - "You need to cut back on the orange juice"
2. Draghi’s last stand
3. Do chess players live longer?
4. A hotel where you can speak with the deceased
5. To address hunger, many countries may have to increase carbon footprint
6. Resellology
7. How a scientific attempt to demystify Buddhist meditation yielded astounding results
8. The grandmaster diet - "You need to cut back on the orange juice"
Abonnieren
Posts (Atom)