How we get played by the fictional status quo into thinking that not taking action is the stable alternative. On status quo bias, sunk cost fallacy and loss aversion.
Well written, Frida! I really like the framing of fictional status quo. Makes a lot of sense. Thank you.
You point the finger at something which is lacking in the usual story telling about what is going on.
We`re not ”just” decarbonizing and aiming for net-0 (and other terms no one outside the climate bubble understands 😉), we`re actually switching and building something BETTER. I like how Hannah Ritchie frames it: the first sustainable generation, a good life now AND a planet in good shape for future generations.
So let’s not be hijacked by the fictional status quo crowd, let’s story tell about BETTER ☀️
Thank you, Michael! I also think the fictional status quo helps to identify discussions based on unreal premises, which causes not only an unfair but also an unrealistic balance between arguments pro and con climate mitigation (and adaptation) efforts.
And yes, would love to explore that last topic further - what are we actually doing? Psychologically there's a big difference between saying "we're just removing fossil fuels and continuing as usual" and "we're removing fuels AND building something better and different from now". Hope to come back to that topic later on :)
Well written, Frida! I really like the framing of fictional status quo. Makes a lot of sense. Thank you.
You point the finger at something which is lacking in the usual story telling about what is going on.
We`re not ”just” decarbonizing and aiming for net-0 (and other terms no one outside the climate bubble understands 😉), we`re actually switching and building something BETTER. I like how Hannah Ritchie frames it: the first sustainable generation, a good life now AND a planet in good shape for future generations.
So let’s not be hijacked by the fictional status quo crowd, let’s story tell about BETTER ☀️
Thank you, Michael! I also think the fictional status quo helps to identify discussions based on unreal premises, which causes not only an unfair but also an unrealistic balance between arguments pro and con climate mitigation (and adaptation) efforts.
And yes, would love to explore that last topic further - what are we actually doing? Psychologically there's a big difference between saying "we're just removing fossil fuels and continuing as usual" and "we're removing fuels AND building something better and different from now". Hope to come back to that topic later on :)