🌎🔥 Da Now an’ Lata Climate Kine Emergency

⬇️ Pidgin | ⬇️ ⬇️ English

Brah, get plenny heavy rain wea making all kine pilikia wit da floods an’ da heat stay turning up da ocean an’ our towns, li’dat. But, shoots, looks like everybody like react to da emergency kine situation mo’ betta dan dey like stop um from happening in da first place, yeah? 🤷‍♂️🌧️

Everyday, get one new climate disaster, da kine no can avoid. Las’ week, had choke rain ova dea on one side of da U.S., went cause big kine flood in New York an’ Vermont, an’ on da odda side, had houses sliding off da mountains in Cali. Da ocean off Florida stay hot li’dat, in da 90s Fahrenheit, an’ da Arizonans stay suffering wit’ heat ova 110 degrees fo’ mo’ dan one week, a’ole pilikia? 🏡🌊🌡️

Das jus’ one country, an’ only dis week. In Europe las’ summah, had like 60,000 peeps dat wen’ make li’dat ’cause da heat stay too much, from one new analysis. Dis year, wit’ even mo’ high heat records globally, going be mo’ worse, no doubt. 🥵🌍

Da global try fo’ respond to dis climate change ting get plenny roadblocks, wit’ all kine political mess ups, division, an’ all dat greed making trouble. But aftah I wen’ write my column last month ’bout da U.S. program fo’ H.I.V./AIDS treatment, I been tink plenty ’bout how da political psychology stay play in da climate change kine crises an’ odda hard head issues wea da leaders no can decide if they like prevent or just react. 🧠🌿

Reacting to da emergencies stay popular. Preventing um, nah so much. Da program I wen’ write ’bout las’ month is da President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief, or PEPFAR, wea on paper, get one kind strange reason fo’ pay fo’ da expensive H.I.V./AIDS treatment. 💸💉

One main ting from da PEPFAR results was dat being efficient not enough; leaders gotta get political support fo’ execute da policies, too. Often, da most dollar-for-dollar efficient policies not da ones dat get peeps stoked — especially wen leaders need da political momentum fo’ quick action (an’ da moolah). But if can mix efficient policies an’ da ones wit’ strong political appeal, das one strong combo. 💰👍

For PEPFAR, one economic analysis wen’ show dat da bestest way fo’ use da program’s dollars was to focus on prevention, wea would save lives mo’ cheap dan treatment. But da program also like help da peeps who already stay infected, by paying fo’ da big bucks antiretroviral treatment. Treatment wen’ get mo’ political support an’ wen’ open up mo’ funding, letting PEPFAR ultimately save mo’ lives dan if was only about prevention. 💊🏥

PEPFAR stay unique in plenny ways. But da lesson dat peeps oftentimes like react to emergencies mo’ betta dan dey like prevent um, dis one show up in odda research, too. 📚👀

One paper, fo’ example, wen’ find dat voters like reward politicians fo’ bring emergency relief fo’ natural disasters, but not fo’ investing in da preparation fo’ natural disasters — even dough one dollar spent on preparation was worth about 15 dollars in emergency response. Dat can make da incentives no line up right. 💵🔄

But da PEPFAR story suggest anodda way fo’ look at um: Maybe peeps get one strong need fo’ help peeps who need um right now, an’ dat can open new doors fo’ funding an’ action. 🚪🔨

“One ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure,” wen’ say Sam Maglio, one marketing an’ psychology researcher at da University of Toronto. “An’ das right, if you take da long view. But da human mind stay really bad at taking da long view an’ engaging in planning or preparation.” 🎓💭

Maglio wen’ say his research suggest dat one way fo’ help counteract dat is “by making da future feel closer, by making da future seem like it going start sooner.” PEPFAR, fo’ example, wen’ tie prevention to da concrete, right now disaster of da H.I.V. epidemic in sub-Saharan Africa, making da future infections feel mo’ close. ⏳🔮

In da same way, peeps maybe like less help da future peeps who not real yet dan dey like help da real peeps today. In one of Dr. Margalit’s studies, him an’ his co-author wen’ look at one weird ting in da politics of immigration: Most peeps who against immigration like focus on stopping new immigrants from coming in. 🛂🚧

But opinion data shows dat most anti-immigrant voters stay motivated by issues like integration an’ social change, wea mostly come from da way larger population of immigrants already living in dea country. Why da voters like stop da new arrivals? 🤔💡

Da study wen’ find dat da explanation was, li’dat, a moral one: Even anti-immigration voters feel some kuleana toward peeps who already stay living in dea country, an’ so less comfortable with policies dat target them. Instead dey like focus on da future immigrants, wea dey no feel dat same kuleana. 🎯🌍

Fighting against immigration often get da opposite political meaning from fighting climate change, but da underlying pattern here stay same same: Voters tend to be mo’ interested in protecting identifiable peeps in da present, an’ less concerned ’bout possible future harm, however likely. 👥🛡️

Get choke climate messaging dat focus on da need to prevent catastrophe. But da floods an’ mudslides an’ smoke-filled air an’ deadly heat are one reminder dat climate change already stay making disasters worse an’ making new ones. Da question is whetha dat going make da future seem mo’ close an’ create new political will fo’ preventing harm, not just reacting to um. 📢💨🌪️🔥

---

NOW IN ENGLISH

🌎🔥 Da Present and Future Climate Kind Emergency

Bro, there’s plenty of heavy rain causing all sorts of trouble with floods and the heat is cranking up the ocean and our towns, like that. But, shoot, it looks like everyone prefers to react to emergencies rather than preventing them in the first place, right? 🤷‍♂️🌧️

Every day, there’s a new climate disaster, the kind we can’t avoid. Last week, there was a ton of rain on one side of the U.S., causing massive flooding in New York and Vermont, and on the other side, houses were sliding off the mountains in California. The ocean off Florida is scorching, in the 90s Fahrenheit, and Arizonans have been suffering with over 110-degree heat for more than a week, no problem? 🏡🌊🌡️

That’s just one country, and only this week. In Europe last summer, about 60,000 people died because the heat was too intense, according to a new analysis. This year, with even higher global heat records, it’s going to be worse, no doubt. 🥵🌍

The global attempt to respond to this climate change thing has plenty of roadblocks, with all sorts of political screw-ups, division, and greed causing trouble. But after I wrote my column last month about the U.S. program for H.I.V./AIDS treatment, I’ve been thinking a lot about how political psychology plays a role in the crises of climate change and other challenging issues where leaders can’t decide if they want to prevent or just react. 🧠🌿

Reacting to emergencies is popular. Preventing them, not so much. The program I wrote about last month is the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief, or PEPFAR, which, on paper, has a somewhat strange reason to pay for expensive H.I.V./AIDS treatment. 💸💉

A main point from the PEPFAR results was that being efficient isn’t enough; leaders also need political support to implement policies. Often, the most dollar-for-dollar efficient policies aren’t the ones that excite people — especially when leaders need political momentum for quick action (and money). But combining efficient policies with those that have strong political appeal can be a powerful combo. 💰👍

For PEPFAR, an economic analysis suggested that the best use of the program’s money was to focus on prevention, which would save lives more cheaply than treatment. But the program also wanted to help people who were already infected, by paying for expensive antiretroviral treatment. Treatment received more political support and unlocked additional funding, allowing PEPFAR to ultimately save more lives than if it had focused only on prevention. 💊🏥

PEPFAR is unique in many ways. But the lesson that people often prefer to react to emergencies rather than prevent them shows up in other research too. 📚👀

For example, one paper found that voters reward politicians for delivering emergency relief for natural disasters, but not for investing in disaster preparedness — even though $1 spent on preparedness was worth approximately $15 in emergency response. This can create misaligned incentives. 💵🔄

But the PEPFAR story suggests another way to look at it: Maybe people have a strong desire to help those in immediate need, which could open new doors for funding and action. 🚪🔨

“One ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure,” said Sam Maglio, a marketing and psychology researcher at the University of Toronto. “And that’s right, if you take the long view. But the human mind is really bad at taking the long view and engaging in planning or preparation.” 🎓💭

Maglio said his research suggests that one way to counteract that is “by making the future feel closer, by making it seem like the future will start sooner.” PEPFAR, for example, tied prevention to the immediate disaster of the H.I.V. epidemic in sub-Saharan Africa, making future infections feel closer. ⏳🔮

Similarly, people might be less interested in helping hypothetical future people than in helping real people today. In one of Dr. Margalit’s studies, he and his co-author investigated a strange phenomenon in the politics of immigration: Most people who oppose immigration focus on stopping new immigrants from coming in. 🛂🚧

But opinion data shows that most anti-immigrant voters are motivated by issues like integration and social change, which are mainly driven by the much larger population of immigrants already living in their country. Why were voters intent on stopping new arrivals? 🤔💡

The study found that the explanation was, in effect, a moral one: Even anti-immigration voters felt some responsibility toward people who were already residing in their country, and so were less comfortable with policies that targeted them. Instead, they focused on hypothetical future immigrants, toward whom they felt no such moral obligations. 🎯🌍

Opposing immigration often has the opposite political connotation that fighting climate change does, but the underlying pattern here is the same: Voters tend to be more interested in protecting identifiable people in the present, and less concerned about possible future harm, however likely. 👥🛡️

A lot of climate messaging focuses on the need to prevent catastrophe. But the floods and mudslides and smoke-filled air and deadly heat are a reminder that climate change is already worsening disasters and creating new ones. The question is whether that will make the future seem closer and generate new political will for preventing harm, not just reacting to it. 📢💨🌪️🔥