Category Archives: Human Behavior

Human Behavior

Q&A: Has COVID-19 Shifted the Momentum of Climate Change? – University of Denver Newsroom

Airplane runways have quieted, rush hour traffic flows smoothly, and the smog has departed, revealing sunny, blue skies. COVID-19 has drastically altered life on a global scale, putting a halt or near halt to many of our most harmful practices. Could this temporary period of reckoning be enough to seriously combat climate change? Have humans changed their behavior for the long haul?

The DU Newsroom asked Brian ONeill, professor in the Josef Korbel School of International Studies and director of research for the Frederick S. Pardee Center for International Futures, to answer our burning climate change questions by email.

A number of reports from around the world indicate that shelter-in-place orders could have a positive effect on climate change. What evidence have you found most compelling?

We are already beginning to measure reductions in emissions of carbon dioxide, the most important greenhouse gas, due to the economic disruption caused by the pandemic. But that hasnt impacted the climate itself, and we shouldnt expect it to, unless the reduction in emissions is sustained for many years into the future. Sustained reductions in emissions eventually slow the growth of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, and in turn that eventually slows the increase in temperatures. The climate system responds very slowly to changes in emissions.

Also, any positive effects on emissions are really occurring for the wrong reasons. We dont want emissions to fall because the economy is shrinking and people lose jobs and have to stay home. We want them to fall because the world is moving off of fossil fuels as its primary source of energy. Without that happening, the current emissions effects are not helpful to the climate issue.

Which human behavioral changes undertaken in response to COVID-19 have had the most significant impact on the state of climate change?

Changes in transportation have had the largest effect on emissions and again the effect is on emissions that cause climate change, but not on the climate itself, which responds much more slowly. As you can imagine, use of electricity or natural gas to heat and light homes and run appliances has not been much affected. Some of that activity has switched from occurring in a workplace to occurring in homes, but the overall change has not been large. But with many people and businesses driving less, the reduction in carbon dioxide emissions from transportation has been significant.

Are any of these changes significant enough to change the trajectory of the threat of climate change?

No. The changes could be substantial for emissions this year, compared to historical trends. Rather than global emissions growing by about 1% per year, which has been the recent trend, they might fall by several percent. But climate change is caused by the accumulated impact of emissions over decades, so to really slow warming trends, emissions have to fall for a long time. For example, to meet the international goal of limiting warming to 2 degrees Celsius, global emissions have to fall by several percent per year, every year, for two or three decades.

International responses to COVID-19 have been varied. Are there places around the world that have experienced a more dramatic/less dramatic environmental impact as a result?

Its hard to tell yet how different the effects on carbon emissions have been from place to place. Well need to wait for more data to come in to know that. But we do see a different impact on the environment that is striking already: reductions in local air pollution. Unlike climate change effects, effects on air quality occur very quickly. Local air pollutants often come from the same sources as carbon emissions, like driving cars and trucks or producing electricity. So the decrease in the [number of] vehicles on the road has improved air quality fairly dramatically in many cities around the world, including places in the U.S. like Los Angeles, but also in large urban areas like Delhi and Beijing, and many other places.

But here again, improved air quality is happening for the wrong reasons. We havent suddenly produced cleaner burning car engines or less polluting power plants. We have crashed the economy, which is not a solution to any environmental problem.

Could these positive impacts have a lasting effect on the health of our climate, or are they likely to be reversed as soon as some of these orders are lifted?

This is an important question, and it is too soon to tell what the long-term effects will be. In the short term, if, as we all hope, economies recover quickly from this disruption, carbon emissions will bounce back, too. Thats because this crisis is not leading to a change in the way energy is produced; it is just shrinking the economy. So within a year or two we will most likely be largely back on the trend of increasing emissions that existed before the pandemic occurred. Its possible that emissions may grow even faster, if countries prioritize economic growth over environmental protection.

In the longer term, its possible that the event will change attitudes about the importance of making society more resilient to disruptions of all kinds, including from climate change. That could lead to support for stronger efforts to shift energy production away from fossil fuels and begin reducing emissions for the right reasons, not the wrong ones, as is happening now during the pandemic.

As someone whose research looks to the future of climate change, do you think COVID-19 is likely to change the projections and assumptions researchers have been working with?

I would say yes, no and maybe, depending on how far into the future you want to look. The pandemic will almost certainly change the outlook for carbon emissions for the next few years, as economies suffer, and hopefully recover, from the immediate effects of the disruption. It may change the outlook for the next decade or so, as the effects of that recovery become clearer, and it could lead to either more or less growth in emissions than originally projected. Researchers studying, for example, how likely countries are to meet their emissions reductions goals in 2030 will have to update their analyses to take the effects of the pandemic into account. Changes in the climate system itself will not be noticeably affected over that time period, since climate responds to the accumulation of emissions over many years, not year-to-year changes in emissions.

Many researchers in this field look much farther out, decades into the future over the course of this century. My initial sense is that projections over that time scale are not likely to be substantially affected by this event. That could change, however, as we learn more over time about how big the effects of the pandemic and responses to it actually are, how long they last, and most important, whether they lead to behavioral or political changes that could have long-lasting effects.

What does the international response to COVID-19 teach us about combating climate change, surely another pressing threat to humanity?

The two issues are very different, not least because of the timescale. There are no projected impacts of climate change that are anticipated to be so sudden and at the same time so widespread. But from a broader perspective, it does demonstrate that the global community can make very large changes very quickly, given a strong enough motivation. Some of the discussions around the climate change issue have been about the feasibility of acting fast enough to meet the international goal of limiting warming to 2 degrees. So we do see now that fast action is possible. But even in this case the analogy is not all that strong, since the climate action has to be sustained over several decades.

Do you suspect some of the positive behavioral changes discussed earlier may be maintained after this pandemic?

I really dont know how this event is going to affect behavior, either of individuals or of political institutions. We are already beginning to see very different responses across different groups of people, and we are likely to see even more as the pandemic goes on. How that will play out over time is anyones guess.

Has this pandemic had any noticeable effect on how people see the relationship between climate and human health?

Some people have argued that the event could, or should, make us more aware of the connection between the environment and health, and therefore of climate and health. That might happen, but I am not sure that connection will be made in many peoples minds. Climate does not appear to be a key factor in causing the pandemic, and while climate change is projected to have important effects on health, substantially increasing the risks of pandemics is not one of them.

Read more here:
Q&A: Has COVID-19 Shifted the Momentum of Climate Change? - University of Denver Newsroom

Human Behavior

New COVID-19 modeling: Social distancing is working in MN but only if we keep it up – Minnesota Public Radio News

A new data analysis of the coronavirus outbreak nationwide suggests that Minnesotas social distancing efforts might be paying off in its response to COVID-19 but it also implies that even bigger outbreaks might lie ahead if those social distancing practices were to end.

The new model of the outbreak was developed by researchers at the University of Texas. Its one of many attempts by academics and government officials to use computer models to predict the course of COVID-19. Minnesota has its own model that state officials have consulted in their response to the pandemic. Because scientists still have a limited understanding of the new disease, each model uses different assumptions and different approaches in its predictions.

The work of the University of Texas COVID-19 Modeling Consortium is based on the correlation researchers observed between data that points to social distancing and a states number of COVID-19 deaths a few weeks later.

In other words, states where cellphone data showed people leaving their homes more often tended to have more COVID-19 deaths a few weeks later than states where that cellphone data shows people went out less. The time lag took into account their understanding that a person is most at risk of death a little more than three weeks after being infected with the virus.

As of April 18, Minnesotans were about 20 percentage points more likely to stay home than they were before the outbreak, according to the aggregated cellphone location data published by SafeGraph the University of Texas researchers used to estimate social distancing. Thats the 15th highest increase in stay-at-home behavior in the country and higher than all of Minnesotas neighbors.

Based on the connection they made between Minnesotans cellphone movement and social distancing, as well as trends they observed in other states, the researchers estimate a 93 percent chance that Minnesotas COVID-19 deaths will begin to decline in the next two weeks and a 70 percent chance that will happen within the next week.

The University of Texas' COVID-19 data model predictions, as of April 18.

David H. Montgomery | MPR News

Those predictions depend on the publics continued adherence to social distancing guidelines.

Theyre based on an assumption that Minnesota continues to practice the same degree of social distancing over the next few weeks even if deaths decline that it has to this point.

If social distancing restrictions are eased or even if they're not eased, if people en masse decide that they're not going to abide by these guidelines then certainly the projections of our model are out the window, said James Scott, a professor of statistics and data science at the University of Texas at Austin, and a member of the team who built the model.

Minnesotas stay-at-home order is scheduled to expire in just under two weeks on May 4. Gov. Tim Walz has not yet announced what will happen when the order expires.

The Texas model makes its predictions three weeks out through May 12, as of Thursday so if Minnesotas stay-at-home order is relaxed in May, the model would detect that decreased social distancing and likely predict more deaths two to three weeks down the road than it currently does.

Still, so far Scott said Minnesota has been ahead of the curve by employing social distancing guidelines and then rules relatively early in its COVID-19 outbreak.

Texas and Minnesota are both examples of states that seemed to distance early relative when their outbreaks began, Scott said. All the pain that they've endured in terms of staying apart, not seeing their friends ... has undeniably saved lives, because they clearly got out ahead of things, compared to how New York and New Jersey were.

The University of Texas COVID-19 model is completely different from the model built by the University of Minnesota and Minnesota Department of Health so different that theyre not really comparable.

They operate under two different assumptions about social distancing: The Texas model projects deaths two to three weeks out, on the assumption that social distancing will stay the same in that time period. The Minnesota model projects the outbreak into 2021 and assumes social distancing will relax at some point this spring or summer.

Given that, the Minnesota model forecasts the real peak of the outbreak to come this summer, once people begin interacting more and, presumably, spreading the disease more quickly. Thats not a time frame or scenario that the Texas model even attempts to simulate.

Simulations from two different scenarios in Minnesota's COVID-19 model, run on April 8.

David H. Montgomery | MPR News

Beyond those different assumptions, the models use completely different methods of assessment. Minnesotas model is an epidemiological model based on estimates about the nature of COVID-19. The Texas model uses a curve-fitting approach that tries to detect a trend based on observed data.

The two approaches each have their strengths and weaknesses and its not yet clear which approach will do a better job at predicting the course of COVID-19 in the state.

Minnesotas epidemiological model, called an SEIR model because it uses details about the time periods in which people with a disease are Susceptible, Exposed, Infectious and Recovered, is based on decades of research into infectious diseases. But because COVID-19 is so new, many of the inputs assumptions about the behavior of a disease to an SEIR model are still unknown, leaving Minnesotas model to rely on simulating hundreds of different estimates.

We feel good about the model and the structure. It aligns well with the disease as we understand it right now, Minnesotas state health economist Stefan Gildemeister said earlier this month.

Curve-fitting models like the Texas model dont take into account how diseases like COVID-19 function. Instead, it relies on data that reflects human behavior which is easier to observe.

Scott, the Texas researcher, said curve-fitting is a good fit in this situation, given the uncertainty about inputs for SEIR models. But he acknowledged that no one knows which approach will prove most useful.

If you have two models, both of which seem to be describing the data equally well and make very different forecasts about the future, that's a very difficult place to be in, Scott said.

There are more than two COVID-19 models out there. Many states have developed their own models, with varying degrees of transparency, as have a number of academics.

Prominently cited modeling includes that of the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation at the University of Washington, the White House coronavirus task force, and Imperial College in London. These models use different methods, different inputs, different time frames, and predict deaths from the pandemic an order of magnitude apart.

All of them, including Minnesotas model, only predict harm caused by the disease itself, and not social or economic strain that arises as it spreads.

Walz and other policymakers have been relying primarily on Minnesotas model to guide their understanding of the diseases risk here, though they have acknowledged paying some attention to other models like the University of Washingtons.

Both the Texas and Minnesota models are being continually updated. Neither one yet accounts well for clusters of cases in a single place, such as a nursing home or a meatpacking plant like the JBS plant in Worthington thats connected to dozens of cases in just the past few days.

Scott said his team in Texas is trying to better take into account the impacts of such outbreaks, and also to look at data on a more precise geographic level than entire states. A new version of Minnesotas model is also being developed and may be released later this month.

Health officials for weeks have been increasingly raising the alarm over the spread of the novel coronavirus in the United States. The disease is transmitted through respiratory droplets, coughs and sneezes, similar to the way the flu can spread.

Government and medical leaders are urging people to wash their hands frequently and well, refrain from touching their faces, cover their coughs, disinfect surfaces and avoid large crowds, all in an effort to curb the virus rapid spread.

The state of Minnesota has temporarily closed schools, while administrators work to determine next steps, and is requiring a temporary closure of all in-person dining at restaurants, bars and coffee shops, as well as theaters, gyms, yoga studios and other spaces in which people congregate in close proximity.

Go here to read the rest:
New COVID-19 modeling: Social distancing is working in MN but only if we keep it up - Minnesota Public Radio News

Human Behavior

Here’s what COVID-19 teaches us about ‘social learning’ and the environment – World Economic Forum

- The dire social and economic impact of COVID-19 could worsen environmental destruction in the long run.

- But the pandemic is also teaching us how to use individual choices to tackle a global disaster.

- Social learning is a powerful tool for lasting change. It involves people learning from each other and adapting their behaviour as a result.

The horrors of the global human death toll of COVID-19 confront me daily in the news and through my concern for my own vulnerable parents. The economic and other hardships so many are facing due to physical distancing measures also deeply disturb me. Moreover, as a global change ecologist whose lens has been the whole wide world and everything in it the millions of other species, the air we all share, and the water we all depend onthe environmental dimensions of COVID-19 are impossible for me to ignore.

Let me be clear: COVID-19 itself is not good for any of the seventeen UN Sustainable Development Goals. Human wellbeing, the economy and the environment are all interrelated, and the pandemic is certainly not helping us achieve our goals for protecting them. However, the pandemic is teaching us lessons in human behaviour that could bring us closer to these goals in the future.

A mere year and a half ago, in October 2018, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) published an alarming Special Report on Global Warming of 1.5 degrees C. It started with a quote from The Wisdom of the Sands, by Antoine de Saint-Exupry: Your task is not to foresee the future, but to enable it.

The report called for rapid, far-reaching, and unprecedented changes in all aspects of society to avert the worst disasters of climate change. It predicted dire consequences for human well-being, the economy and the environment if those warnings were not heeded. Despite the shift in language from climate change to climate emergency over the past year by many institutions, we have not seen these recommendations being implemented.

And yet, COVID-19 has forced us to make dramatic changes in every area of life in the space of only a few weeks. Cities and entire countries were shut down overnight, leaders declared national and international emergencies, people and institutions adapted to unprecedented societal change.

The pandemic is a challenge for all the SDGS

Image: UN

COVID-19 is also transforming our relationship to the environment. The origins of emerging infectious diseases, including COVID-19 but also HIV, Ebola, Nipah, SARS, pandemic influenza and others, are at least partly linked to the growing human impact on the environment. Acknowledging this is crucial as we try to address the root causes of pandemics. These days, many cities are reporting cleaner air and lower pollution. In some places, this is literally changing how we perceive nature. Some communities in India are able to see the snow-capped Himalayas for the first time in their lives. However, these changes are also revealing the magnitude of these chronic problems, and the importance of tackling them. As the pandemic limits access to green spaces such as parks and conservation areas, many are becoming painfully aware of how fundamental these natural oases are to their wellbeing.

It appears that in times of crisis, we connect even more strongly with our natural surroundings. In the short term, this may well have a beneficial impact on some aspects on the environment. However, in the long term, the picture is more complex. Economic recession could exacerbate environmental degradation, as resources are diverted from efforts to protect and restore habitats. It could also worsen existing poverty traps. As the UN Climate Change Executive Secretary said: COVID-19 is the most urgent threat facing humanity today, but we cannot forget that climate change is the biggest threat facing humanity over the long term." The acting executive secretary of the UN Convention on Biological Diversity put it bluntly: The message we are getting is if we dont take care of nature, it will take care of us.

Consider the quote from Antoine de Saint Exupry, however: we need not foresee the future, we just need to enable it. This is where the lessons on human behaviour come in.

The power of "social learning": when people learn from each other and change their behaviour accordingly.

Some of my own research on the power of human behavior to shape environmental trajectories, such as biodiversity loss and climate change, suggests social learning is a significant factor in changing systems. That is to say, people learn from each other, and change their behaviour accordingly.

Right now, we are learning valuable lessons in resilience and human adaptability. We are learning how quickly humans can respond when faced with a common enemy, be it a novel virus or the well-established physics of climate change. Let us examine these lessons, reflect on our new respect for the natural world, and consider what enabled us to adjust to such profoundly challenging and unfamiliar new norms. Let us take note of how some of the ideas put forward by different countries now are very much in line with UN sustainable development goals, such as the elimination of poverty, good health and wellbeing, reduced inequality, and responsible production and consumption. And lets imagine how we might be able to harness these lessons to reduce the risk of catastrophes - disease, climate change or other threats - in the future.

License and Republishing

World Economic Forum articles may be republished in accordance with our Terms of Use.

Written by

Madhur Anand, Associate Professor, University of Guelph

The views expressed in this article are those of the author alone and not the World Economic Forum.

View original post here:
Here's what COVID-19 teaches us about 'social learning' and the environment - World Economic Forum

Human Behavior

An inclusive computer science education starts with a culture of affirmation, Amy Ko says – Dailyuw

Amy J. Ko was inspired to study computer science after finding out she could play Tetris on her graphing calculator. While the original game was incredibly slow you could watch the pieces move by the pixel Ko and a group of friends were inspired to code a faster version.

She eventually majored in computer science, but her interests in human behavior led to a double degree in psychology. While many of Kos peers wanted to be software engineers, she paved her own academic path to study how people solve computing problems.

In a way, I was trying to construct this informatics degree at my university, smashing together computer science and behavioral sciences, she said.

Today, Ko is a professor at the Information School, directing the Code & Cognition Lab and researching how people of different backgrounds make sense of computer education. She has worked with students from colleges and K-12 schools, as well as learners from coding bootcamps.

Most students approached computer science with a fixed mindset of who is or isnt a programmer. If a student doesnt look like the stereotypical geek, they are likely to believe that their capabilities make them not destined to be a software engineer.

However, Ko challenged this preconceived thinking by focusing on the current coding pedagogy. She discovered that the factors that make a successful programmer depend on the strategies the students were taught.

Ko led a study that divided participants into two groups. One was taught computing the conventional way, similar to the education in CSE 142, and the other was given a strategy to think through a coding problem.

Every week, students were asked to journal on whether they thought they were capable of programming. The results found that the group with the intervention increased their self-belief, thinking that they could be a developer one day, while that of the conventional group decreased over time.

Its not so much about whether or not somebody is smart enough, Ko said. Its much more about whether or not they have good teachers who are teaching good strategies and structuring peoples learning successfully.

Ko conducted interviews with participants to qualitatively assess the learners understanding of the process. The difference between the two groups was judged based on the questions that students asked when seeking help.

In the control group, participants asked more disempowered questions, such as how do I do this? and solve this problem for me, because they didnt know where to start. Meanwhile, participants in the intervention group asked questions that showed more creative problem-solving skills.

Their questions were much more like I can do this, I just dont know which approach to take, give me a better approach, Ko said.

The research concluded that, while teaching correct strategies is important in computing education, self-belief is powerful in driving students to succeed as software engineers. In her work, Ko thinks carefully about how to communicate these strategies effectively, signaling to students that everybody will be successful regardless of who they are.

Her research views diversity as the cultures and signals in a learning community that establish a notion of belonging. Sadly, computing education across the world has an elitist and tribal culture of judging who is good enough.

Wired reported that white men have continually dominated computer science departments in the United States since 1991. Even Stack Overflow, an online computing forum, pervades an idle boys club chatter that discourages women and novice developers from feeling welcomed in the culture.

Since the K-12 learning environment is open to new discoveries, Ko hopes that her research can help educators make computing education more focused on teamwork and inclusion. For anybody who is starting to program, Ko finds the best way to succeed in this field is to learn with others.

You need to create your own culture of affirmation and belonging, Ko said. If you can create a community of people of your own making, thats a space for you to thrive in.

Reach reporter Anh Nguyen at science@dailyuw.com. Twitter: @thedailyanh

Like what youre reading? Support high-quality student journalism by donating here.

View post:
An inclusive computer science education starts with a culture of affirmation, Amy Ko says - Dailyuw

Human Behavior

Why Jane Goodall says human disregard for nature led to the coronavirus pandemic – PBS NewsHour

Jane Goodall sees a direct line between the global coronavirus pandemic and humanitys disregard for and mistreatment of nature.

We are all interconnected, the famed primatologist, and a leading voice in conservation efforts, told the PBS NewsHour. And if we dont get that lesson from this pandemic, then maybe we never will.

Goodalls decades of research into chimpanzees in Africa is the subject of a new documentary, Jane Goodall: The Hope, which will air April 22 on the National Geographic Channel. Goodall has also been a tireless advocate for animals and environmental issues, particularly when it comes to how human behavior can disrupt wildlife habitats.

I just hope that when this is over, were wiser.

Many infectious diseases that have emerged in our lifetime Zika virus, MERS (Middle East respiratory syndrome), AIDS and Ebola, among them have stemmed in some way from human interference with wildlife and their habitats, creating the conditions that allow new viruses, like COVID-19, to spill over from animals to people.

MORE: I toured this exhibit on epidemics before the coronavirus pandemic shut it down

Initial evidence about how the novel coronavirus first spread pointed to wet markets where live animals are sold in Wuhan, China. Goodall said its our interactions with animals and the environment that had led to the global pandemic, and I just hope that when this is over, were wiser.

Goodall also said she hopes that Chinas ban on wet markets holds and is extended to prohibit the sale of wild animals for medicine, like pangolin scales and bear bile.

We mark this 50th anniversary of Earth Day with Jane Goodall, one of the worlds most renowned scientists and environmentalists. Jeffrey Brown talks to Goodall about her career and mission and the pandemic that has brought modern civilization to its knees.

MORE: Understanding the origins of the coronavirus

Goodall also said officials ought to tamp down animal trafficking because that brings animals in close contact with people at the markets theyre sold.

Its mistreatment of animals and exactly where the next pandemic might come from, if we dont pay attention to our behavior, she said. I pray that we will this time take heed of the message that were being given, because this pandemic has been predicted for many, many, many years.

Watch the Newshours full interview with Goodall here.

See the article here:
Why Jane Goodall says human disregard for nature led to the coronavirus pandemic - PBS NewsHour

Human Behavior

Earth Day panel: UWO experts talk ties between coronavirus and climate crises – UW Oshkosh Today

Theres reason for concernand some hopewhen considering what the coronavirus crisis can teach us about what needs to be done about our role in climate change.

The topic of the pandemic and its intersection with sustainability was the subject of a virtual panel held Wednesday afternoon as part of University of Wisconsin Oshkoshs series of Earth Week events.

Brad Spanbauer

Stephanie Spehar, associate anthropology professor, moderated the interdisciplinary discussion that included assistant sociology professor Jeremiah Bohr, associate English professor Stewart Cole, environmental studies and history professor Jim Feldman, associate biology professor Sabrina Mueller-Spitz and campus sustainability officer Brad Spanbauer.

Wednesday marked the 50th anniversary of Earth Day. UW Oshkosh typically celebrates with a week of on-campus activities and events, but this years slate moved online because of the ongoing public health crisis. Programming continues through Friday.

Among the running themes in the discussion was the need for a communal response. Much like the way our day-to-day lives have been significantly altered to slow the spread of COVID-19, major changes to our daily lives are necessary to slow the warming of the planet.

What I think COVID is showing me is in some ways we are prepared and in many ways we are incredibly unprepared, Spanbauer said. Not just for something like a global pandemic, but we are incredibly not prepared for climate change and for all the things that come with climate change.

Mueller-Spitz, an environmental microbiologist, stressed the need for microbial literacy moving forward. She also suggested that maybe younger generations experiencing the events of 2020 will better prepare them for whats necessary in terms of sustainability.

Sabrina Mueller-Spitz

Bohr pointed out the parallels in how COVID-19 and climate change both disproportionately impact vulnerable populations, and how in both cases state and institutional intervention are necessary to save lives.

Cole explained how human behavior likely caused the pandemic in the first place. Some of the first people infected with COVID-19 were linked to a large live animal market in China, suggesting animal-to-human spread, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

One of the things that I think that we can learn from this is that viruses like this are not a random occurrence, he said. Theyre a result of our reconfiguring our interfaces with non-human animal populations usually in exploitative ways, in ways that treat animals as biological matter to be manipulated as opposed to beings in their own right.

Late in the hour-long discussion, Feldman gave a reminder of a reason for optimism.

Its really striking how quickly people were able to change their behavior in really profound ways, really quickly, he said of the nationwide response of the past two months. If youd have told me this was going to happen and happen in this way before it happened, I wouldnt have believed you.

I think theres for sure some hope there.

Learn more:

See the original post here:
Earth Day panel: UWO experts talk ties between coronavirus and climate crises - UW Oshkosh Today

Human Behavior

Fifty years of Earth Day where did we go wrong? | TheHill – The Hill

Earth Day turns 50 today. This is a milestone in the environmental movement and should be a cause for celebration. But since 1970, our global carbon emissions have increased by 146 percent and our per capita emissions have increased from 4 to 4.9 metric tons.

How did we go awry in our effort to save our Earth? Quite simply, we focused our attention in the wrong place.

Science proves that climate change is real and that we are in an environmental crisis caused by human behavior. As individuals, we are advised to reduce our carbon footprints, reduce our waste and water consumption, switch to plant-based diets, choose local foods, make low-carbon choices, reduce, reuse and recycle. There is no end to the recommended actions for individuals to do their part in reducing our human impact on the planet.

This is where we went wrong; these recommendations are misplaced. While these recommendations can help, these are not the most effective actions you can take to produce the change that is needed to save our planet. The source of our environmental problem is the activities of business and industry and the most effective actions you can take are those that will force positive change within business and industry.

Industries that produce our goods are the largest contributors to the greenhouse gas emissions that are polluting our air and causing climate change. Research has determined that just 100 companies are responsible for 71 percent of global emissions and just 25 companies are responsible for 52 percent of global emissions. These companies are primarily gas and oil companies that emit significant greenhouse gasses during the fossil fuel exploration and drilling stages of production. Emissions continue when those fossil fuels are burned for energy.

Industries are the largest producers of solid waste in the U.S. Although data is not tracked, industrial solid waste is estimated to account for 97 percent of U.S. national trash, while municipal solid waste accounts for 3 percent. Industrial wastewater is also not tracked but it is estimated that as much as 80 percent of global wastewater is not treated before being released back into the environment.

Industries use the most freshwater in the United States. Industrial, commercial and agricultural activities account for 87 percent of U.S. freshwater usage while domestic and public activities account for 13 percent. Most freshwater in the U.S. is used by the thermoelectric-power industry to cool equipment and by the agricultural industry for irrigation.

To be sure, I am not encouraging you to abandon efforts to reduce your impact on the environment. While doing your part will help, the most influential actions you can take are to insist that business and industry take responsibility and make positive social and environmental change; you can do this through shareholder and stakeholder activism and through voting.

If you own stock, you can demand more responsible activities from the company. If you have a retirement account, you can pressure your employer and investment firm to adopt socially responsible investing. If you are a concerned citizen, you can pressure industry regulators and certifying bodies to require business and industry to adopt socially and environmentally responsible operations. If you are a consumer, you can pressure businesses to have responsible operations and supply chains.

But the fastest way to ensure change is through government legislation. Legislators can reallocate subsidies, implement taxes, or use other incentives to force positive social and environmental change for businesses and industries. You can vote for policymakers who will support this change.

You can make a difference for the future of our planet and help us get on track for the next Earth Day. But your impact can be far greater than simply reducing, reusing and recycling. The greatest impacts you can have are to put pressure on businesses and industries to take responsibility and you can vote for politicians who will ensure positive social and environmental change.

Nancy E. Landrum, Ph.D., is a professor of Sustainability Management at Loyola University Chicago and a Fulbright Specialist in sustainability.

See more here:
Fifty years of Earth Day where did we go wrong? | TheHill - The Hill

Human Behavior

Bad bot traffic increases, comprising almost one quarter of all website traffic – Help Net Security

Bad bot traffic has increased compared to previous years, comprising almost one quarter (24.1%) of all website traffic and most heavily impacting the financial services industry, according to Imperva.

In 2019, bad bot traffic comprised 24.1% of all website traffic, rising 18.1% from the year prior. Good bot traffic consisted of 13.1% of traffica 25.1% decrease from 2018while 62.8% of all website traffic came from humans.

Every industry has a unique bot problem ranging from account takeover attacks and credential stuffing to content and price scraping. The top 5 industries with the most bad bot traffic include financial services (47.7%), education (45.7%), IT and services (45.1%), marketplaces (39.8%), and government (37.5%).

Advanced persistent bots (APBs) continue to plague websites and often avoid detection by cycling through random IP addresses, entering through anonymous proxies, changing their identities, and mimicking human behavior. In 2019, 73.7% of bad bot traffic was APBs.

Continuing to follow browser popularity trends, bad bots impersonated the Chrome browser 55.4% of the time. The use of data centers reduced again in 2019, accounting for 70% of bad bot trafficdown from 73.6% in 2018.

In 2019, 21.1% of country blocks were Russia, followed closely by China at 19%. Despite this, with most bad bot traffic emanating from data centers, the United States remains the bad bot superpower with 45.9% of attacks coming from the country.

We closely monitor how malicious bots iterate to evade detection and commit a wide range of attacks, and this years findings have revealed the next evolution: Bad Bots as-a-Service, said Kunal Anand, CTO at Imperva.

Bad Bots as-a-Service is an attempt by bot operators to legitimize their role and appeal to organizations facing increased pressure to stay ahead of competition. Its critical that businesses spanning all industries learn which threats are most pervasive in their field and take the necessary steps to protect themselves.

Bad bots interact with applications in the same way a legitimate user would, making them harder to detect and prevent. They enable high-speed abuse, misuse, and attacks on websites, mobile apps, and APIs. They allow bot operators, attackers, unsavory competitors, and fraudsters to perform a wide array of malicious activities.

Such activities include web scraping, competitive data mining, personal and financial data harvesting, brute-force login, digital ad fraud, spam, transaction fraud, and more.

See more here:
Bad bot traffic increases, comprising almost one quarter of all website traffic - Help Net Security

Human Behavior

#WeThePlanet – Thrive Global

Each time I travel internationally, the first thing I notice is the state of youth and animals in urban environments. How are human beings and other species navigating urban landscapes? Did long-term thinking go into the design of the city with architects, urban planners, entrepreneurs, youth, and key stakeholders? Do the pigeons have all their toes?

I first travelled to France and Germany to learn about social business, and to attend the 2017 Global Social Business Summit in Paris. On the first day, I was invited to walk through the fourth arrondissement with Professor Yunus Bangladeshi delegation. I was inspired by these women and men, and the tremendous change and reach of social business in Bangladesh, France, and globally.

Nobel Laureate Muhammad Yunus is actively creating A World of Three Zeros. This is the title of his extraordinary book, a call to action to design the world you want to create with zero poverty, zero unemployment, and zero net carbon emissions. A human being is born to be active, creative, energetic, and a problem solver, always seeking new ways to unleash his or her unlimited potential, shares Yunus.

Today, on the 50th Anniversary of Earth Day in the midst of the COVID-19 global pandemic, We The Planet is taking action to make the impossible possible. Humanity is at an inflection point. I have been reading and re-reading the books of the most inspiring writers, my personal heroes and some of our partners. These icons for the planet all have something to say about protecting cities, nations, and life on the planet.

When we founded We The Planet and launched the #WeThePlanet campaign at the United Nations during UNGA Week in 2019, we considered our own species global triumphs and failures. Humanity can do better to protect all life on land. All species. We as humans must go beyond We The People, and focus on something that is larger than ourselves. As a collective, we must be focused on We The Planet, states Sood.

The great leaders of ancient civilizations shared a profound understanding of human behavior. Marcus Aurelius (A.D. 121-180) provided Rome and the world at large with wisdom on every facet of life, from coping with adversity to interacting with others. In Meditations, he states,

Dont ever forget these things:

The nature of the world.

My nature.

How I relate to the world.

What proportion of it I make up.

That you are part of nature, and no one can prevent you from speaking and acting in harmony with it, always.

The nature of human beings is inextricably tied to the state of the planet, yet many people forget this crucial link. We can be fearless while acting with integrity. Lets make the impossible possible. Everybody can do something to improve life on land and life under the sea. To act without fear or favor indeed, the very language in the founding documents of The New York Times is at the heart of We The Planet. Everybody can do something to protect all life on the planet, and we must prepare ourselves to make it happen. We are ready. We are one.

Read this article:
#WeThePlanet - Thrive Global

Human Behavior

Rewriting the definition of 2020 | News, Sports, Jobs – timesobserver.com

Leigh Rovegno is the Executive Director at ACNC.

2020 marks the beginning of a new way forward in more ways than one. Its the beginning of a new decade, one of which that is already filled with many uncertainties. The year is defined by Wikipedia as follows:

The 2020s (pronounced twenty-twenties) is the current decade in the Gregorian calendar, which began on 1 January 2020 and will end on 31 December 2029.

The decade began with the coronavirus pandemic which quickly spread to 210 countries and territories. The pandemic led to severe global socioeconomic disruption, the postponement or cancellation of sporting, religious, political and cultural events, and widespread shortages of supplies exacerbated by panic buying. Due to reduced travel and closures of heavy industry, there was a decrease in air pollution and carbon emissions.

The interesting thing about Wikipedia is that its definitions change with time. This definition is not written in stone. As I read about all of discussions of when and how we will all return to normal once the coronavirus pandemic passes I find myself wondering SHOULD we return to normal, or perhaps instead should we take advantage of this opportunity to create a NEW normal'?

If I were to rewrite the definition of 2020 it would read:

The 2020s, which began on 1 January 2020 and ended on 31 December 2029, was a transitional time for humanity. The decade began with the outbreak of the coronavirus which led to unprecedented socioeconomic disruption. This disruption inspired a significant shift in the human perspective that changed the trajectory of the entire planet.

It was during this time when humans returned to their basic skills and values. They re-learned the once-lost art of growing their own food. They began giving back to their local businesses and communities through volunteerism, financial support, and providing services to those in need. Humanitys appreciation of nature was renewed. An increased determination to protect the environment around them resulted in saving hundreds of plants and animal species from extinction. During this decade, many lives were lost, but many lives were also saved as a result of this greatly transitional time.

We are being presented with an opportunity to change history and to rethink what we value, to reshape our economy and our society based on our values. I wonder, what do you envision as the new normal? What do you want this time to be remembered as? What do you want the future to look like? Now is the time to make those changes. Now is the time to put people and planet first.

Fifty years ago, on April 22, 1970, the first Earth Day was celebrated. As a result, many environmental habits and laws came into being including the Clean Air and Water Acts and the Endangered Species Act. Fifty years is a long time to see real results, and many of us may have forgotten just how far we have come since then. It is a hard thing to remember when you are ten how the river looked compared to how it looks now. Slow change is very hard to measure, so hard that sometimes we forget that the change has even occurred. The truth is that great strides have been made, but theres still some ways to go.

The changes right now are much faster, because the change in human behavior has been much faster. My wish is that we expand our desire to preserve and protect humanity through this crisis to include the preservation and protection of all species, and of the Earth as a whole. For all those who say We cant make a difference, we ARE making a difference RIGHT NOW. A huge one. The difference is life-changing for so many.

In Belgium, seismologists have reported that their instruments on the Earths surface are able to pick up the subtleties of the planet usually picked up by instruments buried 100 meter under the surface. Noise has fallen 30%, as if there were two people talking and suddenly one stopped. Weather patterns are changing, air quality is improving, people in cities are hearing birds sing that they didnt even know lived in the city. Audubons birdseed is flying off the shelves because people at home are noticing the birds in their backyards, perhaps for the first time, and theyre taking the time to stop and enjoy their incredible beauty.

This moment is a remarkable opportunity. We, as humans, can make a difference in life across the planet. Our daily choices, though influenced now by efforts to contain a pandemic, affect the world.

I hope that when the Wikipedia entry is finalized for 2020, that it tells the story of a people that rose to the challenge, that overcame personal loss, community loss, and global hardship to create a safer, healthier planet for all. That humans became a beneficial part of the natural world, not a collective user and abuser. That they embraced the spirit of the 50th Earth Day Anniversary and bettered the entire planet as they bettered their own cultures.

Now THAT would be the epic start to a new decade.

Leigh Rovegno is the Executive Director at ACNC.

Today's breaking news and more in your inbox

Link:
Rewriting the definition of 2020 | News, Sports, Jobs - timesobserver.com