Why is the UNFCCC and the Paris agreement under “definite” solutions? That seems like a textbook case where specificity was completely lacking—there wasn’t any actual plan for how any particular signatory would actually hit their targets, or any concrete plan for what would happen when if they didn’t. It was all indefinite: they all agreed to somehow reduce emissions, without any definite vision.
On the other hand, personal behavior change like washing laundry in cold water is plenty specific and definite—the strategy says exactly what to do and has a simple cause-and-effect story from actions to results. The story may be wrong, but that doesn’t make it any less definite—just because a model doesn’t match reality does not mean that it’s lacking specificity. (On a side note, I’m not entirely convinced by your economic argument, although I’m unimpressed with personal behavior change strategies for other reasons. But again, all of that is orthogonal to specificity.) Same with offsetting: there’s an argument to be made that something is wrong with the strategy, but the problem is orthogonal to specificity/definiteness.
More generally, I feel like this sequence has been losing sight of the target (although your writing skills in themselves are great). The central point of the sequence, as I see it, is using specificity to notice when our models don’t have any gears in them—that’s a useful skill which applies in huge variety of areas, and you’re doing a decent job providing lots of examples. But specificity, like gears-y-ness, is not the only criteria for having a correct model. It’s independent of whether the specific examples are realistic, or of whether the model matches reality. The central message of specificity would be more effectively conveyed if the examples clearly separated it from correctness. “Specificity” is not just another synonym for “yay”.
Why is the UNFCCC and the Paris agreement under “definite” solutions? … It was all indefinite: they all agreed to somehow reduce emissions, without any definite vision.
Because at least having a world organization that sets per-country targets is what the start of a definite solution looks like.
On the other hand, personal behavior change like washing laundry in cold water is plenty specific and definite—the strategy says exactly what to do and has a simple cause-and-effect story from actions to results.
While the link “wash clothes > reduce your personal carbon footprint” is definite, my point is that the category of solutions that rely on the link “reduce your personal carbon footprint > solve carbon change” are indefinite.
I’m unimpressed with personal behavior change strategies for other reasons.
Nice, yeah me too
Same with offsetting: there’s an argument to be made that something is wrong with the strategy, but the problem is orthogonal to specificity/definiteness.
I still think it’s a problem of indefiniteness when people treat personal behavior change or personal carbon offsetting as part of a solution to the current crisis.
I feel like this sequence has been losing sight of the target … The central message of specificity would be more effectively conveyed if the examples clearly separated it from correctness.
I take your point, and I’ll probably go back after I finish the series and move out the content that’s less helpful to understanding specificity. I’d like the series to be a reference that people can link others to when they find themselves repeatedly asking the others to be more specific.
While the link “wash clothes > reduce your personal carbon footprint” is definite, my point is that the category of solutions that rely on the link “reduce your personal carbon footprint > solve carbon change” are indefinite.
I’m not seeing much difference in ‘definitedness’ between personal behavior change and “world organization that sets per-country targets” unless it’s just that solving global warming necessarily must involve global government. I think there are a LOT more examples of even ‘intra-country targets’ , for anything (not global warming), being effectively bullshit compared to examples of the opposite. I’m thinking of things like (the U.S.) The War on Drugs, but drug prohibition generally seems to fit pretty well.
And more generally, a lot of ‘government’ solutions seem to be pretty indefinite. It’s a depressingly common feature of government. (And of course governments do implement definite specific policies too, so it’s not an inevitable failure.)
I’m not seeing much difference in ‘definitedness’ between personal behavior change and “world organization that sets per-country targets” unless it’s just that solving global warming necessarily must involve global government.
Yes, I think some minimal level of global coordination may be necessary, and is very likely to play a significant causal role in the eventual outcome. For example, I think the US should feel more comfortable investing in a certain amount of carbon emissions reduction/sequestration knowing that other countries are officially supposed to also do their part.
In contrast, whether individuals focus any effort on reducing their footprint outside of their main system of economic incentives is definitely not going to have a causal role on the outcome.
Why is the UNFCCC and the Paris agreement under “definite” solutions? That seems like a textbook case where specificity was completely lacking—there wasn’t any actual plan for how any particular signatory would actually hit their targets, or any concrete plan for what would happen when if they didn’t. It was all indefinite: they all agreed to somehow reduce emissions, without any definite vision.
On the other hand, personal behavior change like washing laundry in cold water is plenty specific and definite—the strategy says exactly what to do and has a simple cause-and-effect story from actions to results. The story may be wrong, but that doesn’t make it any less definite—just because a model doesn’t match reality does not mean that it’s lacking specificity. (On a side note, I’m not entirely convinced by your economic argument, although I’m unimpressed with personal behavior change strategies for other reasons. But again, all of that is orthogonal to specificity.) Same with offsetting: there’s an argument to be made that something is wrong with the strategy, but the problem is orthogonal to specificity/definiteness.
More generally, I feel like this sequence has been losing sight of the target (although your writing skills in themselves are great). The central point of the sequence, as I see it, is using specificity to notice when our models don’t have any gears in them—that’s a useful skill which applies in huge variety of areas, and you’re doing a decent job providing lots of examples. But specificity, like gears-y-ness, is not the only criteria for having a correct model. It’s independent of whether the specific examples are realistic, or of whether the model matches reality. The central message of specificity would be more effectively conveyed if the examples clearly separated it from correctness. “Specificity” is not just another synonym for “yay”.
Because at least having a world organization that sets per-country targets is what the start of a definite solution looks like.
While the link “wash clothes > reduce your personal carbon footprint” is definite, my point is that the category of solutions that rely on the link “reduce your personal carbon footprint > solve carbon change” are indefinite.
Nice, yeah me too
I still think it’s a problem of indefiniteness when people treat personal behavior change or personal carbon offsetting as part of a solution to the current crisis.
I take your point, and I’ll probably go back after I finish the series and move out the content that’s less helpful to understanding specificity. I’d like the series to be a reference that people can link others to when they find themselves repeatedly asking the others to be more specific.
I’m not seeing much difference in ‘definitedness’ between personal behavior change and “world organization that sets per-country targets” unless it’s just that solving global warming necessarily must involve global government. I think there are a LOT more examples of even ‘intra-country targets’ , for anything (not global warming), being effectively bullshit compared to examples of the opposite. I’m thinking of things like (the U.S.) The War on Drugs, but drug prohibition generally seems to fit pretty well.
And more generally, a lot of ‘government’ solutions seem to be pretty indefinite. It’s a depressingly common feature of government. (And of course governments do implement definite specific policies too, so it’s not an inevitable failure.)
Yes, I think some minimal level of global coordination may be necessary, and is very likely to play a significant causal role in the eventual outcome. For example, I think the US should feel more comfortable investing in a certain amount of carbon emissions reduction/sequestration knowing that other countries are officially supposed to also do their part.
In contrast, whether individuals focus any effort on reducing their footprint outside of their main system of economic incentives is definitely not going to have a causal role on the outcome.