 |
|
|
|||||
Human activity is driving climate change; thats a fact that more than 99.9% of scientific papers agree on. But the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has quietly removed that information from a webpage explaining climate changes causes. Its yet another move by the Trump administration that downplays climate science. Trump has previously called climate change a hoax, repealed numerous climate laws, and has bolstered the use of fossil fuels, the burning of which are the main cause of rising heat-trapping greenhouse gas emissions. An EPA page titled Causes of Climate Change once began by directly noting that since the Industrial Revolution, human activities have released large amounts of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, which has changed the earths climate. Now, that page begins by stating, Natural processes are always influencing the earths climate and can explain climate changes prior to the Industrial Revolution in the 1700s. (The previous version of the website is still available via online archives.) The previous EPA web page above, noting human activity as a cause, and the edited version below. [Screenshots: epa.gov] A purging of scientifically accurate information Daniel Swain, a climate and weather scientist at UCLA, noticed the change earlier this week. It began when a weather communications colleague reached out to him about the EPAs Indicators of Climate Change section being offline. That section wasnt just one web page, but an entire subdomain that included data, maps, and detailed stories on certain climate change indicators like shrinking glaciers and rising sea levels. It was often used by experts, including Swain himself, to grab ready-made info graphics and other resources. Swain looked into that issue, and found that the link now redirects to a broken web page. Then he started digging into other webpages from the EPA. It immediately became clear that there had been a much larger scale, essentially, purging of scientifically accurate information from a large portion of the EPA public facing website, he says. The EPA also removed a sub page on climate change impacts that discussed events like floods and heatwaves. But even more concerning than certain pages disappearing, Swain says, was the change to the causes webpage removing the mention of human activity. That had been, not removed, but dramatically modified to the point where it is now false, he says. The move isnt necessarily surprising from the Trump administration, Swain adds. But he calls it a pretty clearly deliberate effort to shift the public facing view on formally authoritative federal agency documents, communications, and websites to align with partisan political priorities. The previous “Indicators of Climate Change” website, and the new broken link. [Screenshots: epa.gov] Its not exactly clear when these changes occurred, but the Wayback Machine shows the comments about human activity still on the EPA website in early October. While nearly all information about human-caused climate change has been scrubbed from the website, one stray reference to it remains, at the end of a section discussing how volcanic eruptions have previously released large amounts of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. Volcanic particles from a single eruption do not produce long-term climate change because they remain in the atmosphere for a much shorter time than greenhouse gases, that section currently reads. In addition, human activities emit more than 100 times as much carbon dioxide as volcanoes each year. In a statement to the New York Times, a spokesperson for EPA administrator Lee Zeldin noted that the archives still existed, and said that the Trump administration is focused on human health over left-wing political agendas. This agency no longer takes marching orders from the climate cult, she added. (A separate EPA webpage, titled Future of Climate Change, does still point to human causes of global warming.) Humans have caused more than 100% of climate change The science on climate change is clear: Human activity is the cause. In fact, previous climate scientists analyses have found that humans have caused more than 100% of global warming since 1950. That’s possible because of the fact that earths natural cycles have actually slightly cooled the planet over the last century. Essentially, human causes have not only caused the warming that we’ve seen, but it’s also offset a bit of cooling that otherwise would have occurred, Swain says. Human caused warming is, for all intents and purposes, the singular cause of contemporary climae change, he adds. Disinformation and AI confusion There are other resources for accurate climate information that note human activity as its cause. But the EPAs move to remove that information points to a broader issue, in which the Trump administration is eroding credibility in government information and its institutions at large. The same thing has played out on the CDC and Health and Human Services websites, specifically concerning vaccines. To Swain, altering a page on climate change causes shows intent to deceive. They chose not to delete that page. They heavily modified it to the point of scientific incorrectness, he says. That is choice . . . and it is arguably something that is even more deeply concerning, because it shows a willingness, essentially, to lie, and to present information that is false. This move from the EPA could also have ricochet effects. Consider AI overviews and LLMs, Swain says. If they re-aggregate these webpages from the EPA, they may also regurgitate those falsehoods. The algorithm is not capable of differentiating truth from fiction, he says. The challenge is that it is getting more and more difficult to find consistent, reliable, and authoritative sources for this kind of information.
Category:
E-Commerce
Change is often presented as an enigma. Unlike a traditional management task, you cant just devise a plan and execute it. To be an effective change leader, you need to embrace a certain amount of uncertainty because change, by definition, involves doing new things, and that always involves some measure of unpredictability. Still, that doesnt mean change is mysterious. We actually know a lot about it. In Diffusion of Innovations, researcher Everett Rogers compiled hundreds of studies performed over many decades. Around the same time, Gene Sharp led a parallel effort to understand how large-scale political movements drive social and institutional change. So while any change effort involves no small amount of uncertainty, there is also quite a bit of consistency. Much as Tolstoy remarked about families, all successful transformations end up looking very much alike, while all unsuccessful transformations end up failing in their own way. Here are four numbers to keep in mind as you embark on your change journey. 1. Three Quarters Of Transformational Initiatives Fail In 1983, McKinsey consultant Julien Phillips published a paper in the journal Human Resource Management that described an adoption penalty for firms that didnt adapt to changes in the marketplace quickly enough. His ideas became McKinseys first change management model that it sold to clients. Yet it was Harvards John Kotter, in his seminal 1996 book Leading Change, who really popularized the idea of change management, bringing it from academic theory into the practical world of business. His eight-step change management process continues to define the field for many even today. Later, Proscis ADKAR model gained prominence. Yet for all of the prestige surrounding these ideas, theres no evidence that any of these change management methods actually work. In fact, in a 2021 study McKinsey found that 69% of transformation efforts fail. A more recent study by Bain found that only 12% succeeded and 75% had mediocre results. Thats abysmal. There are many theories about why change fails. The McKinseys report points out that the source of failure can come at any stage, from target setting to planning, implementation, and after. Bain found that nearly all failed transformations were underfunded. In truth, however, these are symptoms, not causes. In my research Ive found something simpler and more fundamental: change fails because people resist it. If you can overcome resistance, change is possible. If not, it isnt. That is why we developed a simple tool called the Resistance Inventory, so that our clients can anticipate resistance from Day 1 and build strategies to mitigate it. 2. Two-Thirds Of Employees Experience Change Fatigue Managers launching a new initiative often seek to start with a bang. They work to gain approval for a sizable budget as a sign of institutional commitment. They recruit high-profile executives, arrange a big kick-off meeting, and look to move fast, gain scale, and generate some quick wins. All of this is designed to create a sense of urgency and inevitability. Yet trying to manufacture urgency often backfires. In Cultures of Growth, Stanford social psychologist Mary C. Murphy points out that disruption undermines the growth mindset that is essential for building an innovative culture. In particular, she cites research indicating that fear inhibits learning. There is also evidence to suggest that this effect is especially pronounced among top performers, who tend to be more prone to anxiety. Now consider a 2014 report by PwC. In a survey of more than 2,200 executives, managers, and employees located across the globe, it found that 65% of respondents cited change fatigue, and only about half felt their organization had the capabilities to deliver change successfully. It gets worse: 44% of employees say they dont understand the change theyre being asked to make and 38% say they dont agree with it. Perhaps not surprisingly, employees view new transformation initiatives suspiciously, taking a wait-and-see attitude, undermining the momentum and leading to a boomerang effect in which early progress is reversed when leadership moves on to other priorities. The impact on mental health is substantial. Stress disengages the parts of the brain related to cognitive and executive functions and activates the emotional parts of the brain instead. A recent study by the American Psychological Association found that 71% of American workers report feeling stressed at work and three in five say it negatively impacts their performance. 3. Only 10%20% Participation Is Needed To Hit An Inflection Point The biggest misconception about change is that, to get people to adopt it, you need to sell the value of an alternative future. The real problem with change is that the status quo has inertia on its side, and never yields its power gracefully. It has had yearsor even decadesto build support amng internal and external stakeholders. Thats why most transformational efforts fail and why two-thirds experience change fatigue. The status quo, despite its drawbacks, is what people know. To adopt something new, we need to overcome the synaptic patterns built up in our brains, the cultural forces to which we have conformed and to overcome switching costs. Thats never easy. So how do you break the cycle? The good news is that you dont have to convince everyone at once. We know from the earliest diffusion studies on things like hybrid corn and tetracycline that it takes only 10%20% to adopt an innovation for rapid acceptance by the majority to follow. Everett Rogers, in his seminal Diffusion of Innovations, found that this pattern was consistent over hundreds of studies spanning many decades. The key is to understand that change doesnt spread through communication campaigns, but through peer networks. If you can empower 10%20% of your organization to be successful with a new idea, they will spread it to their friends, who will spread it to others still. People adopt what they see working around them. So instead of trying to shape opinions, work to shape networks. 4. 84% of U.S. Corporate Assets Are Now Intangible Assets In the early 1980s, Intels President, Andy Grove, realized he had a problem. The company had built its business on DRAM memory chips. But competition from the Japanese was killing its profits. As he described in his book, Only The Paranoid Survive, things came to head in the middle of 1985. He turned to Intels Chairman and CEO Gordon Moore and asked him what a hypothetical new CEO would do if they were both fired. Moore replied without hesitation that the new CEO would get us out of memories. It was right then and there that a decision was made to focus on the microprocessors that would lead Intel to industry dominance. Its a great story and, for many, it has come to epitomize effective change leadership. Leaders make a strategic decision, communicate it effectively, and see that it is implemented at every level of the organization. Questions and concerns are listened to and addressed, but at the same time, the message is clear: Change is coming and you need to get on board. But consider that research shows in 1975, during roughly the same period that Gove and Moore transformed Intel, 83% of the average US corporations assets were tangible assets, such as factories, machinery, and buildings. When your assets are tangible, change is largely about communicating strategic decisions made from above. Theres little anybody can do to resist them anyway. However, the very same research finds that by 2015, 84% of corporate assets became intangible, such as licenses, patents, and research. Change is no longer about making decisions about strategic assets, but about influencing what people think and do everyday. You cant try to force or overpower that kind of change, you need to attract and empower. And that is probably the most important thing to know about how transformations happen today: change itself has changed. We can no longer just tell people to do what we want; we need to attract people who want what we want, who share our sense of mission. It is no longer enough to simply plan and direct action; we must inspire and empower belief.
Category:
E-Commerce
I want to talk about something that I feel like maybe is a little controversial, content creator Jaclyn Hill said in a video posted earlier this week. The OG beauty influencer got her start on YouTube well over a decade ago. She’s since grown across different social media channels, including Instagram and TikTok, where she has 8.5 million and 1.2 million followers, respectively. In the video, which has since racked up over 3.5-million views, she opens up about how she’s been struggling to get views on TikTok and feels like she’s running through mud to connect with her followers. When you have a million followers, but youre getting 30,000 views, this is just not the way it used to be, she said. She was rightthe video proved controversial. Fans instantly took to the comments to push back at Jaclyn, saying that the influencer was being out of touch. One user commented: Saying Im burnt out from posting Sephora hauls and grwms to employed people is insane. Another wrote: Babe. That sweatshirt is $140. That’s my entire weekly grocery budget that we can afford for our entire family. Amid the backlash, an important point has been somewhat lost. Hill was taking issue with low views, a sign that her content is not being shown to those who have chosen to follow her. She was not raising the issue of low engagement, which would have been a sign that her followers were no longer enjoying her content. Instead, Hill has inadvertently found herself the newest face of a longstanding conversation around influencer fatigue. These feelings have been bubbling for a few years now and every few months resurface in reaction to one viral video or another. Jacyln, youre rich, and you won, one creator, @daadisnacks, said in response to her video. Im sorry if people dont want to be drowned in overconsumption by influencers when they cant afford groceries or housing. Fast Company has reached out to Hill for comment. This sums up the general sentiment online, as internet users are increasingly fed up with inescapable ads and being sold to 24/7. In many cases, people arent buying what influencers are selling, namely luxury items and extravagant lifestyles that feel overwhelmingly out of touch with most Americans reality. Such conspicuous consumption has grown somewhat distasteful at a time when nearly half of Americans are struggling to afford rent and groceries. Content creators on the whole are an easy target, especially when they are seen to be complaining to the audience that gave them their platform in the first place. Its worth reiterating, Hills issue was directed at the algorithm not her followersa complaint that has been echoed by other influencers on the platform over the years. As opposed to platforms like Instagram, where users would have to actively follow accounts to see influencer posts in their feeds, TikTok relies on an algorithm that shows users posts on their For You page based on what their behavior suggests they might like. Let’s say a group of viewers responds positively to a video, either by sharing the video or watching it in full, TikTok then shows it to more people who it thinks share similar interests. That same process then repeats itself, until the video goes ultimately viral. But if the first group of viewers the video is shown to only watches a few seconds before scrolling on, it is then shown to fewer users, limiting its potential reach. If viewers are no longer interested in watching overconsumption from influencers, the algorithm will stop pushing it out. For Hill, she put the question to her followers as to what they want to see instead. Addressing the backlash in a follow up video, she said: My ears are open, Im listening.
Category:
E-Commerce
All news |
||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||