Social, Behavioral Scientists Eligible to Apply for NSF S-STEM Grants
Solicitations are now being sought for the National Science Foundation’s Scholarships in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics program, and in an unheralded […]
The challenge of climate change is enormous and requires an all-of-science effort. Psychologists must be part of the solution.
How will climate change affect where – and how – we live? Join an expert panel of demographers as they give a […]
What are the three biggest challenges Australia faces in the next five to ten years? What role will the social sciences play in resolving these challenges? The Academy of the Social Sciences in Australia asked these questions in a discussion paper earlier this year. The backdrop to this review is cuts to social science disciplines around the country, with teaching taking priority over research.
With climate change disasters, as with infectious diseases, rapid response time and global coordination are of the essence. At this stage in the COVID-19 situation, there are three primary lessons for a climate-changing future: the immense challenge of global coordination during a crisis, the potential for authoritarian emergency responses, and the spiraling danger of compounding shocks.
A new analysis published in the journal Energy Research & Social Science finds that funding for social science climate-change research is not only unhealthy but downright anemic at roughly 10 percent of the total spend. Meanwhile, total spending on climate-change research in total, regardless of discipline, comes to just 5 percent of all competitive research grants funded between 1950 and 2018.
As we are often reminded, we urgently and drastically need to limit our use of one shared resource – fossil fuels – and its effect on another – the climate. But how realistic is this goal, both for national leaders and for us? Well, psychology may hold some answers.
Derek Wall praises ‘The Two Degrees Dangerous Limit for Climate Change: Public Understanding and Decision Making,’ Christopher Shaw’s exploration of environmental policymaking. The book focuses on the public circulation of 2°C as the widely cited maximum figure by which temperatures can be allowed to rise.
The natural sciences present easy-to-follow prescriptions for addressing climate change. Unfortunately, getting human beings to sign on requires navigating a maze of psychological, domestic, social, economic, political and cultural forces.