In a very practical sense, it is probably not important whether there is a natural state for climate or not. I say this because – from the perspective of taking effective action – we only need ways of conceptualizing the disruption of the climate system (which would implicate an undisrupted prior state) in order to adjust our contribution to the trajectory the climate system is taking.

We need this concept because it makes abundantly clear the truth of our role in contributing to the harms of climate volatility in the coming decades. Without understanding our role, we cannot take effective action to alter the consequences of our collective behaviors.

The second question is the real crux of efforts to address climate change. An unfortunate logical entailment of the disruption frame is that it allows for the possibility that this pre-disruption state can be returned to in the abstract. I don’t believe this to be the case, in the strict literal sense, because the climate of the future will be different from the climate of the past. We are, after all, dealing with a highly non-linear and chaotic system.

That said, there are key and vital features of the prior climate system that we must strive to return to. One of these is the level of CO2 in the atmosphere. I do believe there are ways to reduce the amount of CO2 we put into the atmosphere… and even go so far as to reduce the concentrations lower than they are now.

The challenge is doing so.

If I understand correctly, what you wrote indicated that with time and increasing volatility of the climate system, we don’t actually know with any degree of certainty whether supermodels will take their clothes off or put them back on in the advent of crisis-point?

We have entered unchartered waters indeed!

May I ask then, (1) do you believe there is a ‘natural state of nakedness’ in the global climate system? and (2) Is it possible to reduce and maintain carbon dioxide levels at their ‘undisturbed state’?

Apologies if you have blog posts that answer these questions that I have yet to visit. I do look forward to be pointed towards any answers you may have to these questions.

I feel something visceral when I think about the empowerment of women to claim their physical selves as a basis for environmental activism, which this video promotes through young women shedding cultural layers to be in their “natural state” – whether this means naked or, more profoundly, their true selves when they strip off the layers of materialism.

There’s a lot of material to work with there.

Yes, it’s what makes the video — and your post provocative. Plus, I like the allegory. Stripping supermodels and the naked brain.

What if I want to increase my carbon libido footprint?

Seriously, the fun of this video is that you can play around with these concepts and make just this kind of joke. The ideas are simple, intuitive, and (probably) interesting to people who don’t normally talk about cap-and-trade or the latest report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

That’s my hope anyway.

Also, I’m not saying that this video will have a sweeping impact that transforms how the public at large thinks about climate either. This is a simple case study in human conceptualization. The conceptual metaphors, image schemas, and semantic frames I highlight are part of the meaning making process. They function outside conscious awareness and make it possible to understand the video while watching it.

The long-term behavioral changes that come with exposure to media are influenced by these cognitive operations, albeit in non-linear and emergent ways with many other influencing factors that confound efforts to find a simple “A caused B” relationship. Yet, they are still part of the process.

I never claimed that this video would lead to serious behavioral change, yet criticisms of my analysis are often directed at this. Let me be absolutely clear here:

This analysis is meant to show that hidden mental processes are very important in politics and can be uncovered through methodologies from the cognitive sciences.

In other words, the role of cognition in politics is very important. That’s my point and I’m sticking to it.

A large number of viewings doesn’t necessarily mean the spot got across a pro-environment message. It may just mean a bunch of 14-year-old boys got to watch models strip down. Do you have empirical data to prove otherwise?

Moreover, serious is not necessarily dull. Re-view LBJ’s “Daisy” spot or Reagan’s “Bear In the Woods.” Serious subjects with serious — and very persuasive — messages.