sexta-feira, 11 de maio de 2018

Estudo: Defensores da Mudança Climáticas são MENOS Eco-Friendly

Uma das coisas mais absurdas que a onda ambientalista do aquecimento global trouxe, como qualquer abordagem marxista traz, é uma forte divisão estúpida entre as pessoas. Hoje em dia costuma-se imaginar que qualquer um que discorde que exista aquecimento global ou mudança climática provocada pelo homem (antropogênica) é um cara que odeia a natureza, que joga lixo na rua, que desperdiça água e chuta cachorro.

Um estudo feito por psicólogos publicado no The Journal of Environmental Pscyhcology mostra que aqueles que defendem a mudança climática antropogênica têm comportamento pessoal mais destrutivo ao meio ambiente. 

O psicólogo Michael Hall liderou uma equipe de pesquisadores em uma pesquisa longa que analisou o comportamento ambiental de 600 americanos, divididos em três categorias relacionadas à crença sobre o aquecimento global: "céticos", "moderadamente preocupado" e "altamente preocupado".

Os resultados mostraram que os céticos são os que têm comportamento pessoal mais eco-friendly, são os que mais respeitam o meio ambiente em seus comprotamentos. Enquanto aqueles que estão mais preocupados com o aquecimento global são que mais destroem e desperdiçam os ativos ambientais!! 

Os pesquisadores consideraram questões como reciclagem, uso de transporte público, uso de produtos verdes e uso de sacolas ambientais.

Os pesquisadores ofereceram duas explicações para os resultados:

1) Aqueles que defendem o aquecimento global esperam que o governo ou uma entidade global resolva o problema, enquanto têm comportamento de "licenciosidade moral" pessoalmente. 

2) Aqueles que defendem o aquecimento global são esquerdistas e esquerdistas geralmente defendem maiores gastos públicos para resolver problemas sociais e assim comparativamente aos conservadores doam menos recursos próprios para as causas que defendem. Assim, se dedicam menos pessoalmente nas suas próprias causas. 

O trabalho ajuda a mostrar que devemos ter menos preconceitos contra que é cético sobre mudança climática antropogênica.

Vejam texto abaixo do Principia Scientific International.

Study: Climate Skeptics More ‘Eco Friendly’ Than Alarmists

Written by Thomas D. Williams PhD
Americans who are skeptical about climate change engage in personal behavior that is more friendly to the environment than climate alarmists, who support increased government regulation, a new study has found.
Michael Hall, a psychologist from the University of Michigan, led a team of researchers in a yearlong longitudinal study of 600 Americans who “regularly reported their climate change beliefs, pro-environmental behavior, and other climate-change related measures” and published the results of their study in The Journal of Environmental Psychology.
The researchers grouped their subjects into three categories based on their attitude toward climate change: the “skeptical,” the “cautiously worried,” and the “highly concerned” and correlated their beliefs with their personal lifestyle choices.
The results of the study contradicted the intuitive assumption that people most concerned about climate change would be the most likely to engage in eco-friendly behavior, revealing instead that the contrary is true. There is an inverse correlation between climate-change concern and environmentally beneficial action.
While very supportive of government action on climate, the group of “highly concerned” were the least likely to behave in environmentally friendly ways on a personal level, the study revealed.
The self-described “skeptics,” on the other hand, while the most opposed to government climate policies, were also the “most likely to report engaging in individual-level pro-environmental behaviors,” the study found.
The environmental lifestyle choices examined by Hall and his team included recycling, using public transportation, buying “green” products, and using reusable shopping bags.
Roughly once every eight weeks during the course of a year, participants in the study were asked about their climate change beliefs as well as their degree of support for policies such as gasoline taxes and fuel economy standards. They were also queried regarding their personal conduct.
As a result of the study, researchers concluded that “belief in climate change does not appear to be a necessary or sufficient condition for pro-environmental behavior.”
While the empirical study by Hall and his team did not offer an explanation for the inverse correlation between environmental belief and action, at least two possible theories present themselves.
First, there is a tendency among those who believe they are on the “right side” of an issue at the macro (governmental, social) level to be negligent in the same area at the micro or personal level, an instance of a phenomenon known in psychology as “moral licensing” or “self-licensing.”
By supporting government action in a given area, people may feel morally legitimatized to cut corners at the personal level, and the area of environmental stewardship is no exception.
As Stefan Hartmann of the University of Passau describes in his paper titled “Moral Licensing in the context of Environmental Behaviour,” such an apparent disconnect between belief and action is not uncommon. Supporting government intervention often leads a person to believe he has done his or her share for the environment, leading to “self-licensing” to act in contrary ways at the personal level, as other reports have noted.
Such “moral licensing” may help explain the apparent disconnect between belief and action of the world’s most famous climate alarmist, Al Gore. His 20-room, 10,070-square-foot, Colonial-style mansion reportedly consumes 21.3 times more kilowatt hours than the average U.S. household — including 66,159 kWh per year just to heat his swimming pool.
A second explanation may be found in the distinctive moral universes of conservatives and liberals. While good and bad are bipartisan and neither side can claim definitive moral high ground, there are statistically based moral tendencies that are revealing.
As reported by the New York Times in 2008, liberals favor generous government spending to help the neediest people at home and abroad, but give comparatively little in personal contributions to charitable causes. Personal virtue can be viewed as less important that government programs, which helps explain why liberals favor higher levels of taxation than conservatives, who would rather donate their money than have it taken from them.
Average annual charitable contributions from households headed by conservatives, for instance, give 30-50 percent more than liberal households, the Times article stated.
Similarly, the “generosity index” from the Catalogue for Philanthropy has found that red states are the most likely to give to nonprofits, while Northeastern states are least likely to do so, it noted.
“How America Gives,” a 2014 study published by The Chronicle of Philanthropy, used IRS data to analyze giving patterns across the country and compared levels of giving with how each state voted in the 2012 presidential election (Romney v. Obama).
The study found that the states in which people gave the highest percentage of their adjusted gross incomes were also states that voted for Romney, while states in which people gave the lowest percentage of their adjusted gross income voted for Obama. The top 17 most generous states all went for Romney.
The partisan divide in generosity is not limited to charitable donations. Conservatives also appear to be significantly more generous than liberals in nonfinancial ways, such as volunteering their time and giving blood, the Times article said.
Since the most ardent believers in climate change tend to be on the liberal end of the political spectrum, it would make sense that they would push government action on the environment, while doing less at the individual level.

segunda-feira, 7 de maio de 2018

Bancos Chineses Ficam Gigantescos e seus Riscos Também

Os três maiores bancos do mundo são chineses e eles estão gigantescos, os ativos desses bancos ultrapassaram em valor os ativos dos bancos europeus e dos bancos dos EUA.

Os números dos banco chineses chegam a limites nunca imaginados e seus riscos também. O mundo morre de medo deles, caso entrem em alguma espiral problemática.

O site The Week escreveu um ótimo artigo descrevendo-os.

Aqui vai uma parte do texto:

Lots of things are bigger in China: the population, the IPOs, the electrical dams, the Starbucks, even the mosquitos. Turns out the banks are bigger too.
The three largest banks in the world are all Chinese. The country's banking sector hit $35 trillion early this year — roughly 3.1 times the size of China's annual GDP. It overtook the eurozone's banking assets of $31 trillion — 2.8 times the eurozone's GDP — in late 2016. And it leapfrogged America's banks — $16 trillion in assets — back in 2010.

How did that happen? And should the rest of the world be worried about its gargantuan scale?

A lot of Western financial reporting has been nervously eyeing China's banks for several years now. When we talk about bank assets, a lot of that is loans made to households and companies. And China's banks built up their assets by lending like crazy over the last decade. If you add up the country's household, corporate, and government debt, the ratio of the total compared to GDP is roughly equivalent to America or Britain. But the speed with which China arrived at this point is kind of astounding.

Richard Vague, a former bank CEO and the chair of The Governor's Woods Foundation, told The Week that, just since 2008, China has seen "the largest growth in private debt in the history of the world."
You couldn't blame anyone for wondering if that pace of lending is sustainable.