Dominika Lasota

[pieter]

Dominika Lasota



Dominika Lasota is a School strike for climate activist from Bydgoszcz in Poland who became a founding member of the Consultative Council created on 1 November 2020 in the context of the October 2020 Polish protests.

Childhood and education

Lasota, born in 2001 (age 19–20), attended Stonyhurst College in England for two years around 2018–2019 and participated in youth camps in the United States.

School strike for climate



Lasota is an activist in the School strike for climate movement and active in campaigning on European climate law and for a Just Transition, an economic transformation to a green economy that protects workers.

On 15 June 2020, Lasota was one of the activists holding a happening in front of the Chancellery of the Prime Minister of Poland to pressure the Polish government on climate crisis issues in the 19 June 2020 European Council meeting. Lasota argued that since scientists' advice was listened to during the COVID-19 pandemic, the advice of scientists in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Assessment and Special reports should also be listened to.

Lasota criticised the failure of the Prime Minister's staff to intervene in an attack on a climate activist. The attack occurred during a meeting between politicians and the public in Bydgoszcz on 26 June, in relation to the 2020 Polish presidential election. Several "older people" attacked climate activist Malwina Chmara, "just 1.5–2 metres from the Prime Minister", according to Lasota. Lasota stated that "nothing was done to stop the attack". Lasota and Chmara said that they didn't understand the reason for the violent attacks, and they found it hurtful that neither the prime minister's nor president's office apologised for the failure to intervene.



In an August 2020 protest in front of the Ministry for State Assets [pl], led by minister Jacek Sasin, Lasota stated that politicians excluded ordinary people from decision-making in relation to the climate crisis, instead favouring the Polish coal lobby.

In a protest in Bydgoszcz in September 2020, she argued that the climate crisis affected people unequally since poorer people were less able to protect their houses from hurricanes and floods. She stated effects of the climate crisis felt in Poland included the April 2020 forest fires in Biebrza National Park and farmers' losses induced by drought. Lasota stated that she and the other climate activists intended to "challenge the Polish prime minister to a fair transformation" in relation to global warming.

Consultative Council

Lasota was chosen as one of the founding members of the Consultative Council created on 1 November 2020 in the context of the October 2020 Polish protests, as a contact with the School strike for climate movement.

[pieter]

[pieter]

[pieter]

[pieter]

[kaima]

The Conversation
CLIMATE CHANGE
Don’t Look Up Illustrates 5 Myths That Fuel Rejection of Science
The farcical allegory of climate change shows the pitfalls of relying solely on technology and misunderstanding scientific certainty

By Gale Sinatra, Barbara K. Hofer, The Conversation US on January 7, 2022
Don't Look Up Illustrates 5 Myths That Fuel Rejection of Science
Credit: Marharyta Marko/Getty Images
The following essay is reprinted with permission fromThe ConversationThe Conversation, an online publication covering the latest research.

Every disaster movie seems to open with a scientist being ignored. “Don’t Look Up” is no exception—in fact, people ignoring or flat out denying scientific evidence is the point.

Leonardo DiCaprio and Jennifer Lawrence play astronomers who make a literally Earth-shattering discovery and then try to persuade the president to take action to save humanity. It’s a satire that explores how individuals, scientists, the media and politicians respond when faced with scientific facts that are uncomfortable, threatening and inconvenient.



The movie is an allegory for climate change, showing how those with the power to do something about global warming willfully avoid taking action and how those with vested interests can mislead the public. But it also reflects science denial more broadly, including what the world has been seeing with COVID-19.



The most important difference between the film’s premise and humanity’s actual looming crisis is that while individuals may be powerless against a comet, everyone can act decisively to stop fueling climate change.

Knowing the myths that feed science denial can help.

As research psychologists and the authors of “Science Denial: Why It Happens and What to Do About It”, we recognize these aspects of science denial all too well.


MYTH #1: WE CAN’T ACT UNLESS THE SCIENCE IS 100% CERTAIN
The first question President Orlean (Meryl Streep) asks the scientists after they explain that a comet is on a collision course with Earth is, “So how certain is this?” Learning that the certitude is 99.78%, the president’s chief of staff (Jonah Hill) responds with relief: “Oh great, so it’s not 100%!” Government scientist Teddy Oglethorpe (Rob Morgan) replies, “Scientists never like to say 100%.”

This reluctance to claim 100% certainty is a strength of science. Even when the evidence points clearly in one direction, scientists keep exploring to learn more. At the same time, they recognize overwhelming evidence and act on it. The evidence is overwhelming that Earth’s climate is changing in dangerous ways because of human activities, particularly the burning of fossil fuels, and it has been overwhelming for many years.

When politicians take a “let’s wait and see” attitude toward climate change (or “sit tight and assess,” as the movie puts it), suggesting they need more evidence before taking any action, it’s often a form of science denial.


MYTH #2: DISTURBING REALITIES AS DESCRIBED BY SCIENTISTS ARE TOO DIFFICULT FOR THE PUBLIC TO ACCEPT
The title phrase, “Don’t Look Up,” portrays this psychological assumption and how some politicians conveniently use it as an excuse for inaction while promoting their own interests.


Anxiety is a growing and understandable psychological response to climate change. Research shows there are strategies people can use to effectively cope with climate anxiety, such as becoming better informed and talking about the problem with others. This gives individuals a way to manage anxiety while at the same time taking actions to lower the risks.

A 2021 international study found that 80% of individuals are indeed willing to make changes in how they live and work to help reduce the effects of climate change.

MYTH #3: TECHNOLOGY WILL SAVE US, SO WE DON’T HAVE TO ACT
Often, individuals want to believe in an outcome they prefer, rather than confront reality known to be true, a response that psychologists call motivated reasoning.

For example, belief that a single technological solution, such as carbon capture, will fix the climate crisis without the need for change in policies, lifestyles and practices may be more grounded in hope than reality. Technology can help reduce our impact on the climate; however, research suggests advances are unlikely to come quickly enough.

Hoping for such solutions diverts attention from significant changes needed in the way we work, live and play, and is a form of science denial.


MYTH #4: THE ECONOMY IS MORE IMPORTANT THAN ANYTHING, INCLUDING IMPENDING CRISES PREDICTED BY SCIENCE
Taking action to slow climate change will be expensive, but not acting has extraordinary costs—in lives lost as well as property.

Consider the costs of recent Western wildfires. Boulder County, Colorado, lost nearly 1,000 homes to a fire on Dec. 30, 2021, after a hot, dry summer and fall and little recent rain or snow. A study of California’s fires in 2018—another hot, dry year—when the town of Paradise burned, estimated the damage, including health costs and economic disruption, at about $148.5 billion.

When people say we can’t take action because action is expensive, they are in denial of the cost of inaction.

MYTH #5: OUR ACTIONS SHOULD ALWAYS ALIGN WITH OUR SOCIAL IDENTITY GROUP
In a politically polarized society, individuals may feel pressured to make decisions based on what their social group believes. In the case of beliefs about science, this can have dire consequences—as the world has seen with the COVID-19 pandemic. In the U.S. alone, more than 825,000 people with COVID-19 have died while powerful identity groups actively discourage people from getting vaccines or taking other precautions that could protect them.

Viruses are oblivious to political affiliation, and so is the changing climate. Rising global temperatures, worsening storms and sea level rise will affect everyone in harm’s way, regardless of the person’s social group.


HOW TO COMBAT SCIENCE DENIAL—AND CLIMATE CHANGE
A comet headed for Earth might leave little for individuals to do, but this is not the case with climate change. People can change their own practices to reduce carbon emissions and, importantly, pressure leaders in government, business and industry to take actions, such as reducing fossil fuel use, converting to cleaner energy and changing agricultural practices to reduce emissions.

In our book, we discuss steps that individuals, educators, science communicators and policymakers can take to confront the science denial that prevents moving forward on this looming issue. For example:

Individuals can check their own motivations and beliefs about climate change and remain open minded to scientific evidence.

Educators can teach students how to source scientific information and evaluate it.

Science communicators can explain not just what scientists know but how they know it.

Policymakers can make decisions based on scientific evidence.

As scholars who work to help people make sound decisions about complex problems, we encourage people to consume news and science information from sources outside their own identity group. Break out of your social bubble and listen to and talk with others. Look up.

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.



ABOUT THE AUTHOR(S)
Gale Sinatra, Professor of Education and Psychology, University of Southern California.

Barbara K. Hofer, Professor of Psychology Emerita, Middlebury.