When you throw something in the recycling bin, do you think about what it could become? And when you do, does it make you more likely to use that recycling bin? Recently, a study was conducted in an effort to decide whether or not explaining to people what their recyclables are transformed into would help increase recycling rates.

The researchers started with a group of 111 college students, asked to draw on paper before watching one of three ads.One was a public service message that showed paper going into recycling bins.The other two also showed the paper either being transformed into new paper or a guitar.After completing a survey, the students were asked to deal with the paper when they left. Half of those who saw the first ad recycled their paper, while the recycling rate jumped to 80% for those who'd seen the other ads.

After doing a few more lab experiments, the researchers headed into the real world.At a party, volunteers spoke with attendees (出席者) about recycling, with half mentioning transformed products and half keeping it general.They discovered the subject of the talks came into play.After the game, the recycling and trash bags were weighed.Those who received a message recycled over half of their waste, while those who did not recycled less than a fifth.

All this is to say that details matter.People want to know what treasures their trash can become, and when that's laid out clearly, they' re more likely to do it.Perhaps recycling companies should redesign signs to describe the items being created.Recycling is far from a perfect solution,but it doesn't hurt to manage to improve its rates.

There is a kind of climate pollution that we can’t see clearly. It isn’t in our rivers, lands or skies, it is in our minds. When climate disinformation goes unchecked, it spreads like wildfire, undermining the existence of climate change and the need for urgent action.

Like the biosphere that sustains us, the health of our information ecosystems is vital to our survival. As an artist, I feel a responsibility to create new ways of seeing the disinformation that has come to define the age of fake news.

Social media sites are honed to grab our attention. Using sophisticated algorithms, the corporations behind them decide what billions of people see around the world, dictated by what keeps you hooked, but also by what the companies paying social media sites choose to put in front of you.

Powerful corporate actors deploy clever influence campaigns via ads targeted at specific users based on what social media firms know about those people. Major oil and gas companies have spent billions of dollars over the years persuading consumers about their green proofs, when only 1 per cent of their expenditure in 2019 was on renewable energy. This is known as corporate greenwashing. Still, fossil fuel firms maintain that their climate policies are “responsible” and “in line with the science”.

To expose the scale of corporate greenwashing online, I was part of a team that recently launched Eco-Bot.Net. Co-created with artist Rob “3D” Del Naja of the band Massive Attack and Dale Vince, a green entrepreneur, Eco-Bot. Net’s AI-powered website ran throughout the COP26 climate summit, exposing climate change misinformation by releasing a series of data drops for heavily polluting sectors, including energy, agribusiness and aviation.

Academic definitions of climate disinformation and greenwashing were used to unearth posts across Facebook, Instagram and Twitter and visualize them on our website. Eco-Bot.Net then flagged greenwashing ads and posts on the original social media site with a public health warning.

By digging into our data, journalists have already revealed that companies are targeting specific demographics in order to influence public perceptions about climate change – and even alter government policy.

One data drop focused on the 100 biggest fossil fuel producers, companies that have been the source of 71 per cent of global carbon emissions. It found that 16 of these companies ran 1705 greenwashing and climate misinformation ads globally on Facebook and Instagram this year. In total, they spent more than £4 million creating influence campaigns that generated up to 155 million impressions.

Social media companies could end most of the harms from climate disinformation on their platforms if they wanted to. Flagging systems were swiftly introduced to warn users of posts containing disinformation about covid-19. The scientific consensus on human-caused global warming has been resolute for decades, so why can’t a similar flagging system be implemented for related disinformation?

It is true that Twitter and Facebook have both introduced climate science information hubs, but these are little more than PR exercises that fail to directly tackle climate disinformation on any kind of scale.

This epidemic of climate change disinformation on social media is eroding collective ideas of truth. In this post-truth age of disinformation, we hope that the public, the press and policy-makers will be able to use our data findings to see what is hidden by what we see online.

For the first time, we can witness the regional scale of corporate greenwashing. The era of climate denial and delay is largely over — except, as Eco-Bot.Net has revealed, on social media.

Fewer dings, please!

I have some important information. The average American—oh, wait. <ding!> New notification(通知). CNN: something about Taylor and Travis. Hmmm. <ding!> And our dog food is out for delivery. Whew. Why do they always send me such messages?

The average American gets about 70 smartphone notifications a day. And according to a new study, the number is far higher for teenagers, whose phones ding and vibrate with hundreds or even thousands of daily notifications. This constantly distracts us from work, life, and each other.

“Humans are not good at doing so many things at the same time,” Professor Smith, a behavioral scientist, reminded us. “It takes extra time and efforts to switch our attention. We feel more tired and get interrupted so many times a day that these effects can lead to a decrease in our happiness and social connection.”

I am grateful to get the latest news that my favorite basketball team has won. I’m eager for messages from my family. But I wonder why The New York Times feels it is urgent to remind me, as they did this week, about “The 6 Best Men’s and Women’s Cashmere Sweaters.”

This is, of course, a circumstance created by ourselves. It is true that instant communication has brought us too much information. So many urgent notifications, not many of which are truly urgent; and only a few are interesting. So many hours spent looking at the light of a small screen, while so often being unaware of the world all around us. So why not choose to check notifications just several times a day?

<ding!> Hey! My Cashmere Sweater is here!