Professor Henderson highlighted how CEO and worker opinions about the importance of climate change were important in determining how actively a company would pursue clean energy. I wonder how from a public policy or consumer behavior standpoint we could provide additional incentives for corporations that are lagging behind to start considering the climate more when determining their energy policies. While many corporations are adopting greener policies, we will need to act at a much faster rate to mitigate the impending climate disaster. I would like to ask Professor Henderson about how we can push more reluctant CEOs to change the direction of their company's approach to clean energy. I would ask: Clearly major corporations need to change from their "business as usual" approach to climate-friendly energy policy. How can we incentivize reluctant CEOs to adopt climate-friendly policies? Why do you surmise that these incentives, if they exist and would be effective, have not yet been implemented?
The most surprising fact from the interview was that people are likely to change their political stances on climate change based on their personal experience with climate events. After seeing some of the denial that fairly large swathes of the country have about climate change would have made me skeptical that people would respond to increased disaster frequency with a change of opinion. I think it is fascinating that people are more likely to change their voting behavior if they are struck with three climate change related natural disasters in a row. Professor Henderson used an example from the Carolinas to demonstrate that after three major natural disasters, voting patterns emerged that supported climate change mitigation efforts. I would like to know why three is the magic number that prompts a response. I am also curious about the human psychology behind why people sometimes only recognize pervasive issues if they are personally affected.