That each of us needs to get smarter about how we use energy is one of the messages that Danish diplomats deliver to decision makers around the world in the lead up to COP15.
To underpin this message, 17 Danish missions have decided to implement energy savings measures on their missions.
“The motivation was to ‘walk the talk’,” says Jesper Fersløv Andersen, deputy head of mission at the Danish embassy in Athens.”You are much more convincing when you show a good example yourself, especially in a country like Greece where people are fed up with words without action from their politicians and the EU.”
The Athens embassy has committed to cut electricity use with 4.5 pct. over the next three years. The embassy is the first out of 12 missions to sign a so-called curve-breaker agreement with the Danish Electricity Savings Trust. The agreement obliges missions to reduce their energy consumption with around 1.5 pct. per year.
The reductions will be achieved mainly by focusing on IT equipment, air conditioning systems, copying machines and TV sets.
An energy efficient procurement policy will also be implemented as part of the Curve Breaker Agreement.
While the effort to make Danish embassies greener aims to support an agreement in Copenhagen, the commitment to energy savings will continue beyond 2009.Most missions have already committed themselves to a three-year energy saving effort. Later this spring, a status report on the Green Mission project will be launched as part of a campaign to encourage more missions to walk the green talk
Tuesday, August 25, 2009
U.S. Chamber of Commerce seeks trial on global warming
The nation's largest business lobby wants to put the science of global warming on trial.The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, trying to ward off potentially sweeping federal emissions regulations, is pushing the Environmental Protection Agency to hold a rare public hearing on the scientific evidence for man-made climate change.Chamber officials say it would be "the Scopes monkey trial of the 21st century" -- complete with witnesses, cross-examinations and a judge who would rule, essentially, on whether humans are warming the planet to dangerous effect. "It would be evolution versus creationism," said William Kovacs, the chamber's senior vice president for environment, technology and regulatory affairs. "It would be the science of climate change on trial."The goal of the chamber, which represents 3 million large and small businesses, is to fend off potential emissions regulations by undercutting the scientific consensus over climate change. If the EPA denies the request, as expected, the chamber plans to take the fight to federal court.The EPA is having none of it, calling a hearing a "waste of time" and saying that a threatened lawsuit by the chamber would be "frivolous."EPA spokesman Brendan Gilfillan said the agency based its proposed finding that global warming is a danger to public health "on the soundest peer-reviewed science available, which overwhelmingly indicates that climate change presents a threat to human health and welfare." Environmentalists say the chamber's strategy is an attempt to sow political discord by challenging settled science -- and note that in the famed 1925 Scopes trial, which pitted lawyers Clarence Darrow and William Jennings Bryan in a courtroom battle over a Tennessee science teacher accused of teaching evolution illegally, the scientists won in the end.The chamber proposal "brings to mind for me the Salem witch trials, based on myth," said Brenda Ekwurzel, a climate scientist for the environmental group Union of Concerned Scientists. "In this case, it would be ignoring decades of publicly accessible evidence."In the coming weeks, the EPA is set to formally declare that the heat-trapping gases scientists blame for climate change endanger human health, and are thus subject to regulation under the Clean Air Act. The so-called endangerment finding will be a cornerstone of the Obama administration's plan to set strict new emissions standards on cars and trucks.The proposed finding has drawn more than 300,000 public comments. Many of them question scientists' projections that rising temperatures will lead to increased mortality rates, harmful pollution and extreme weather events such as hurricanes.In light of those comments, the chamber will tell the EPA in a filing today that a trial-style public hearing, which is allowed under the law but nearly unprecedented on this scale, is the only way to "make a fully informed, transparent decision with scientific integrity based on the actual record of the science."Most climate scientists agree that greenhouse gas emissions, caused by the burning of fossil fuels and other human activities, are warming the planet. Using computer models and historical temperature data, those scientists predict the warming will accelerate unless greenhouse gas emissions are dramatically reduced."The need for urgent action to address climate change is now indisputable," said a recent letter to world leaders by the heads of the top science agencies in 13 of the world's largest countries, including the head of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences.The EPA’s endangerment finding for greenhouse gases, as proposed in April, warned that warmer temperatures would lead to "the increased likelihood of more frequent and intense heat waves, more wildfires, degraded air quality, more heavy downpours and flooding, increased drought, greater sea level rise, more intense storms, harm to water resources, harm to agriculture, and harm to wildlife and ecosystems." Critics of the finding say it's far from certain that warming will cause any harm at all. The Chamber of Commerce cites studies that predict higher temperatures will reduce mortality rates in the United States.
Water must be on the table at Copenhagen talks
The participants of the 2009 World Water Week in Stockholm last Friday unanimously said that water must be included in the COP-15 climate negotiations in Copenhagen this December.
At various sessions throughout the Week, a number of organizations and officials have articulated the reasons why water needs to be an integral part of the negotiation process on climate change and adaptation. Those reasons became key points of the “Stockholm Statement” which the assembled participants of the 2009 World Water Week unanimously supported at the final plenary session this morning.
The Stockholm Statement from World Water Week to the COP-15
Introduction: Climate change is happening and adding complexity to existing global challenges. A strong and fair agreement on future global commitments on climate change measures—both mitigation and adaptation—is crucial in order to secure future water resource availability. The negotiations towards a Copenhagen Agreement are therefore of great concern to the global water community.
The importance of water must be properly and adequately reflected within the COP-15 agreement, and in processes beyond COP-15. In recent months substantial efforts have been undertaken to ensure that this is achieved including the Dialogue on Climate Change Adaptation for Land and Water Management, the 5th World Water Forum in Istanbul and during dialogues held at the Climate Change Negotiations.
Reflecting these efforts, and the urgent need to ensure that the global community is adequately prepared to respond to climate change, the following messages are conveyed from Stockholm to Copenhagen:
* Water is a key medium through which climate change impacts will be felt. Managing the resource effectively, including through well-conceived IWRM approaches and at a transboundary level, is central to successful adaptation planning and implementation, and to building the resilience of communities, countries and regions;
* Adaptation is a prerequisite for sustainable development and poverty reduction. Adaptation measures thus need proper integration within broader development goals and objectives, including the Millennium Development Goals;
* Integration of water with land and forest management is key to effective adaptation. We strongly endorse the Nairobi Statement on Integrated Land and Water Resources Management for Climate Change Adaptation; we also emphasize that water-related adaptation can and should support global mitigation actions;
* Ecosystem protection and sustainability is fundamental to adaptation and human development. We therefore urge increased efforts towards and investment in the protection and restoration of natural resources—including water—as an essential part of any adaptation process;
* Higher-quality information that is more effectively shared will strengthen responses. In particular there is a critical need for the water and climate communities to increase the sharing of information at all levels of policy and practice—from global to local, and from local to global;
* Vulnerability assessments and risk management are critical to sound adaptation practice. Knowing where and how the impacts of climate change are most likely to affect populations and ecosystems through the water cycle will help in the identification of areas for early intervention or ‘hot spots’; these include arid regions, areas highly dependent on groundwater, small island developing states, low-lying deltas and fragile mountainous areas;
* New and additional funds are essential. It is imperative that additional funding is allocated in support of developing adaptive strategies for vulnerable groups and ecosystems; there is a need for an initial mobilization of finance to assist vulnerable, low income countries already affected by climate change, followed by the establishment of a well-resourced mechanism for funding adaptation as part of ongoing climate negotiations.
Follow upWe urge the global water and climate communities to look beyond COP-15 and work through dialogue to strengthen global mechanisms that can enhance collective action on water and adaptation. These should include, but not be limited to, better sharing of knowledge and technology in support of adaptation measures in developing countries, active support for capacity building and access to improved levels of financing.
Finally, the water community expresses its commitment to strengthening institutional cooperation at all levels between the climate, water and wider development communities under appropriate mechanisms and institutional arrangements in order to work more collectively to address the immense development challenges ahead.
At various sessions throughout the Week, a number of organizations and officials have articulated the reasons why water needs to be an integral part of the negotiation process on climate change and adaptation. Those reasons became key points of the “Stockholm Statement” which the assembled participants of the 2009 World Water Week unanimously supported at the final plenary session this morning.
The Stockholm Statement from World Water Week to the COP-15
Introduction: Climate change is happening and adding complexity to existing global challenges. A strong and fair agreement on future global commitments on climate change measures—both mitigation and adaptation—is crucial in order to secure future water resource availability. The negotiations towards a Copenhagen Agreement are therefore of great concern to the global water community.
The importance of water must be properly and adequately reflected within the COP-15 agreement, and in processes beyond COP-15. In recent months substantial efforts have been undertaken to ensure that this is achieved including the Dialogue on Climate Change Adaptation for Land and Water Management, the 5th World Water Forum in Istanbul and during dialogues held at the Climate Change Negotiations.
Reflecting these efforts, and the urgent need to ensure that the global community is adequately prepared to respond to climate change, the following messages are conveyed from Stockholm to Copenhagen:
* Water is a key medium through which climate change impacts will be felt. Managing the resource effectively, including through well-conceived IWRM approaches and at a transboundary level, is central to successful adaptation planning and implementation, and to building the resilience of communities, countries and regions;
* Adaptation is a prerequisite for sustainable development and poverty reduction. Adaptation measures thus need proper integration within broader development goals and objectives, including the Millennium Development Goals;
* Integration of water with land and forest management is key to effective adaptation. We strongly endorse the Nairobi Statement on Integrated Land and Water Resources Management for Climate Change Adaptation; we also emphasize that water-related adaptation can and should support global mitigation actions;
* Ecosystem protection and sustainability is fundamental to adaptation and human development. We therefore urge increased efforts towards and investment in the protection and restoration of natural resources—including water—as an essential part of any adaptation process;
* Higher-quality information that is more effectively shared will strengthen responses. In particular there is a critical need for the water and climate communities to increase the sharing of information at all levels of policy and practice—from global to local, and from local to global;
* Vulnerability assessments and risk management are critical to sound adaptation practice. Knowing where and how the impacts of climate change are most likely to affect populations and ecosystems through the water cycle will help in the identification of areas for early intervention or ‘hot spots’; these include arid regions, areas highly dependent on groundwater, small island developing states, low-lying deltas and fragile mountainous areas;
* New and additional funds are essential. It is imperative that additional funding is allocated in support of developing adaptive strategies for vulnerable groups and ecosystems; there is a need for an initial mobilization of finance to assist vulnerable, low income countries already affected by climate change, followed by the establishment of a well-resourced mechanism for funding adaptation as part of ongoing climate negotiations.
Follow upWe urge the global water and climate communities to look beyond COP-15 and work through dialogue to strengthen global mechanisms that can enhance collective action on water and adaptation. These should include, but not be limited to, better sharing of knowledge and technology in support of adaptation measures in developing countries, active support for capacity building and access to improved levels of financing.
Finally, the water community expresses its commitment to strengthening institutional cooperation at all levels between the climate, water and wider development communities under appropriate mechanisms and institutional arrangements in order to work more collectively to address the immense development challenges ahead.
Triumph of the commons: Helping the world to share
DO YOU ever get the impression that civilisation has degenerated into an unedifying free-for-all? Like pigs gobbling at their troughs, we all seem to be out to get as much as possible of whatever is on offer. Everyone is at it, from loggers felling the Amazonian rainforest and fishers fighting over the last few cod to SUV drivers running the oil wells dry and politicians on their gravy trains. Science even has a name for the phenomenon - one that seems eerily prescient following the recent revelation about MPs' expense claims in the UK. It is called the Tragedy of the Commons.
Four decades ago, ecologist Garrett Hardin published a ground-breaking paper on this phenomenon, arguing that when personal and communal interests are at odds, overexploitation of resources is inevitable. His tragedy of the commons referred to the destruction of communal pasture when individual herders act rationally in their own best interests, each putting as many cows as possible onto the land. The same fate, he noted, is likely to befall any shared limited resource, from the atmosphere and oceans to national parks and rivers. Over the years, and with the rise of environmentalism, Hardin's ideas have become hugely influential.
Does this mean we are doomed to plunder the world's resources and trash our planet? Even Hardin wasn't entirely pessimistic. He noted that groups can create institutions to manage their communal resources, although these usually fail because of "free-riders" - individuals who try to reap the benefits of cooperation without paying any of the costs. The solution he came up with was "mutual coercion, mutually agreed upon by the majority of the people affected" (Science, vol 162, p 1243). In other words, people must give up their freedom to save the commons. I disagree.
Today we understand human nature and motivation far better than we did in Hardin's day. In particular, we know that individuals do not always act selfishly but also have some regard for the interests of others and the natural environment. Games such as the prisoner's dilemma and the public goods game demonstrate that under certain conditions people do behave altruistically (New Scientist, 12 March 2005, p 33). Besides, countless success stories attest to the fact that communities can overcome the tragedy of the commons without a great deal of coercion.
Putting all this together, I have identified four key conditions for the successful management of shared environmental resources: information, identity, institutions and incentives. (Current Directions in Psychological Science, vol 18, p 169). I believe we can and should use this 4i framework as the basis for a plan of action to combat local and global environmental catastrophe.
Information, identity, institutions and incentives correspond to what most psychologists believe are the four core motives that influence our decision-making in social dilemmas, respectively understanding, belonging, trusting and self-enhancing. Let's consider them in turn, starting with "institutions" because it is the one that comes closest to Hardin's prescription for overcoming the tragedy of the commons.
In our technologically and culturally complex modern world, many limited resources are managed by institutions, from private companies distributing water, to governments limiting air pollution through quotas. Hardin believed that such institutions cannot avert the tragedy of the commons without coercion because of the problem of free-riders. In fact, it is worse than that: researchers have since shown that introducing a system of policing simply creates a second-order free-rider problem - raising the issue of who guards the guards. Nevertheless, there are institutions that successfully promote environmental sustainability, so how do they do it?
The key is trust - and the cornerstone for building trust is fairness. In the 1991 California water shortage, the local water authorities tried to implement drastic water-saving measures but only with partial success. Residents were most likely to comply with authorities if they felt their concerns were taken seriously and they got accurate, unbiased information about the severity of the drought (Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, vol 69, p 482). Likewise, in my research I discovered that following the privatisation of the British railway network in 1994, railway passengers who did not trust the private companies to run the system efficiently and fairly were more likely to switch from trains to cars (Social Psychology Quarterly, vol 63, p 355).
Next up is information. People want to make sense of their natural environment - and their impact on it - but we seldom have enough information to evaluate questions such as: Should I recycle? Is it really worth turning those lights off? Would it be better to buy a new eco-friendly car or hang onto my old one for a while longer? And it turns out that the more uncertain we are the more likely we are to bias our decisions in our own narrow self-interest. In a lab study where a group of people were asked to manage a communal resource, they were far more successful when the resource was fixed in size than when its size fluctuated (European Journal of Social Psychology, vol 20, p 475). The researchers concluded that the environmental uncertainty caused by a fluctuating resource led individuals to underestimate the damage of their actions and exploit the resource to the point of collapse.
Equipped with better information, we face less environmental uncertainty and can therefore make more sustainable choices. But how can we improve the quality of environmental information available? First we must recognise that many aspects of environmental decision-making are intrinsically uncertain. That is especially true at the global level, where there is often a bewildering array of complex interacting factors. This is why local information, relevant to specific individuals in their particular circumstances, is far more effective at persuading people to change their behaviour. We are much more likely, for example, to act on information about local flood risks than on general data about the dangers of global climate change.
The best information systems are simple but accurate. The ABC rating system used throughout Europe for labelling household electrical appliances is a good example because it allows customers to compare at a glance complex information about energy use and emissions between different products. Research designed to evaluate this system also highlights the obvious but important point that information is most likely to promote sustainable behaviour when given to people who are already committed to the environment but lack the technical know-how to make a green choice.
Just connect
Targeted environmental education programmes are a good idea and they work particularly well in situations where people share a common social identity, because we are more likely to exchange environmentally relevant information when we identify more with our community. This effect is borne out in a classic example of triumph over tragedy of the commons among the lobster fishers of Maine. Over many decades they have developed a self-policing system to maintain the limited resource upon which their livelihood depends. Research shows that the system is most sustainable in small communities with dense social networks because fishers exchanged catch information more freely than in those with fewer connections (Ethology and Sociobiology, vol 12, p 221).
Social identity, a feeling of belonging to a social group, influences our behaviour in other ways too. My colleagues and I found that the more connected people felt to their community, the more willing they were to act in the group's interests by conserving water during a shortage (Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, vol 27, p 1440). Since we all identify most strongly with our primary groups - family, friends and neighbours - environmental messages that appeal to these relationships, such as "think of your children's future", can be highly effective.
People who identify with a group are also more concerned about upholding a green reputation. In another study we found that when people harvested from a common resource - a shared pot of money - and their decisions were made public they behaved more responsibly (Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, vol 32, p 1402).
Showing people how their behaviour compares with that of others produces a similar effect. When a US energy company started issuing its customers with smiley and frowney faces to indicate whether their bills were more or less than the neighbourhood average, energy consumption went down dramatically (Psychological Science, vol 18, p 429). Various environmental pressure groups use the power of social norms to "name and shame" polluting companies into changing their policies, and with success (Quarterly Review of Biology, vol 78, p 275).
One way to connect a group of strangers is through inducing competition with other groups. David De Cremer from Erasmus University in Rotterdam, the Netherlands, and I showed that students cooperated more with each other when they believed they were being compared with groups from other universities (European Journal of Social Psychology, vol 29, p 871). Creating competition between communities does not always promote environmental welfare, however. When a resource is the shared responsibility of several communities - such as the North Sea fish stocks - it is at even greater risk of depletion. That is why it is important to think of ways to blur group boundaries, for instance, by generating a superordinate social identity, such as, "we are all Europeans".
The fourth great motivator is incentives - appeals to people's desire to enhance themselves through seeking pleasure and avoiding pain. Government subsidies encourage people to adopt green technologies. Fines persuade individuals and companies to comply with environmental regulations. However, some incentive schemes are more effective than others. My own research on domestic water use indicates that economic incentives make little difference when people are already prepared to do their bit for the environment (Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, vol 27, p 1440). Sanctions can even be counterproductive if they are considered unfair and distort people's understanding of an environmental problem as essentially an economic one. For example, if people feel that they pay through the nose to run a car, they may be more likely to believe that they should be able to drive as much as they like
The most effective strategies to protect our shared environment are likely to combine several of the 4is. For example, when my colleagues and I conducted a survey of 120 households in the UK during the drought of 1997 we found that those with a water meter made the most efforts to conserve water. Because they were paying only for the water they used, not a flat rate, they had a financial incentive to save. The meter also allowed them to see more clearly where the most water was being wasted, so giving them a greater understanding of the situation (Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, vol 25, p 731).
All this shows that with a good understanding of human nature, a destructive global free-for-all is not inevitable. Of course we don't yet have all the answers, but while social psychologists like myself continue to probe human behaviour and motivation, we already know enough to make a difference. I would like ingenious conservationists, policy-makers, marketers and others to start using the 4i framework to influence the way people behave. We only have one planet and as the human population grows its limited resources are increasingly stretched. To avoid a commons tragedy we need to act decisively and we need to act now.
Back to our roots
Humans seem to have an affinity for nature. We prefer natural environments to built ones, and built environments with some natural objects, such as trees or water features, over more wholly urban landscapes (Environment and Behavior, vol 13, p 523). Across cultures, people are attracted to the savannah-type landscapes in which our ancestors are thought to have evolved, and in both Europe and the US zoos attract more visitors annually than all professional sports events combined. Nature also impacts on our health. Hospital patients in rooms with a window overlooking natural scenes recover more quickly than those in rooms with windows overlooking brick walls (Science, vol 224, p 420).
I am involved in the BeWEL network based at the University of Aberdeen, UK, conducting interdisciplinary research into how people interact with nature and how this affects their wellbeing. One study involves asking people to describe their engagements with nature to see how doing this affects their mood. In another, neuroscientists are examining which parts of the brain are involved when people see pictures of natural versus built environments and listen to natural sounds such as birdsong as opposed to artificially created sounds such as a cuckoo clock. Edward Wilson from Harvard University coined the term biophilia to describe the idea that we have a basic need to enjoy and affiliate with nature. If it turns out to be hard-wired, then biophilia could be another strong motivator in persuading people to protect the environment.
Follow that green celebrity
Like any other social animal, humans compete for status, because high status brings privileges. We do this with conspicuous "handicap" displays which, like the peacock's tail, are personally costly and so only affordable to high-quality individuals. These displays can take the form of "competitive altruism" - showy generosity such as public charity campaigns where rich people advertise their wealth by competing to be the biggest donor. My colleagues and I have found that people become more generous when their donations are made public and that generous people get more status than their stingier counterparts (Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, vol 32, p 1402) Men - though not women - are more generous when a person of the opposite sex is present (Evolutionary Psychology, vol 6, p 386).
All this helps explain why celebrity endorsements can benefit the environment. People look to celebrities and other high-profile figures for clues about what costly displays gain the most status. So by associating themselves with green causes and products celebrities can influence the domains in which individuals compete for status. Take the Toyota Prius. It is expensive - so not everyone can afford it - and green, so driving it is altruistic because it benefits others. And the fact that Leonardo DiCaprio owns one makes it a highly desirable status symbol.
Four decades ago, ecologist Garrett Hardin published a ground-breaking paper on this phenomenon, arguing that when personal and communal interests are at odds, overexploitation of resources is inevitable. His tragedy of the commons referred to the destruction of communal pasture when individual herders act rationally in their own best interests, each putting as many cows as possible onto the land. The same fate, he noted, is likely to befall any shared limited resource, from the atmosphere and oceans to national parks and rivers. Over the years, and with the rise of environmentalism, Hardin's ideas have become hugely influential.
Does this mean we are doomed to plunder the world's resources and trash our planet? Even Hardin wasn't entirely pessimistic. He noted that groups can create institutions to manage their communal resources, although these usually fail because of "free-riders" - individuals who try to reap the benefits of cooperation without paying any of the costs. The solution he came up with was "mutual coercion, mutually agreed upon by the majority of the people affected" (Science, vol 162, p 1243). In other words, people must give up their freedom to save the commons. I disagree.
Today we understand human nature and motivation far better than we did in Hardin's day. In particular, we know that individuals do not always act selfishly but also have some regard for the interests of others and the natural environment. Games such as the prisoner's dilemma and the public goods game demonstrate that under certain conditions people do behave altruistically (New Scientist, 12 March 2005, p 33). Besides, countless success stories attest to the fact that communities can overcome the tragedy of the commons without a great deal of coercion.
Putting all this together, I have identified four key conditions for the successful management of shared environmental resources: information, identity, institutions and incentives. (Current Directions in Psychological Science, vol 18, p 169). I believe we can and should use this 4i framework as the basis for a plan of action to combat local and global environmental catastrophe.
Information, identity, institutions and incentives correspond to what most psychologists believe are the four core motives that influence our decision-making in social dilemmas, respectively understanding, belonging, trusting and self-enhancing. Let's consider them in turn, starting with "institutions" because it is the one that comes closest to Hardin's prescription for overcoming the tragedy of the commons.
In our technologically and culturally complex modern world, many limited resources are managed by institutions, from private companies distributing water, to governments limiting air pollution through quotas. Hardin believed that such institutions cannot avert the tragedy of the commons without coercion because of the problem of free-riders. In fact, it is worse than that: researchers have since shown that introducing a system of policing simply creates a second-order free-rider problem - raising the issue of who guards the guards. Nevertheless, there are institutions that successfully promote environmental sustainability, so how do they do it?
The key is trust - and the cornerstone for building trust is fairness. In the 1991 California water shortage, the local water authorities tried to implement drastic water-saving measures but only with partial success. Residents were most likely to comply with authorities if they felt their concerns were taken seriously and they got accurate, unbiased information about the severity of the drought (Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, vol 69, p 482). Likewise, in my research I discovered that following the privatisation of the British railway network in 1994, railway passengers who did not trust the private companies to run the system efficiently and fairly were more likely to switch from trains to cars (Social Psychology Quarterly, vol 63, p 355).
Next up is information. People want to make sense of their natural environment - and their impact on it - but we seldom have enough information to evaluate questions such as: Should I recycle? Is it really worth turning those lights off? Would it be better to buy a new eco-friendly car or hang onto my old one for a while longer? And it turns out that the more uncertain we are the more likely we are to bias our decisions in our own narrow self-interest. In a lab study where a group of people were asked to manage a communal resource, they were far more successful when the resource was fixed in size than when its size fluctuated (European Journal of Social Psychology, vol 20, p 475). The researchers concluded that the environmental uncertainty caused by a fluctuating resource led individuals to underestimate the damage of their actions and exploit the resource to the point of collapse.
Equipped with better information, we face less environmental uncertainty and can therefore make more sustainable choices. But how can we improve the quality of environmental information available? First we must recognise that many aspects of environmental decision-making are intrinsically uncertain. That is especially true at the global level, where there is often a bewildering array of complex interacting factors. This is why local information, relevant to specific individuals in their particular circumstances, is far more effective at persuading people to change their behaviour. We are much more likely, for example, to act on information about local flood risks than on general data about the dangers of global climate change.
The best information systems are simple but accurate. The ABC rating system used throughout Europe for labelling household electrical appliances is a good example because it allows customers to compare at a glance complex information about energy use and emissions between different products. Research designed to evaluate this system also highlights the obvious but important point that information is most likely to promote sustainable behaviour when given to people who are already committed to the environment but lack the technical know-how to make a green choice.
Just connect
Targeted environmental education programmes are a good idea and they work particularly well in situations where people share a common social identity, because we are more likely to exchange environmentally relevant information when we identify more with our community. This effect is borne out in a classic example of triumph over tragedy of the commons among the lobster fishers of Maine. Over many decades they have developed a self-policing system to maintain the limited resource upon which their livelihood depends. Research shows that the system is most sustainable in small communities with dense social networks because fishers exchanged catch information more freely than in those with fewer connections (Ethology and Sociobiology, vol 12, p 221).
Social identity, a feeling of belonging to a social group, influences our behaviour in other ways too. My colleagues and I found that the more connected people felt to their community, the more willing they were to act in the group's interests by conserving water during a shortage (Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, vol 27, p 1440). Since we all identify most strongly with our primary groups - family, friends and neighbours - environmental messages that appeal to these relationships, such as "think of your children's future", can be highly effective.
People who identify with a group are also more concerned about upholding a green reputation. In another study we found that when people harvested from a common resource - a shared pot of money - and their decisions were made public they behaved more responsibly (Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, vol 32, p 1402).
Showing people how their behaviour compares with that of others produces a similar effect. When a US energy company started issuing its customers with smiley and frowney faces to indicate whether their bills were more or less than the neighbourhood average, energy consumption went down dramatically (Psychological Science, vol 18, p 429). Various environmental pressure groups use the power of social norms to "name and shame" polluting companies into changing their policies, and with success (Quarterly Review of Biology, vol 78, p 275).
One way to connect a group of strangers is through inducing competition with other groups. David De Cremer from Erasmus University in Rotterdam, the Netherlands, and I showed that students cooperated more with each other when they believed they were being compared with groups from other universities (European Journal of Social Psychology, vol 29, p 871). Creating competition between communities does not always promote environmental welfare, however. When a resource is the shared responsibility of several communities - such as the North Sea fish stocks - it is at even greater risk of depletion. That is why it is important to think of ways to blur group boundaries, for instance, by generating a superordinate social identity, such as, "we are all Europeans".
The fourth great motivator is incentives - appeals to people's desire to enhance themselves through seeking pleasure and avoiding pain. Government subsidies encourage people to adopt green technologies. Fines persuade individuals and companies to comply with environmental regulations. However, some incentive schemes are more effective than others. My own research on domestic water use indicates that economic incentives make little difference when people are already prepared to do their bit for the environment (Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, vol 27, p 1440). Sanctions can even be counterproductive if they are considered unfair and distort people's understanding of an environmental problem as essentially an economic one. For example, if people feel that they pay through the nose to run a car, they may be more likely to believe that they should be able to drive as much as they like
The most effective strategies to protect our shared environment are likely to combine several of the 4is. For example, when my colleagues and I conducted a survey of 120 households in the UK during the drought of 1997 we found that those with a water meter made the most efforts to conserve water. Because they were paying only for the water they used, not a flat rate, they had a financial incentive to save. The meter also allowed them to see more clearly where the most water was being wasted, so giving them a greater understanding of the situation (Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, vol 25, p 731).
All this shows that with a good understanding of human nature, a destructive global free-for-all is not inevitable. Of course we don't yet have all the answers, but while social psychologists like myself continue to probe human behaviour and motivation, we already know enough to make a difference. I would like ingenious conservationists, policy-makers, marketers and others to start using the 4i framework to influence the way people behave. We only have one planet and as the human population grows its limited resources are increasingly stretched. To avoid a commons tragedy we need to act decisively and we need to act now.
Back to our roots
Humans seem to have an affinity for nature. We prefer natural environments to built ones, and built environments with some natural objects, such as trees or water features, over more wholly urban landscapes (Environment and Behavior, vol 13, p 523). Across cultures, people are attracted to the savannah-type landscapes in which our ancestors are thought to have evolved, and in both Europe and the US zoos attract more visitors annually than all professional sports events combined. Nature also impacts on our health. Hospital patients in rooms with a window overlooking natural scenes recover more quickly than those in rooms with windows overlooking brick walls (Science, vol 224, p 420).
I am involved in the BeWEL network based at the University of Aberdeen, UK, conducting interdisciplinary research into how people interact with nature and how this affects their wellbeing. One study involves asking people to describe their engagements with nature to see how doing this affects their mood. In another, neuroscientists are examining which parts of the brain are involved when people see pictures of natural versus built environments and listen to natural sounds such as birdsong as opposed to artificially created sounds such as a cuckoo clock. Edward Wilson from Harvard University coined the term biophilia to describe the idea that we have a basic need to enjoy and affiliate with nature. If it turns out to be hard-wired, then biophilia could be another strong motivator in persuading people to protect the environment.
Follow that green celebrity
Like any other social animal, humans compete for status, because high status brings privileges. We do this with conspicuous "handicap" displays which, like the peacock's tail, are personally costly and so only affordable to high-quality individuals. These displays can take the form of "competitive altruism" - showy generosity such as public charity campaigns where rich people advertise their wealth by competing to be the biggest donor. My colleagues and I have found that people become more generous when their donations are made public and that generous people get more status than their stingier counterparts (Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, vol 32, p 1402) Men - though not women - are more generous when a person of the opposite sex is present (Evolutionary Psychology, vol 6, p 386).
All this helps explain why celebrity endorsements can benefit the environment. People look to celebrities and other high-profile figures for clues about what costly displays gain the most status. So by associating themselves with green causes and products celebrities can influence the domains in which individuals compete for status. Take the Toyota Prius. It is expensive - so not everyone can afford it - and green, so driving it is altruistic because it benefits others. And the fact that Leonardo DiCaprio owns one makes it a highly desirable status symbol.
UN scientist backs '350' target for CO2 reduction
The UN's top climate scientist has, for the first time, backed ambitious goals for slashing greenhouse gas emissions that many climate negotiators say are beyond reach.
"As chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), I cannot take a position because we do not make recommendations," Pachauri told AFP when asked if he supported poorer nations calling for atmospheric CO2 levels to be held below 350 parts per million (ppm).
"But as a human being I am fully supportive of that goal. What is happening, and what is likely to happen, convinces me that the world must be really ambitious and very determined at moving toward a 350 target," he said by telephone from New Delhi.
In its benchmark 2007 report, the IPCC said that the key for preventing dangerous global warming was to keep CO2 concentrations below 450 ppm.
Above that level, average global temperatures are likely, by 2100, to increase by more than 2.0 degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit), a threshold G8 leaders agreed last month must not be crossed.
But a growing body of scientific evidence suggests that even these hard-to-reach goals may not be ambitious enough, prompting many of the nations most threatened by global warming to set the bar even higher.
More than 80 of the world's poorest and most climate-vulnerable nations have now declared that CO2 concentrations must be scaled back to below 350 ppm, and that temperatures cannot rise more than 1.5 C by century's end.
"I think this is a good development," Pachauri said.
"Now people -- including some scientists -- see the seriousness of the impacts of climate change, and the fact that things are going to get substantially worse than what we had anticipated."
Even at current CO2 levels of 385-to-390 ppm, severe impacts from climate change -- rising sea levels, drought, violent storms -- have started and are likely to get worse, experts say.
"As chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), I cannot take a position because we do not make recommendations," Pachauri told AFP when asked if he supported poorer nations calling for atmospheric CO2 levels to be held below 350 parts per million (ppm).
"But as a human being I am fully supportive of that goal. What is happening, and what is likely to happen, convinces me that the world must be really ambitious and very determined at moving toward a 350 target," he said by telephone from New Delhi.
In its benchmark 2007 report, the IPCC said that the key for preventing dangerous global warming was to keep CO2 concentrations below 450 ppm.
Above that level, average global temperatures are likely, by 2100, to increase by more than 2.0 degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit), a threshold G8 leaders agreed last month must not be crossed.
But a growing body of scientific evidence suggests that even these hard-to-reach goals may not be ambitious enough, prompting many of the nations most threatened by global warming to set the bar even higher.
More than 80 of the world's poorest and most climate-vulnerable nations have now declared that CO2 concentrations must be scaled back to below 350 ppm, and that temperatures cannot rise more than 1.5 C by century's end.
"I think this is a good development," Pachauri said.
"Now people -- including some scientists -- see the seriousness of the impacts of climate change, and the fact that things are going to get substantially worse than what we had anticipated."
Even at current CO2 levels of 385-to-390 ppm, severe impacts from climate change -- rising sea levels, drought, violent storms -- have started and are likely to get worse, experts say.
Monday, August 24, 2009
Clunker Program's Environmental Merits Questioned
The Cash for Clunkers program was touted as a way to stimulate the flat-lining auto industry and to improve the environment. President Obama celebrated the program as a triumph. But while dealers could barely keep up with demand, questions remain about the plan's effect on Mother Earth.
"The program has been wonderful for the economy, but it's been only a middling success for greenhouse gas emissions," Michael Gerrard, director of Columbia Law School's new Center for Climate Change Law tells Weekend Edition host Liane Hansen.
To start, Gerrard says, "there was a provision in the law that automobiles over 25 years old could not be traded in. And that made no sense from an environmental standpoint. It was put there to help the dealers in used auto parts, but it really didn't help the environment at all."
Additionally, "the minimum required difference in the mileage for the old vehicles that were traded in and the new vehicles that were bought was just 4 miles per gallon — which is not much of a difference at all."
To make a bigger impact, the government could have required a greater mileage differential, Gerrard says. "You could have had a minimum of 15 mpg differential, which would have made a big difference."
People did buy cars with better average gas mileage, Gerrard says, "but it is still not a cost-effective way to reduce greenhouse gas emissions."
"There are some calculations that it cost somewhere between $200 and $400 per ton of carbon dioxide reduced, depending on what assumptions are used," he says. "That's way above the market price of carbon and way above many, many other methods of reducing greenhouse gas emissions."
At the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative — an American cap-and-trade system that trades in carbon — carbon dioxide is selling for about $3 a ton, Gerrard says. In Europe, it's around $18 or $20. "So the market price of carbon dioxide trading is much, much lower than the cost of reducing a ton of carbon dioxide under the Cash for Clunkers program."
More cost-effective ways to reduce greenhouse gases would include increasing energy efficiency in the industrial sector or in commercial and residential lighting, Gerrard suggests. Or providing combined heat and power systems in commercial and industrial settings. "All would be several orders of magnitude more cost-effective from a fuel-saving and greenhouse perspective than Cash for Clunkers was."
Successful or not, the government is putting the brakes on the popular program. After 8 p.m. Monday, car buyers will no longer be able to trade in their gas-guzzling vehicles for rebates of up to $4,500.
"The program has been wonderful for the economy, but it's been only a middling success for greenhouse gas emissions," Michael Gerrard, director of Columbia Law School's new Center for Climate Change Law tells Weekend Edition host Liane Hansen.
To start, Gerrard says, "there was a provision in the law that automobiles over 25 years old could not be traded in. And that made no sense from an environmental standpoint. It was put there to help the dealers in used auto parts, but it really didn't help the environment at all."
Additionally, "the minimum required difference in the mileage for the old vehicles that were traded in and the new vehicles that were bought was just 4 miles per gallon — which is not much of a difference at all."
To make a bigger impact, the government could have required a greater mileage differential, Gerrard says. "You could have had a minimum of 15 mpg differential, which would have made a big difference."
People did buy cars with better average gas mileage, Gerrard says, "but it is still not a cost-effective way to reduce greenhouse gas emissions."
"There are some calculations that it cost somewhere between $200 and $400 per ton of carbon dioxide reduced, depending on what assumptions are used," he says. "That's way above the market price of carbon and way above many, many other methods of reducing greenhouse gas emissions."
At the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative — an American cap-and-trade system that trades in carbon — carbon dioxide is selling for about $3 a ton, Gerrard says. In Europe, it's around $18 or $20. "So the market price of carbon dioxide trading is much, much lower than the cost of reducing a ton of carbon dioxide under the Cash for Clunkers program."
More cost-effective ways to reduce greenhouse gases would include increasing energy efficiency in the industrial sector or in commercial and residential lighting, Gerrard suggests. Or providing combined heat and power systems in commercial and industrial settings. "All would be several orders of magnitude more cost-effective from a fuel-saving and greenhouse perspective than Cash for Clunkers was."
Successful or not, the government is putting the brakes on the popular program. After 8 p.m. Monday, car buyers will no longer be able to trade in their gas-guzzling vehicles for rebates of up to $4,500.
India, China agree to fight trade barriers under the excuse of climate change
India and China on Monday agreed to jointly fight any attempt by western nations to link trade with climate change issues and impose trade-related penalties on developing countries to meet environmental standards.
Jairam Ramesh, India’s minister of state for environment and forest, bluntly asked Chinese officials whether they will stick to New Delhi during the climate talks in Copenhagen next December. India is worried that high-pressure attempts by western nations to get developing countries to deviate from their stand might bear fruit. "The Chinese side has assured me there will be no change in its stand. I think there is total convergence of views between India and China on the issue of climate change," Ramesh said after meeting Xie Zhen Hua, vice chairman of China’s National Development Reforms Commission. Xie briefed the Indian delegation, which included environment secretary Vijai Sharma and climate change negotiator R.R.Reshmi, about a recent China-US accord on climate change issues. He assured Indian officials that the accord was on renewal energy and technological collaboration and nothing else should be read into it. In a significant move, the two countries have agreed to coordinate their views on different aspects of climate change before every major international meeting on the subject. These conclusions reached between Ramesh and Xie are expected to be spelt out in the form of an agreement in the coming days. Both countries want to negotiate with the West for higher levels of financial assistance and technology transfer in return for promises to do their best to tackle environmental problems. China remains committed to the principal of "common but differentiated responsibilities" of developed and developing nations, Ramesh said. But they would not agree to any legal binding on reducing emission norms because it would come in the way of their development goals. India and China will also not agree to the creation of any trade barriers on the excuse of climate change. Ramesh suggest that China consider reducing carbon dioxide levels in power plants supplied by it to India. This would be part of the mitigation activities that the two countries expect to carry out jointly. Meanwhile, Xie told the standing committee of the National People’s Congress today that the government will display "utmost sincerity" in pushing for the success of climate talks in Copenhagen. He did not reveal what public stand China will take besides its commitment to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, which laid the principal of "common but differentiated responsibilities" for developed and developing nations
Jairam Ramesh, India’s minister of state for environment and forest, bluntly asked Chinese officials whether they will stick to New Delhi during the climate talks in Copenhagen next December. India is worried that high-pressure attempts by western nations to get developing countries to deviate from their stand might bear fruit. "The Chinese side has assured me there will be no change in its stand. I think there is total convergence of views between India and China on the issue of climate change," Ramesh said after meeting Xie Zhen Hua, vice chairman of China’s National Development Reforms Commission. Xie briefed the Indian delegation, which included environment secretary Vijai Sharma and climate change negotiator R.R.Reshmi, about a recent China-US accord on climate change issues. He assured Indian officials that the accord was on renewal energy and technological collaboration and nothing else should be read into it. In a significant move, the two countries have agreed to coordinate their views on different aspects of climate change before every major international meeting on the subject. These conclusions reached between Ramesh and Xie are expected to be spelt out in the form of an agreement in the coming days. Both countries want to negotiate with the West for higher levels of financial assistance and technology transfer in return for promises to do their best to tackle environmental problems. China remains committed to the principal of "common but differentiated responsibilities" of developed and developing nations, Ramesh said. But they would not agree to any legal binding on reducing emission norms because it would come in the way of their development goals. India and China will also not agree to the creation of any trade barriers on the excuse of climate change. Ramesh suggest that China consider reducing carbon dioxide levels in power plants supplied by it to India. This would be part of the mitigation activities that the two countries expect to carry out jointly. Meanwhile, Xie told the standing committee of the National People’s Congress today that the government will display "utmost sincerity" in pushing for the success of climate talks in Copenhagen. He did not reveal what public stand China will take besides its commitment to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, which laid the principal of "common but differentiated responsibilities" for developed and developing nations
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)