Download Climate Change Justice Class Slides

Climate Literacy & Energy Awareness
Network
The Behavioral Wedge
April 17, 2012
Michael P. Vandenbergh
Professor of Law
Tarkington Chair in Teaching Excellence
Director, Environmental Law Program
Director, Climate Change Research Network
Climate Change Research Network
Vanderbilt Institute for Energy & Environment

Recent Papers (most available on SSRN at: http://ssrn.com/author=426704):

Dietz et al., Household Actions Can Provide a Behavioral Wedge to Rapidly Reduce U.S. Carbon
Emissions, 106 PROC. NAT’L ACAD. SCI. 18452 (2009)

Vandenbergh et al., Implementing the Behavioral Wedge: Designing and Adopting Effective
Carbon Emissions Reduction Programs, 40 ENVTL. L. REP. 10547-10554 (2010)

Carrico et al., Energy and Climate Change: Key Lessons for Implementing the Behavioral Wedge,
2 GEO. WASH. J. ENERGY & ENVTL. L. 61-67 (2011)

Stack & Vandenbergh, The One Percent Problem, 111 COLUM. L. REV. 1385-1443 (2011)

Carrico et al., Costly Myths: An Analysis of Idling Beliefs and Behavior in Personal Motor Vehicles,
37 ENERGY POLICY 2881 (2009)

Vandenbergh & Steinemann, The Carbon-Neutral Individual, 82 NYU L. REV. 1673 (2007)

Vandenbergh et al., Individual Emissions: The Low-Hanging Fruit, 55 UCLA L. REV. 1701 (2008)

Vandenbergh, Climate Change: The China Problem, 81 S. CAL. L. REV. 905 (2008)
2
Behavioral Wedge Research Team
Household Actions Can Provide a Behavioral Wedge to Rapidly Reduce U.S. Carbon
Emissions, 106 Proc. Nat’l Acad. Sci. 18452 (2009) available at
behavioralwedge.msu.edu and via the Climate Change Research Network at
http://law.vanderbilt.edu/academics/academic-programs/environmental-law/climatechange-network/index.aspx.

Co-Authors
 Tom Dietz
 Gerald Gardner
 Jonathan Gilligan
 Paul Stern
 Michael Vandenbergh
Thinking and Teaching About the
Behavioral Wedge



Step One
 Do Households Emissions Matter?
 Overcoming the One Percent Problem
Step Two
 Can We Really Affect Household Emissions?
 The Behavioral Wedge Opportunity
Step Three
 Motor Vehicle Idling
 Carbon Labeling
4
Do Household Emissions Matter?
Stack & Vandenbergh, The One Percent Problem, 111 COLUM. L. REV. 1385-1443 (2011)



The Importance of Framing
The One Percent Problem
 US Per Capita CO2 Emissions ~ 20 tons
 5% is One Ton of Emissions
 One Ton of Emissions ~ .0000000000015
Degrees C (Matthews et al. 2009)
Does One Percent Matter?
 One Individual?
 1.5 x 10-12 X 100,000,000 Individuals?
H. Damon Matthews et al., The Proportionality of Global Warming to Cumulative Carbon Emissions, 459 Nature 829, 829–30 (2009)
Carbon Emissions Linked to Global Warming in Simple Linear Relationship, ScienceDaily (June 11, 2009)
5
A Different Frame
Vandenbergh & Steinemann, The Carbon-Neutral Individual, 82 NYU L. REV. 1673 (2007)

Household Emissions
-
14,532 pounds/year = 32% of US total
4.1 trillion (individual) > 3.9 trillion (industry)
US generated 24.4% of world total in 2000
US individual share is ~ 8% of world total
Larger than Central Am., South Am., and Africa
combined
- 2/3 the total for China
6
The One Percent Problem
Comparisons with Industry Sectors
Vandenbergh & Steinemann (2007)


1% Change in Individual Behavior =
41 billion pounds
Industry Sector Comparisons
- Aluminum Production = 13.7 billion
pounds
- Soda Ash Manufacturing = 9.2 billion
pounds
- Petrochemical Production = 3.3 billion
pounds
7
Global Implications
Per Capita CO2 Emissions (Flows) (metric tons)
24
22
20.24
20.14
19.24
20
18
16
14
11.88
12
10.24
9.65
10
9.55
8
6
4.07
4
1.94
2
1.07
0
Australia
Brazil
Canada
China
Germany
India
Japan
Russia
Year 2005 Per Capita Fossil Fuel CO2 Emissions
Source: Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration, October 1, 2007
U.K.
U.S.A.
8
The One Percent Problem
National CO2 Flows (Annual Emissions)
Stack & Vandenbergh (2011) (data from CAIT 2010 at 1.99% level)
9
The One Percent Problem
Vandenbergh et al., Implementing the Behavioral Wedge: Designing and Adopting Effective Carbon Emissions Reduction
Programs, 40 ENVTL. L. REP. 10547-10554 (2010)
Source: House Committee on Energy and Commerce, http://bit.ly/6Xgyon
The One Percent Problem
U.S. CO2 Emissions by Economic Sector (2006)
Vandenbergh et al. (2010)
Sector/Source
Agriculture, Forestry,
Fisheries,
Mining & Construction
2006
Emissions
(MMTCO2eq)
382.8
Manufacturing
1,516.2
Transportation
912.1
Other Services
1,114.9
Government
288.9
Households
1,841.8
TOTAL
6,056.7
Source: U.S. COMMERCE DEPARTMENT, U.S. CARBON DIOXIDE EMISSIONS AND INTENSITIES OVER TIME: A DETAILED
ACCOUNTING OF INDUSTRIES, GOVERNMENT AND HOUSEHOLDS 7, Fig. 3 (2010)
The Role of the Behavioral Wedge
Dietz et al., Household Actions Can Provide a Behavioral Wedge to Rapidly Reduce U.S. Carbon Emissions, 106 PROC. NAT’L ACAD. SCI. 18452 (2009)






Viable Gap-Filler: The Fast Wedge
Private and Public Action
Near-term and Long-term Reductions
Low Cost and Intrusiveness
Energy and Carbon Reductions
Magnitude
 US = Copenhagen target ~ 17% below 2005
Levels by 2020 is ~280 MtC/year
 Behavioral Wedge = 123 MtC (44% of
US 2020 target)
12
13
Source: Socolow, 2008, from Pacala & Socolow (2004)
13
Results
Dietz et al.,(2009)
Household Actions: 17 types of household
actions that can reduce energy consumption
with available technology, low cost, and
without appreciable lifestyle changes
 Reasonably Achievable Emissions Reduction
(RAER) of 20% in 10 years
 123 MtC or 7.4% of total current US emissions
 Comparable to
 Total emissions of France; or
 Total emissions of petroleum refining, iron
& steel, and aluminum industries

14
Effective Interventions
Dietz et al. (2009)


Single interventions often ineffective
Effective interventions
 Strong Social Marketing: mass media
appeals plus participatory, community-based
approaches
 Multiple Targets: individuals, communities,
businesses
 Synergistic Effects: can arise from
combinations of mass media appeals,
information, financial incentives, informal
social incentives, reduction of transaction
costs
15
The Behavioral Wedge
Behavior Change
Weatherization
HVAC Equipment
Low-flow showerheads
Efficient water heater
Appliances
LRR tires
Fuel-efficient vehicle
Change HVAC air filters
Tune up AC
Routine Auto Maintenance
Laundry temperature
Water heater temperature
Standby electricity
Thermostat setbacks
Line drying
Driving behavior
Carpooling & Trip-chaining
Totals
Category
W
W
E
E
E
E
E
M
M
M
A
A
D
D
D
D
D
Potential
Emissions
Reduction
(MTC)
25.2
12.2
1.4
6.7
14.7
7.4
56.3
8.7
3.0
8.6
0.5
2.9
9.2
10.1
6.0
24.1
36.1
233
Behavioral
Plasticity
90%
80%
80%
80%
80%
80%
50%
30%
30%
30%
35%
35%
35%
35%
35%
25%
15%
RAER (MTC)
21.2
10.7
1.1
5.4
11.7
6.5
31.4
3.7
1.4
4.1
0.2
1.0
3.2
4.5
2.2
7.7
6.4
123
RAER (%I/H)
3.39%
1.72%
0.18%
0.86%
1.87%
1.05%
5.02%
0.59%
0.22%
0.66%
0.04%
0.17%
0.52%
0.71%
0.35%
1.23%
1.02%
20%
Dietz et al, Household Actions Can Provide a Behavioral Wedge to Rapidly Reduce U.S. Carbon Emissions, 106 PROC. NAT ’L ACAD. SCI. 18452 (2009)
16
Viability: The California Example
Per Capita Electricity Consumption
17
Source: http://wwweia.doe.gov/emeu/states/sep_use/total/csv/use_csv
Barrier: Institutional Incentives
Who Profits if Households Use Less Energy?
18
Barrier: What is the Appropriate Gov’t Role?
U.S. Government WW II Poster
19
Barrier: Take Back Concerns

Behavioral Spillover: Will taking one behavioral
wedge step increase or decrease the likelihood of
taking additional steps?

Policy Spillover: Will focusing on private or public
behavioral wedge measures increase or decrease the
likelihood of adopting more comprehensive public
measures?
20
Example: Motor Vehicle Idling
(1.6% of US CO2 total)
Carrico et al., Costly Myths: An Analysis of Idling Beliefs and Behavior in Personal Motor Vehicles,
37 ENERGY POLICY 2881 (2009)
Table 1. Summary of CO2 emissions and fuel consumption associated with idling behavior
CO2 Emissions
Fuel Consumption
Annual per
Annual per
Annual US
person
Annual US
person emissions
emissions
consumption
consumption
Minutes/day
(pounds)
(MMt)
(gallons)
(billion gallons)
Warming
4.0
266.4
24.3
11.4
2.3
Waiting
3.6
242.8
22.1
10.4
2.1
Traffic
7.8
526.1
47.9
22.6
4.5
Total
15.3
1035.3
94.3
44.4
8.9
21
Example: Motor Vehicle Idling
Motivations/Beliefs
Carrico et al (2009)
• It is better to idle for __ in order to:
– Save gas: 4.7 minutes
– Prevent pollution: 3.6 minutes
– Prevent vehicle wear: 5.7 minutes
• Over 80% of respondents held inaccurate/outdated beliefs
about idling.
Table 2. Projected savings in CO2 and fuel use associated with a reduction in unnecessary idling
CO2 Emissions
Fuel Consumption
Annual per
Annual per
Annual US
person
Annual US
% of idlers
person emissions
emissions
consumption
consumption
in population
(lbs)
(MMt)
(gallons)
(billion gallons)
Warming
68%
354.1
22.0
15.2
2.1
Waiting
46%
492.4
20.7
21.1
2.0
Total
846.5
42.7
36.3
4.1
22
Motor Vehicle Idling
Costly Myths
Carrico et al (2009)

Over 80% of Americans hold inaccurate or outdated
beliefs about how long they should idle their vehicles.

We estimate that a well-implemented public education
campaign could eliminate roughly 8MMt of CO2
annually.
23
Example: Household Immediate Feedback
Carrico et al., Energy and Climate Change: Key Lessons for Implementing the Behavioral Wedge, 2 GEO. WASH. J. ENERGY & ENVTL. L. 61-67 (2011)
• In-home feedback associated with a rapid 5–15%
reduction in energy use (e.g., Ehrhardt-Martinez et al.,
2010).
– Effects shown in the absence of dynamic pricing schemes.
– Effects shown among individuals who are not responsible
for their own energy costs (e.g., Carrico & Riemer, 2011).
– Early evidence suggest these effects persist for as long as 2
years.
• Critical for overcoming energy invisibility and
information deficits.
• Role of descriptive and injunctive norms
• Key supplement to dynamic pricing schemes.
24
Policy Tools:
Feedback &
Descriptive
Norms
http://www.flickr.com/photos/lynnewu/5046966065/; Photo taken by Lynne Whitehorn
Source: Ayres et al. Evidence from Two Large Field Experiments that Peer Comparison Feedback can Reduce Residential Energy Usage, Working Paper
Example: Immediate Feedback
Effect of Speed on Fuel Economy
• Fuel consumption increases at above 55-60 mph due to increased aerodynamic drag.
• Every 5 mph over 55 is ~ $.20 per gallon increase in gas prices at ~$3.00/gallon.
• Drag increases with the square of velocity (law of physics, not just a good idea).
Source: U.S. Department of Energy, Fuel Economy Guide 2011, available at www.fueleconomy.gov
26
Example: Carbon Labeling
The Corporate Wedge
Vandenbergh & Cohen, Climate Change: Boundaries and Leakage, 18 N.Y.U. ENVTL. L.J. (2010)
Vandenbergh, Dietz & Stern, Time to Try Carbon Labelling, 1 NATURE CLIMATE CHANGE 4-6 (2011)


Supply Chain Influence
 US and Europe 41% of China’s Exports
 US and Europe 14-28% of CO2 Emissions
 Direct Emissions Reductions
Recent Examples
 Wal-Mart
 UK Potatoes
27
Additional Reading

Recent Vandenbergh papers available on SSRN at http://ssrn.com/author=426704
Attari, et al. (2010). Public perceptions of energy consumption and savings. PNAS, 107, 1607.
Ayres et al. (2009) Evidence from Two Large Field Experiments that Peer Comparison Feedback can Reduce Residential Energy
Usage (July 16, 2009). 5th Annual Conference on Empirical Legal Studies Paper. Available at SSRN:
http://ssrn.com/abstract=1434950
Carrico & Riemer (2011). Motivating energy conservation in the workplace: An evaluation of the use of group-level feedback and
peer education. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 31(1), 1-13.
Ehrhardt-Martinez, et al. (2010). American Council for an Energy Efficient Econ., Advanced Metering Initiatives and Residential
Feedback Programs: A Meta-Review for Household Electricity-Saving Opportunities.
Goldstein, et al. (2008). A room with a viewpoint: Using social norms to motivate environmental conservation in hotels. Journal
of Consumer Research, 35, 472 – 482.
Meier et al. (2010). How people actually use thermostats. 2010 ACEEE Summer Study on Energy Efficiency in Buildings.
Nevius & Pigg (2000). Programmable Thermostats That Go Berserk: Taking a Social Perspective on Space Heating in Wisconsin.
Proceedings of the 2000 ACEEE Summer Study on Energy Efficiency in Buildings: Washington DC, pg. 8.233-8.244.
Schultz et al. (2007). The constructive, destructive, and reconstructive power of social norms. Psychological Science, 18, 429 –
434.
Socolow. (1978). The Twin Rivers Program on Energy Conservation in Housing: Highlights and Conclusions. Energy & buildings,
1, 207.
Stern (1999). Information, Incentives, and Pro-environmental Consumer Behavior. J Cons Policy, 22, 461 – 478.
Vandenbergh, Carrico & Bressman, Regulation in the Behavioral Era, 95 MINN. L. REV. 715-781 (2011)
28