海角大神

Not-so-great news about the planet arrived apace in October. The US government released its Arctic Report Card for 2008. The compilation of observations by 46 scientists from 10 nations concluded that arctic temperatures were 9 degrees F. higher this fall than normal. (Last year was the warmest ever recorded in the Arctic.) Shrubs are colonizing what was once permafrost. Snow geese are expanding their range northward. Receding sea ice 鈥� this year鈥檚 loss was second only to last year鈥檚 record melt 鈥� may be hurting animals like walruses and polar bears that rely on it.

Many see the news as evidence of an ongoing environmental disaster. But while 鈥済reen鈥� has become an all-too-common prefix, meaningful action is scarce. Has the environmental movement failed to win hearts and minds?

Now behavioral scientists are joining environmentalists to address the problem of climate change and human attitudes toward it. Maybe it鈥檚 time, they say, to refocus the global-warming debate on solutions rather than causes, to design more 鈥渙pt out鈥� conservation programs, and maybe to promote a soap opera or two with a green theme.

Later this month, the second annual Behavior, Energy, and Climate Change Conference will convene in Sac颅ra颅颅mento, Calif.

鈥淲e have a pretty serious challenge ahead of us,鈥� says Linda Schuck, conference chair and an adviser in the office of the president of the University of California in Oakland. 鈥淲e need to use all the tools that we have available.鈥�

Experts tend to point to several examples of the kind of effort needed to tackle the climate challenge: the mobilization of an entire society during World War II; the long and sustained effort represented by the cold war; the simultaneous bottom-up and top-down efforts of the civil rights movement; and the decades-long antismoking campaign. Some also point to the adoption and spread of recycling programs in recent decades.

The good news: Humanity can, and has, altered its behavior en masse before. The not-so-good news: The current climate challenge is unprecedented.

鈥淗umanity has never experienced a situation in which the entire world is placed at risk because of human activities,鈥� says Bob Doppelt, director of the Climate Leadership Initiative at the University of Oregon, Eugene, and author of 鈥淭he Power of Sustainable Thinking.鈥� 鈥淗umans are basically in charge of the climate, and we鈥檙e not doing a very good job.鈥� Meeting the challenge calls for changing the way we think, he says. To do this, policymakers need to understand how people change their minds, and determine where people鈥檚 thought is along the continuum that leads to meaningful action.

Invested in the status quo, people begin their journey by not caring to change 鈥� or not wanting to, Mr. Doppelt says. As the necessity for change sinks in, they begin deliberating. During this second phase, helping people understand the cost-benefit ratio is critical, he says. If benefits don鈥檛 outweigh costs by 2 to 1, people generally don鈥檛 commit to change. (People aren鈥檛 convinced of this ratio now, he says.) In this phase, information goes a long way.

Once they鈥檙e done deliberating, people design a plan to change behavior and then implement it. Here鈥檚 where relapse becomes worrisome. Whereas incentives didn鈥檛 make much difference at earlier stages, they can now greatly reinforce the new behavior.

Resistance can also be avoided by framing the issue differently, says Ted Nordhaus, managing partner at American Environics in Oakland, Calif., a firm that brings psychological and cognitive science to bear on social-change strategies.

For example, stressing the idea that human activity is behind global warming can be counterproductive, he says. It can provoke retrenchment and backlash.

鈥淲hen [Al] Gore says this is a moral issue, what people hear is that 鈥榤y lifestyle is immoral,鈥� 鈥� Mr. Nordhaus says. 鈥淧eople don鈥檛 respond well to people telling them that their life is immoral.鈥�
Simply treating global warming as an on-the-ground fact while avoiding discussion of causation can skirt this pitfall, he says. Once people accept climate change as a reality, that鈥檚 the time to talk about addressing possible causes, like human activity, he says.

鈥淲e need to stop telling people that they鈥檙e immoral 鈥� stop trying to win an argument we don鈥檛 need to win about whether it鈥檚 caused by human activity 鈥� and move on to solutions,鈥� says Nordhaus.
Others stress the importance of design in changing human behavior.

For example, great differences in participation exist between 鈥渙pt in鈥� and 鈥渙pt out鈥� programs. If driver鈥檚 licenses automatically include the driver in organ-donation programs (one must 鈥渙pt out鈥� to not participate), 80 to 90 percent will participate. If the driver must 鈥渙pt in,鈥� only 20 percent choose to. The same holds true with retirement-savings programs and 鈥済reen鈥� energy programs offered by utilities. If participation is the default choice, many more people will participate.

鈥淚f we want to realize the energy颅 efficiency gains that are possible, it will take acknowledging that the problem is a design failure, not a people failure, and fixing this,鈥� writes K. Carrie Armel, an energy-efficiency research associate at Stanford University in Palo Alto, Calif., in a presentation.

Simple feedback measures help, says Dr. Armel. When consumers can visualize their electricity use, they tend to use less. Having a meter centrally located inside one鈥檚 house can reduce energy consumption by 10 to 14 percent.

The Energy Monitor in the hybrid Toyota Prius 鈥� a simple representation of the car as battery, engine, electric motor, and tires 鈥� also improves efficiency. Able to visualize energy use, drivers routinely achieve 60 miles per gallon, she says.

In Mexico, soap operas that touch on family planning are credited with redu颅cing the country鈥檚 population growth rate by one-third between 1977 and 1986. Twenty-five countries now use television dramas to tackle social problems like HIV and domestic abuse. Why not energy use and climate change?

鈥淚f you鈥檙e trying to have people learn things, it鈥檚 much easier to get them to change behavior when they can observe somebody they have some positive feelings for change,鈥� says University of California鈥檚 Schuck.