Climate Literacy & Energy Awareness Network

The Behavioral WedgeApril 17, 2012

Michael P. VandenberghProfessor of Law

Tarkington Chair in Teaching ExcellenceDirector, Environmental Law Program

Director, Climate Change Research Network

2

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)

Climate Change Research NetworkVanderbilt Institute for Energy & Environment

Co-Authors Tom Dietz Gerald Gardner Jonathan Gilligan Paul Stern Michael Vandenbergh

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/climate-change-network/index.aspx.

Behavioral Wedge Research Team

4

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

Thinking and Teaching About the Behavioral Wedge

5

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?

Do Household Emissions Matter?Stack & Vandenbergh, The One Percent Problem, 111 COLUM. L. REV. 1385-1443 (2011)

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)

6

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

A Different Frame

Vandenbergh & Steinemann, The Carbon-Neutral Individual, 82 NYU L. Rev. 1673 (2007)

7

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

The One Percent ProblemComparisons with Industry Sectors

Vandenbergh & Steinemann (2007)

Global ImplicationsPer Capita CO2 Emissions (Flows) (metric tons)

8

Source: Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration, October 1, 2007

Year 2005 Per Capita Fossil Fuel CO2 Emissions

The One Percent ProblemNational CO2 Flows (Annual Emissions)

Stack & Vandenbergh (2011) (data from CAIT 2010 at 1.99% level)

9

Source: House Committee on Energy and Commerce, http://bit.ly/6Xgyon

The One Percent ProblemVandenbergh et al., Implementing the Behavioral Wedge: Designing and Adopting Effective Carbon Emissions Reduction

Programs, 40 ENVTL. L. REP. 10547-10554 (2010)

The One Percent Problem U.S. CO2 Emissions by Economic Sector (2006)

Vandenbergh et al. (2010)

Sector/Source

2006 Emissions

(MMTCO2eq) Agriculture, Forestry, Fisheries, Mining & Construction 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)

12

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)

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)

13

Source: Socolow, 2008, from Pacala & Socolow (2004)13

14

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

ResultsDietz et al.,(2009)

15

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

Effective Interventions Dietz et al. (2009)

Behavior Change Category

Potential Emissions Reduction

(MTC)

Behavioral Plasticity

RAER (MTC) RAER (%I/H)

Weatherization W 25.2 90% 21.2 3.39%HVAC Equipment W 12.2 80% 10.7 1.72%Low-flow showerheads E 1.4 80% 1.1 0.18%Efficient water heater E 6.7 80% 5.4 0.86%Appliances E 14.7 80% 11.7 1.87%LRR tires E 7.4 80% 6.5 1.05%Fuel-efficient vehicle E 56.3 50% 31.4 5.02%Change HVAC air filters M 8.7 30% 3.7 0.59%Tune up AC M 3.0 30% 1.4 0.22%Routine Auto Maintenance M 8.6 30% 4.1 0.66%Laundry temperature A 0.5 35% 0.2 0.04%Water heater temperature A 2.9 35% 1.0 0.17%Standby electricity D 9.2 35% 3.2 0.52%Thermostat setbacks D 10.1 35% 4.5 0.71%Line drying D 6.0 35% 2.2 0.35%Driving behavior D 24.1 25% 7.7 1.23%Carpooling & Trip-chaining D 36.1 15% 6.4 1.02%

Totals 233   123 20%

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) 16

Viability: The California Example

Source: http://wwweia.doe.gov/emeu/states/sep_use/total/csv/use_csv

Per Capita Electricity Consumption

17

Barrier: Institutional IncentivesWho 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

20

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?

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

Minutes/day

Annual per person emissions

(pounds)

Annual US emissions

(MMt)

Annual per person

consumption (gallons)

Annual US consumption

(billion gallons)Warming 4.0 266.4 24.3 11.4 2.3Waiting 3.6 242.8 22.1 10.4 2.1Traffic 7.8 526.1 47.9 22.6 4.5Total 15.3 1035.3 94.3 44.4 8.9

CO2 Emissions Fuel Consumption

21

Example: Motor Vehicle IdlingMotivations/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

% of idlers in population

Annual per person emissions

(lbs)

Annual US emissions

(MMt)

Annual per person

consumption (gallons)

Annual US consumption

(billion gallons)Warming 68% 354.1 22.0 15.2 2.1Waiting 46% 492.4 20.7 21.1 2.0Total 846.5 42.7 36.3 4.1

CO2 Emissions Fuel Consumption

22

Motor Vehicle IdlingCostly Myths

Carrico et al (2009)

23

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.

Example: Household Immediate FeedbackCarrico 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

http://www.flickr.com/photos/lynnewu/5046966065/; Photo taken by Lynne Whitehorn

Policy Tools:Feedback & Descriptive

Norms

Source: Ayres et al. Evidence from Two Large Field Experiments that Peer Comparison Feedback can Reduce Residential Energy Usage, Working Paper

Source: U.S. Department of Energy, Fuel Economy Guide 2011, available at www.fueleconomy.gov

Example: Immediate FeedbackEffect 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).

26

27

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

Example: Carbon LabelingThe 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)

Additional Reading

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

Recent Vandenbergh papers available on SSRN at http://ssrn.com/author=426704