Climate Literacy & Energy Awareness Network The Behavioral Wedge April 17, 2012

1. 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

2. Climate Change Research NetworkVanderbilt 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)

3. 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/climate-change-network/index.aspx. • Co-Authors • Tom Dietz • Gerald Gardner • Jonathan Gilligan • Paul Stern • Michael Vandenbergh

4. 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

5. 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

6. A Different FrameVandenbergh & 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

7. The One Percent ProblemComparisons with Industry SectorsVandenbergh & 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

8. Global ImplicationsPer Capita CO2 Emissions (Flows) (metric tons) Year 2005 Per Capita Fossil Fuel CO2 Emissions 8 Source: Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration, October 1, 2007

9. The One Percent Problem National CO2 Flows (Annual Emissions) Stack & Vandenbergh (2011) (data from CAIT 2010 at 1.99% level) 9

10. 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

11. The One Percent Problem U.S. CO2 Emissions by Economic Sector (2006) Vandenbergh et al. (2010) 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. The Role of the Behavioral WedgeDietz 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. 13 13 Source: Socolow, 2008, from Pacala & Socolow (2004)

14. ResultsDietz 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

15. 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

16. 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

17. Viability: The California Example Per Capita Electricity Consumption 17 Source: http://wwweia.doe.gov/emeu/states/sep_use/total/csv/use_csv

18. Barrier: Institutional Incentives Who Profits if Households Use Less Energy? 18

19. Barrier: What is the Appropriate Gov’t Role? U.S. Government WW II Poster 19

20. 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?

21. 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) 21

22. 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. 22

23. Motor Vehicle IdlingCostly MythsCarrico 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.

24. 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.

25. 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

26. 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). 26 Source: U.S. Department of Energy, Fuel Economy Guide 2011, available at www.fueleconomy.gov

27. Example: Carbon LabelingThe Corporate WedgeVandenbergh & 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 CO2Emissions • Direct Emissions Reductions • Recent Examples • Wal-Mart • UK Potatoes

28. 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)