Setting an example is more influential than you might think.

IF you reduce your environmental footprint, what effect does it have on your neighbours?

A few years ago, American psychologist Robert Cialdini studied the electricity use of about 300 Californian households (PDF). After establishing the homes’ baseline consumption, the researchers hung a card on each door, informing the residents how they compared to the neighbourhood average.

Over the ensuing weeks, they found that those above the average cut their use. But, interestingly, those below the line actually increased their consumption. They were drawn towards the social norm – the “magnetic middle”.

There’s more to the story, however: when the researchers added a smiley face to the low users’ feedback, they stuck with their lower usage.

In another study undertaken around the same time (PDF), householders told Dr Cialdini and his team that in saving energy, their primary motivations were to preserve the environment, be socially responsible and save money (in that order). But in practise, the researchers found that the energy conservation habits of their neighbours had the strongest pull of all.

Subsequently, Dr Cialdini began working with US software company Opower, helping them to craft electricity billing information in a way that encourages conservation. And they do it, in part, with smiley faces.

The Opower approach is spreading. Some local electricity retailers have begun benchmarking their bills, but unless it’s done carefully – to avoid the upward pull of the magnetic middle – it won’t help reduce our greenhouse gas emissions.

Yann Burden, from Billcap, has been working on energy information software to suit Australians. He says the lessons apply to more than just electricity. The Target 155 campaign on Victorians’ water consumption worked in a similar way.

“People put up signs if they used bore water or tank water. We were all very proud of the effort we made,” Mr Burden says.

That kind of signalling is important, both for the wider public and for green-minded folks who go beyond the call of duty. Based on their research on hybrid vehicles, economists Steven and Alison Sexton developed a theory of “conspicuous conservation”.

They identified a trend in which individuals, driven by their concern about climate change and environmental damage, “seek status through displays of austerity rather than ostentation”.

The economists found that the Toyota Prius was more popular than competing hybrids because of its distinctive shape. It was recognisably a hybrid. What’s more, people were willing to pay a premium for that recognition.

“People want to signal,” Mr Burden explains. “Householders don’t want to hide their solar panels. They want people to see them, and that’s good – as long as they’re well oriented. It’s much better than trying to guilt people into change.

So if you’re composting or reducing packaging waste, growing vegies or installing draught proofing, make the most of it by telling your family, friends and neighbours. You could even put a sign in your window or a sticker on your letterbox explaining what you’re up to.

“As a society that needs to consume less, we need these positive social norms to help us understand that once we’ve saved money, we shouldn’t spend it on more consumption,” Mr Burden says.

“Signalling comes through our consumption decisions, but also through people having conversations. I think we’ll see energy use becoming the next dinner party conversation – people asking, ‘Well, how many kilowatt hours do you use?’”

Read this article at the Age online

Illustration by Robin Cowcher

Kicking old habits is about getting the timing right.

THERE’S no shortage of information about how to go green, from government incentives and advice, to council forums and eco-blogs. But even people who want to reduce their environmental footprint can find it hard to make changes that last.

Dr Jim Curtis, from BehaviourWorks Australia, says one explanation is that we’re creatures of habit. Many of the ways we use energy and water and produce waste are part of our daily routines. We tend to commute in a certain way and buy the same kinds of food at the same places.

“Whether it’s driving your car to work, long showers, leaving the lights on, not recycling properly or throwing out your organic waste, these are likely to be habitual behaviours,” he says. “They are repeated frequently in the same context and not given much thought. They’re things we just do.”

Illustration by Robin Cowcher

Although individuals can change their habits – with the right combination of motivation, support and persistence – only a small minority actually do so. Rather than considering the pros and cons and making calculated decisions, most people stick to what they’ve always done.

The cliché is true, Dr Curtis says: habits are hard to break. Researchers recently found that it took people an average of 66 days for a new activity to become automatic. (The length of time varied for different people – from just 18 days, all the way to 254 days.)

Given that it takes so much repetition for a habit to become ingrained, encouraging some kinds of green behaviour requires more than just the right information or rebate.

But here’s the good news: at certain times in our lives, we’re more open to altering our routines.

One of the world’s leading experts on habits, Professor Bas Verplanken, from the University of Bath, is speaking at a public forum in Melbourne, on Tuesday, July 24.

Professor Verplanken’s research tests the idea that there are key moments when it’s much easier for people to change their habits – events such as moving house, starting university, switching jobs, retiring from work, or getting pregnant.

In one ongoing project, he is comparing the way people respond to various kinds of sustainability advice, and investigating the difference between residents who have and haven’t moved house recently.

In previous research, he analysed the effect of moving house on the choices people made about transport. He found that eco-conscious people who had moved recently commuted by car less often than like-minded folks who’d stayed put.

And they did it without any outside prompting. That is, the break in their usual patterns gave people a chance to switch to a transport mode – such as walking, cycling or catching the bus – that better suited their beliefs.

For householders, there’s a clear message: it’s easier to get into a new green routine when things are in flux.

“In those moments when our usual patterns of behaviour have changed, we’re looking for information or direction about how to do things,” Dr Curtis explains. “It’s a great opportunity to change your lifestyle and consumption patterns.”

“For example, trying to get my wife to turn off the lights has been a big challenge for me. If we ever move house, that would be a moment I should really take advantage of.”

Read this article at the Age online

Do big green changes really grow from little ones?

BRITISH physicist David MacKay has a confronting message about what’s necessary for our society to really go green: “If everyone does a little, we’ll achieve only a little,” he says.

In his book, Sustainable energy – without the hot air (available free online) he analyses the relative energy footprint of different parts of the UK economy, such as transport, heating and cooling, and food and farming.

Professor MacKay argues that we must break our “fossil fuel addiction” for three reasons: we’ll run out some day; we need to avoid dangerous climate change; and we need to find secure sources of energy.

A key part of doing that, he says, is to reduce energy demand. But we mustn’t be mistaken about the kinds of things that really make a difference. For instance, unplugging your mobile phone charger will subtract only a “tiny tiny fraction of your total energy consumption”.

“The amount of energy saved by switching off the phone charger, 0.01 kWh [per day], is exactly the same as the energy used by driving an average car for one second,” he writes. “Obsessively switching off the phone-charger is like bailing the Titanic with a teaspoon. Do switch it off, but please be aware how tiny a gesture it is.”

Illustrations by Robin Cowcher

In contrast, air travel is one of the true big-ticket items for individuals. He found that the energy used in taking a return-flight from the UK to South Africa is “nearly as big as the energy used by driving an average car 50 km per day, every day, all year”.

Likewise, although the impact of imported manufactures – including vehicles, whitegoods, machinery, electronic equipment and steel – aren’t normally added to Britain’s footprint, their embodied energy use accounts for more than heating and cooling combined.

For householders, he found that two of the best ways to reduce energy use are installing solar hot water and turning the temperature down on your heating (and up on your air conditioning).

“Turning the thermostat down is the single most effective energy-saving technology available to a typical person – every degree you turn it down will reduce your heating costs by 10%; and heating is likely to be the biggest form of energy consumption in most British buildings,” he writes.

But can small personal changes ever add up to something more significant?

BehaviourWorks Australia, a research collaboration based at the Monash Sustainability Institute, is exploring exactly this question. Earlier this year, it hosted Professor John Thørgesen, a Danish academic who specialises in social and environmental marketing.

In 2009, he co-authored a report called Simple and Painless? published by the World Wildlife Fund. It argues that global environmental problems can’t be met through “marginal lifestyle changes”. The foot-in-the-door approach – easy steps such as switching light globes or showerheads – can only be justified when it’s linked to more ambitious behaviour, such as active citizenship and activism.

It also contends that encouraging householders to go green for personal gain – that is, reduced bills – doesn’t stimulate the kind of broad attitude shift required.

Dr Jim Curtis, from BehaviourWorks, says we need to understand the way people perceive themselves once they complete those simple steps. “We have to avoid thinking that we’ve done our bit. We have to link small actions to bigger ones by fostering a sense of citizenship that motivates people to make more ambitious changes,” he says.

Read this article at the Age online

Households going green won’t necessarily cut emissions

THE carbon tax kicks in today, and while its effect on electricity bills will be run over hot coals, another of its impacts has been overlooked.

As it stands, the policy – especially once it turns into a cap-and-trade system in 2015 – has a curious and counter-intuitive outcome: householders who want to go green won’t necessarily make any difference to Australia’s carbon dioxide emissions.

“In its current form, the emissions trading scheme not only sets a cap above which emissions can’t rise, but simultaneously sets a floor below which they can’t fall,” says Richard Denniss, executive director of The Australia Institute.

“So if an individual reduces their emissions – or the residents of a high-rise building, a street, or even a local council area get together to reduce their emissions – it will simply free up spare permits for a polluter somewhere else.”

Illustration by Robin Cowcher

The government has taken a small step towards addressing the issue. A spokesperson for the Department of Climate Change and Energy Efficiency said that purchases of GreenPower “will be taken into account” when the caps are set five years in advance.

Also, the Climate Change Authority – the independent body that begins operation tomorrow – will also consider “whether a robust methodology can be developed to recognise additional voluntary action by households”.

Alan Pears, energy efficiency expert and Adjunct Professor at RMIT, says the same problem exists in the European carbon trading system. In the United Kingdom, an organisation called Sandbag helps individuals buy and cancel pollution permits.

Here, the federal government suggests that householders who want to meaningfully reduce their carbon footprint could choose to do the same. But Mr Pears argues that those people would end up paying double – to cover both the carbon tax and the extra permits – and have no idea which companies they’re supporting.

“If you buy carbon permits and take them out of the market you don’t know who surrendered them or what they’re linked to,” he says.

As Dr Denniss argues, it’s not only householders that are affected. Measures taken by businesses, local councils and regional governments are in the same boat.

Earlier this year, the Victorian government scrapped its target to reduce carbon dioxide emissions by 20 per cent by 2020 (from 2000 levels), citing its ineffectiveness given the national cap.

The ACT government has legislated an even more ambitious target – a 40 per cent reduction by 2020 (from 1990 levels) – and so far, it’s sticking to its goal. But Dr Denniss warns that the carbon trading scheme must be tweaked “to ensure that the efforts of the ACT and other communities are not in vain”.

Mr Pears says that unless there’s a change, organisations that want to become carbon neutral will end up purchasing offsets from overseas.

But he says there’s still cause for governments and householders to invest in energy efficiency and renewable energy, especially with the price of solar power fast matching standard retail electricity rates.

“There are lots of reasons why it still makes sense, whether that’s reducing peak demand costs, holding down energy prices, creating employment, or just improving comfort at home and saving money on your energy bills,” he says.

“The frustrating thing is that in terms of the physics, it does reduce emissions. But because of an accounting flaw, it isn’t counted towards cutting Australia’s or the world’s greenhouse gas emissions.”

Read this article at The Age online