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. 2  Recent Papers (most available on SSRN at: http://ssrn.com/author=426704):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 Network Vanderbilt Institute for Energy & Environment

3.  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. http://law.vanderbilt.edu/academics/academic-programs/environmental-law/climate- change-network/index.aspx Behavioral Wedge Research Team

4. 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. 5  The Importance of Framing  The One Percent Problem  US Per Capita CO 2 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. 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. R EV. 1673 (2007)

7. 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 Problem Comparisons with Industry Sectors Vandenbergh & Steinemann (2007)

8. Global Implications Per Capita CO 2 Emissions (Flows) (metric tons) 8 Source: Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration, October 1, 2007 Year 2005 Per Capita Fossil Fuel CO 2 Emissions

9. The One Percent Problem National CO 2 Flows (Annual Emissions) Stack & Vandenbergh (2011) (data from CAIT 2010 at 1.99% level) 9

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

11. The One Percent Problem U.S. CO 2 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. 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. 13 Source: Socolow, 2008, from Pacala & Socolow (2004) 13

14. 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 Results Dietz et al.,(2009)

15. 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)

16. Behavior ChangeCategory Potential Emissions Reduction (MTC) Behavioral Plasticity RAER (MTC)RAER (%I/H) WeatherizationW25.290%21.23.39% HVAC EquipmentW12.280%10.71.72% Low-flow showerheadsE1.480%1.10.18% Efficient water heaterE6.780%5.40.86% AppliancesE14.780%11.71.87% LRR tiresE7.480%6.51.05% Fuel-efficient vehicleE56.350%31.45.02% Change HVAC air filtersM8.730%3.70.59% Tune up ACM3.030%1.40.22% Routine Auto MaintenanceM8.630%4.10.66% Laundry temperatureA0.535%0.20.04% Water heater temperatureA2.935%1.00.17% Standby electricityD9.235%3.20.52% Thermostat setbacksD10.135%4.50.71% Line dryingD6.035%2.20.35% Driving behaviorD24.125%7.71.23% Carpooling & Trip-chainingD36.115%6.41.02% Totals 233 12320% 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 Source: http://wwweia.doe.gov/emeu/states/sep_use/total/csv/use_csv Per Capita Electricity Consumption 17

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 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?

21. Example: Motor Vehicle Idling (1.6% of US CO 2 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 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. 22

23. Motor Vehicle Idling Costly 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 CO 2 annually.

24. Example: Household Immediate Feedback Carrico et al., Energy and Climate Change: Key Lessons for Implementing the Behavioral Wedge, 2 G EO. W ASH. J. E NERGY & E NVTL. 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

25. http://www.flickr.com/photos/lynnewu/5046966065/ 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

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

27. 27  Supply Chain Influence  US and Europe 41% of China’s Exports  US and Europe 14-28% of CO 2 Emissions  Direct Emissions Reductions  Recent Examples  Wal-Mart  UK Potatoes Example: Carbon Labeling The Corporate Wedge Vandenbergh & Cohen, Climate Change: Boundaries and Leakage, 18 N.Y.U. E NVTL. L.J. (2010) Vandenbergh, Dietz & Stern, Time to Try Carbon Labelling, 1 N ATURE C LIMATE C HANGE 4-6 (2011)

28. 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 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=426704http://ssrn.com/author=426704