the psychological climate paradox: from barriers to … 01 22 stoknes_uarctic tromsø... · from...

The Psychological Climate Paradox: !From Barriers to Solutions

Per Espen Stoknes!BI Center for Climate Strategy !

22.Jan.2014, Humans in the Arctic

Per Espen Stoknes, BI

0

25

50

75

100

1989 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007 2009 2011

14147101217987876

4538

324042

49

383327292825

27

31

34

3331

25

3537

343433

30

1417

27

17159

1822

3229

32

39VerySomeLittleNot

But does opinion follow? Norwegian data:

Source: Ottar Hellevik, 2012, Ipsos MMI’s survey ‘Norsk Monitor’.

How concerned are you for greenhouse effect and climate change?


[email protected] [email protected] [email protected]

De største utfordringer Norge står ovenfor

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Vår 2009 Høst 2009 Vår 2010 Høst 2010

Utdanning

Helse

Kriminalitet

Klimaendringer (28%)

Finanskrisen

Arbeidsledighet

Vei og bane




Høst 2011


Viser de 7 øverste av totalt 14 saker.

Vår 2013

Klimaendringer 18%

Helse 47%

Vei & bane 42%

Innvandring 35%

Kriminalitet 25%

Utdanning 32%

Fattigdom 15%

TNS Gallup © 2013 TNS Gallups Klimabarometer 2013 (13100457)

[email protected]


the climate paradox

Source: Cook et al 2013, http://www.skepticalscience.com/


Why?


Wrong starting point

Assume that the public is ignorant, empty heads, in need of more facts and knowledge

“empty bucket”=the information deficit-model

"6


information ≠ communication


Five Defenses

iDentity

Distant

Doom

Dissonance

Denial

climate message


The five D’s against climate

iDentity

Distant

Doom

Dissonance

Denial


Distant in time … Summary for Policymakers

19

Figure SPM.7 | CMIP5 multi-model simulated time series from 1950 to 2100 for (a) change in global annual mean surface temperature relative to 1986–2005, (b) Northern Hemisphere September sea ice extent (5-year running mean), and (c) global mean ocean surface pH. Time series of projections and a measure of uncertainty (shading) are shown for scenarios RCP2.6 (blue) and RCP8.5 (red). Black (grey shading) is the modelled historical evolution using historical reconstructed forcings. The mean and associated uncertainties averaged over 2081−2100 are given for all RCP scenarios as colored verti-cal bars. The numbers of CMIP5 models used to calculate the multi-model mean is indicated. For sea ice extent (b), the projected mean and uncertainty (minimum-maximum range) of the subset of models that most closely reproduce the climatological mean state and 1979 to 2012 trend of the Arctic sea ice is given (number of models given in brackets). For completeness, the CMIP5 multi-model mean is also indicated with dotted lines. The dashed line represents nearly ice-free conditions (i.e., when sea ice extent is less than 106 km2 for at least five consecutive years). For further technical details see the Technical Summary Supplementary Material {Figures 6.28, 12.5, and 12.28–12.31; Figures TS.15, TS.17, and TS.20}

6.0

4.0

2.0

−2.0

0.0

(o C)

4232

39

historicalRCP2.6RCP8.5

Global average surface temperature change(a)

RC

P2.6

R

CP4

.5

RC

P6.0

RC

P8.5

Mean over2081–2100

1950 2000 2050 2100

Northern Hemisphere September sea ice extent(b)

RC

P2.6

R

CP4

.5

RC

P6.0

R

CP8

.5

1950 2000 2050 2100

10.0

8.0

6.0

4.0

2.0

0.0

(106 k

m2 )

29 (3)

37 (5)

39 (5)

1950 2000 2050 2100

8.2

8.0

7.8

7.6

(pH

uni

t)

12

9

10

Global ocean surface pH(c)

RC

P2.6

R

CP4

.5

RC

P6.0

R

CP8

.5

Year

SPM


Distant in space …

CLIMATE CHANGE 2013The Physical Science Basis

Summary for Policymakers

INTERGOVERNMENTAL PANEL ON climate change


Distant socially…


Distant in responsibility


Psychological distancing

Effects: !

-reduces sense of urgency!

-reduces felt importance of issue

[1]A. Spence and N. Pidgeon, “Framing and communicating climate change: The effects of distance and outcome frame manipulations,” Global

Environmental Change, vol. 20, no. 4, pp. 656–667, Oct. 2010. [2]A. Spence, W. Poortinga, and N. Pidgeon, “The Psychological Distance of Climate Change: Psychological Distance of Climate Change,” Risk Analysis,

vol. 32, no. 6, pp. 957–972, Jun. 2012.


The five Defenses

iDentity

Distant

DoomDissonance

Denial


Too much doom?

"16

doom, disaster, devastation!loss-framing generates avoidance

S. O’Neill and S. Nicholson-Cole, “‘Fear Won’t Do It” Science Communication, vol. 30, no. 3, pp. 355–379, Jan. 2009.


The five Defenses

iDentity

Distant

DoomDissonance

Denial

dissonance when action conflicts with knowledge

I fly and drive, everyone does the same. Our governments want to pump more oil and

gas, so it can’t be that serious...

source: plantronicsgermany


The five Defenses

iDentity

Distant

DoomDissonance

Denial


How to break through the barriers ?

or maybe by-pass them?


Defenses1 - Distant: The climate issue is seen as distant {in many ways}.!

2 - Doom: framing the issue as disaster, cost and sacrifice backfires.!

3 - Dissonance: a lack of opportunities for convenient actions weaken attitudes over time. !

4 - Denial: gives refuge from fear, guilt and threats.!

5 - iDentity: activates cultural filters so that your identity overrides the facts.

1 - Feels personal, near and urgent.!

2 - Uses cognitive framings that do not backfire on the climate issue through negative affects. !

3 - Reduces dissonance by providing opportunities for visible and consistent action.!

4 - Avoids triggering the emotional need for denial.!

5 - Reduces cultural and political polarization on the issue.

Success-criteria


Five new strategies

iDentity

Distant

Doom

Dissonance

Denial

SocialSimple

Supportive

Story

Signals


Five new strategies

iDentity

Distant

Doom

Dissonance

Denial

SocialSimple

Supportive

Story

Signals

- from protest to party


1. Use social networks:

Experimental studies to reduce domestic power consumption by comparing four groups:!

1. for the sake of sustainability and the earth!

2. for future generations!

3. because it is profitable!

4. because your neighbours do it

Sources: Using Peer Pressure as a Tool to Promote Greener Choices by Richard Conniff: Yale Environment 360: !Allcott, H., Social norms and energy conservation, J. Public Econ. (2011), doi:10.1016/j.jpubeco.2011.03.003!


1. Social networks:

Sources: Using Peer Pressure as a Tool to Promote Greener Choices by Richard Conniff: Yale Environment 360: !Allcott, H., Social norms and energy conservation, J. Public Econ. (2011), doi:10.1016/j.jpubeco.2011.03.003!

“People don’t just want to conserve energy, they want to be acknowledged for conserving energy.” Robert Cialdini, Arizona S.U.


Social networks - online

For reduksjon av strømforbruk:!

1. Oppleves fjernt

2. Lite handling svekker holdninger!

3. Dissonans gir benektning!

4. Oppleves som kostnad & offer

Per Espen Stoknes, BIPer Espen Stoknes, BI

1. Use the power of social networks

• Use local-patriotism: Tromsø vs. Bodø, Bergen vs Oslo!

• Use word of mouth !

• Make eco-team our of existing groups and networks!

• Change the messenger til someone that the target group identifies with.


Five new strategies

iDentity

Distant

Doom

Dissonance

Denial

SocialSimple

Supportive

Story

Signals


2. Simple to choose climate friendly

Default two-sided printing:!!15% less paper !!!If applied to all US offices 800 ktCO2e/year!

equvialent to 150.000 cars!!

Sources: * Egebark and M. Ekström, “Can Indifference Make the World Greener?,” IFN Working Paper No. 975, 2013.

* D. Pichert and K. V. Katsikopoulos, “Green defaults: Information presentation and pro-environmental behaviour,” J. of Environmental

Psychology, vol. 28, no. 1, pp. 63–73, Mar. 2008


2. Simple to choose climate friendly

Nudging examples:!

• Start using energy labeling to influence consumer choice!!

• Combine public transport & bikes with limited parking in cities; quicker mobility without car!!

• Make it default to include CO2 prices in all airplane tickets, with opt-out in small fonts!


Check to not pay carbon credits


Five new strategies

iDentity

Distant

Doom

Dissonance

Denial

SocialSimple

Supportive framing

Story

Signals


“Framing” are those invisible contexts that lend meaning to and influence the direction to our thinking and conversations



“Expensive!”

Sandy - the biggest, ever...., around 50-60 bn$ damage1!

http://business.time.com/2012/10/31/hurricane-sandy-estimated-to-cost-60-billion/

Insurance ?


Defense -framing!


Health


Five new strategies

iDentity

Distant

Doom

Dissonance

Denial

SocialSimple

Supportive

Story

Signals

green growth is smart!"41

Photo: Timothy Allen



What is green growth?

• Increase of economic activities that give lower environmental impact!

• “Brown growth” is productivity increase where total environmental impact (footprint) grows in spite of higher efficiency

"42Kilde: Per E. Stoknes, 2013, BI senter for klimastrategi



Why green growth?

• Because it’s profitable !

• Because it’s more expensive to continue as today!

• The stone age didn't end because of lack of stones!

• The petroleum age won’t end because of lack of oil, but…

$€

£

"43


Powerhouse Sandvika, 6500 m2 - rebuilt to passive house standard!- reuse of materials such as glass in interior design!- daylight, LED-lighting og control systems interior!- solar heating and heat pumps; no power needed for heating!- solar panels of 1556 m2 efficiency of 21%, generates 229 MWhel/år!!

World’s first* plus-house rehab office

* Sources: www.tu.no, http://kjorboblogg.skanska.no/ , http://powerhouse.no/en/kjorbo-eng

petroleum!demand destruction



Grønn Innovasjon-2

Example: BigBelly Solar"45

Wireless

Solar

Compactor



Grønn Innovasjon-2

1. less work ($) and 90% less driving (CO2) !2. cloud-based, simpler waste collection management

(no more overflow)!3. park maintenance easier and cheaper

(less pick up of misplaced garb)!4. separation into recycling programs!5. keeps critters & rats out!6. better end-user experience of parks, bus&train stations

"46

Whole system design gives multiple benefits:

Source: http://business.time.com/2012/06/25/trash-talk/ og Sustainia 2012

Ecological !footprint

Quality of life


Five new strategies

iDentity

Distant

Doom

Dissonance

Denial

SocialSimple

Supportive

Story

Signals


The “GEVA”-indicator:

Greenhousegas Emissions!

Value Added (= “earnings”)

tells us what is green enough: -5% per year



Example

"50 Source: Tomra Corporate Responsibility report, 2012

22 23ANNUAL REPORT 2012TOMRA

TOMRA’s mission is to create sensor-based solutions for optimal resource productivity so that its products and services contribute to better use of the world’s limited resources.

The contribution from Collection Solutions and parts of Sorting Solutions can be measured in terms of avoided carbon dioxide emissions due to the recycling and reuse of plastic beverage containers, metals and other materials that have been collected and/or sorted using TOMRA’s technology.

The environmental benefits from the other segments are significant but harder to quantify. In general, the use of TOMRA’s technology reduces energy consumption and waste while improving material recovery and yield. An example is sensor-based steam peeling of potatoes, which reduces peel loss and energy consumption. Further details and examples can be found on our website tomra.com.

The 2012 environmental report shows some increases in emissions and energy consumption versus 2011. This is due to

BARR

ELS

OIL

/ V

A

TON

NES

CO

2/

VA

MET

RIC

TON

NES

/ V

A

Waste Generation per unit of value added*

Energy Consumption per unit of value added*

2009 2010 2011 2012 2015 2009 2010 2011 2012 2015

2009 2010 2011 2012 2015

25

20

15

10

5

0

50

40

30

20

10

0

3

3

2

2

1

1

0

Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Operationsper unit of value added*

TA

RG

ET

TA

RG

ET

TA

RG

ET

BARR

ELS

OIL

/ V

A

TON

NES

CO

2/

VA

MET

RIC

TON

NES

/ V

A



2009 2010 2011 2012 2015 2009 2010 2011 2012 2015

2009 2010 2011 2012 2015

25

20

15

10

5

0

50

40

30

20

10

0

3

3

2

2

1

1

0


TA

RG

ET

TA

RG

ET

TA

RG

ET

BARR

ELS

OIL

/ V

A

TON

NES

CO

2/

VA

MET

RIC

TON

NES

/ V

A



2009 2010 2011 2012 2015 2009 2010 2011 2012 2015

2009 2010 2011 2012 2015

25

20

15

10

5

0

50

40

30

20

10

0

3

3

2

2

1

1

0


TA

RG

ET

TA

RG

ET

TA

RG

ET

CLIMATE CHANGE ACCOUNT CARBON DIOXIDE EMISSIONS FROM OPERATIONS TONNES CARBON DIOXIDE 2012 2011

Emission from stationary sources (Scope 1) 2,900 4,800 Heating oil 800 2,000 Natural gas 1,100 1,400 Propane 1,000 1,400 Emission from purchased grid electricity (Scope 2) 2,900 2,400 Norway 0 0 Europe EU25 900 600 North America 2,000 1,800 Rest of World 0 0 Certified low-carbon or renewable 0 0 Emission from transportation 21,900 18,200 Petrol vehicles (Scope 1) 3,800 3,200 Diesel vehicles (Scope 1) 15,800 14,200 LPG vehicles (Scope 1) 100 100 Employee-owned vehicles (Scope 3) 1,300 100 Air travel (Scope 3) 900 600 Total direct emissions (tonnes CO2) 27,700 25,400 Emission from products during use-phase (Scope 3) 129,000 127,200 RVMs owned and operated by TOMRA and customers 58,100 57,800 Compactors owned by customers 66,800 66,400 Scanners owned by customers 4,100 3,000 Total direct and indirect emissions 157,000 153,000

AVOIDED CARBON DIOXIDE EMISSIONS THROUGH PRODUCT USE TONNES CARBON DIOXIDE 2012 2011

Beverage container collection through RVMs and ARCs (1) 2,581,000 2,503,000 Plastic bottles 705,000 684,000 Glass bottles 481,000 467,000 Aluminium cans 1,363,000 1,321,000 Steel cans 32,000 31,000 Packaging material transport and handling (2) 852,000 759,000 Glass bottles 74,000 55,000 Aluminium cans 637,000 577,000 Plastic bottles, PET 135,000 122,000 Cardboard and fiber 6,000 5,000 Material sorted for recycling from mixed sources (3) 16,847,000 14,514,000 Glass 76,000 0 Aluminium 3,403,000 2,722,000 PET 2,060,000 1,774,000 HDPE 361,000 377,000 Fiber 207,000 133,000 Non-ferrous metal 9,240,000 8,258,000 Other 1,500,000 1,250,000 Reduction of transport due to material compaction, Orwak (4) 320,000 315,000 Total emission avoidance 20,600,000 18,090,000 Net carbon dioxide emission/(avoidance) (20,400,000) (17,900,000)

WASTE GENERATION WASTE GENERATION FROM MANUFACTURING, SALES, SERVICE AND OPERATIONS TONNES WASTE 2012 2011

Waste generation 3,390 3,320 Paper 0 10 Cardboard 140 125 Plastics 970 940 Wood 420 110 Electric and electronic waste (incl. TOMRA products) 25 20 Expanded polystyrene 0 0 Metal scrap 125 425 Batteries 0 0 Hazardous waste 0 0 Unsorted 1,710 1,690

TOMRA ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT 2012

ENERGY CONSUMPTION ENERGY CONSUMPTION IN MANUFACTURING, SALES, SERVICE AND OPERATIONAL PROCESSES BARRELS OIL EQUIVALENT 2012 2011

Energy consumption, stationary sources (Scope 1) 2,300 4,700 Heating oil 1,900 4,700 Natural gas 0 0 Propane 400 0 Energy consumption, purchased grid electricity (Scope 2) 10,500 9,500 Norway 2,400 2,400 Europe EU25 2,600 1,900 North America 5,500 5,200 Rest of World 0 0 Certified low-carbon or renewable 0 0 Energy consumption, transportation 45,900 44,100 Petrol vehicles (Scope 1) 10,200 8,600 Diesel vehicles (Scope 1) 32,000 33,200 LPG vehicles (Scope 1) 700 500 Employee-owned vehicles (Scope 3) 900 300 Air travel (Scope 3) 2,100 1,500 Total direct energy consumption 58,700 58,300 Energy consumption, products during use-phase (Scope 3) 154,500 152,400 RVMs owned and operated by TOMRA and customers 69,600 69,300 Compactors owned by customers 80,000 79,500 Scanners owned by customers 4,900 3,600 Total direct and indirect energy consumption 213,200 210,700

NOTESEmissions have been calculated using the GHGProtocol calculation tools (www.ghgprotocol.org), and ‘Waste Management Options and Climate Change’ (ec.europa.eu/environment/waste/studies/pdf/climate_change.pdf).

1. Beverage container collection through RVMs and ARCs, TOMRA Collection (Reverse Vending)Calculated carbon dioxide savings based on the total number of beverage containers collected through TOMRA’s over 70.000 RVM and ARC installations; more than 35 billion units annually. All glass beverage containers are assumed to be non-refillable, giving significantly lower assumed weight. Split between packaging types is based on beverage consumption data and TOMRA estimates. The full benefit of collectiing and recycling the beverage containers into new material, versus landfill, is included in the calculation.

2. Packaging material transport and handling, TOMRA Collection Solutions Material RecoveryCarbon dioxide saving based on the tonnage of beverage container material transported and handled by TOMRA in USA. The full benefit of collecting and recycling beverage containers into new material, as opposed to landfill, is included in the calculation , meaning that some of the saving is also included under ‘Beverage container collection through RVMs and ARCs’.

3. Packaging material sorted for recycling from mixed sources, TOMRA Sorting Solutions RecyclingEstimated material throughput in Titech installations is used in the calculation of avoided carbon dioxide emission. The full benefit of sorting materials and recycling into new is included in the calculation.

4. Reduction of transport due to material compaction, TOMRA Collection Solutions CompactionIt is estimated that the installed base of ORWAK products can compact around 10 million tonnes of material daily, reducing both transport kilometers and fuel usage each year. This is estimated to save over 20 000 transport movements each day. This calculation does not take into account the carbon dioxide benefit of material recycling.

The provision of information on carbon dioxide emission avoidance is illustrative only, and intended solely as an aid to illustrate the benefit to society generated by the TOMRA Group. The above information does not constitute a full Life Cycle Analysis. The methodology and assumptions used in calculating carbon dioxide avoidance are available upon request.

Scope 1: All direct GHG emissions Scope 2: Indirect GHG emissions from purchased electricity, heat or steam Scope 3: Other indirect emissions from purchased goods or services

ENVIRONMENTALREVIEW

the inclusion of BEST, which was not part of TOMRA in 2011. However, the eco-intensity graphs show that TOMRA is close to achieving its environmental objectives.

TOMRA has previously communicated that its biggest source of direct carbon dioxide emissions is the US vehicle fleet. To address this, two projects were initiated – one targeted truck idling time, the other the use of alternative fuels. As a result, TOMRA North America reduced emissions by 26% in 2012, which means that its share of the 2015 objective has already been achieved.

As part of promoting environmental awareness amongst employees and visitors, TOMRA has invested in charging stations for electric vehicles and energy efficient lighting at its Norway headquarters.

-5%/yr


1. The necessary solutions (“BAT”) to solve the very serious “climate issue” are readily available.

2. The challenge now has more to do with building citizen support for implementing solutions in wealthy democracies

3. Psychological and behavioral strategies can build democratic support for more ambitious measures and instruments.

Conclusions

Green Growth

www.bi.no/grve!

Jorgen Randers & Per Espen Stoknes!

!twitter: @estoknes

EFMD

Executive Master of Management

EFMD

MASTER OF MANAGEMENT

Grønn vekst

"52

Learn more?

the psychological climate paradox: from barriers to … 01 22 stoknes_uarctic tromsø... · from...

Documents