Psychology to shake our carbon-emitting habits

Anthony A. Davis writes about 37 different reasons why it is so hard to change our climate change habits. University of Victoria psychology professor Robert Gifford calls the barriers “dragons”.

Source: https://www.dragonsofinaction.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/doi_3dragon_header.png

They fall into seven broad categories: limited cognition, ideologies, comparison with others, sunk costs, discredence, perceived risks and limited behaviour. When he published a 2011 article in American Psychologist that identified the first 29 of these dragons, the article went viral and became the publication’s most-read piece in its history.1

Mistrust dragon

Seth Wynes, a Ph.D. candidate in the department of geography at the University of British Columbia, found evidence of a “climate mitigation gap,” where education and government recommendations often miss the most effective actions Canadians and others can take.

For instance, he says, few governments say the most effective ways to reduce carbon footprints include having one less child, ceasing air travel, living car-free and eating a plant-based diet. Instead, much of the educational and government literature focuses on less effective measures, such as hanging clothes out to dry, or installing more efficient LED lighting in homes.
The reason for that, Wynes suggests, is a “foot-in-the-door” strategy. “Communicators emphasize easy-to-perform actions that get people started on environmental lifestyles, and hope that people adopt more important actions later. Unfortunately, with the scale of the climate problem, we don’t have time to focus on small changes anymore.”2 

Tokenism dragon

One troubling finding in Wynes’s research is how misinformed people are when they engage in what psychologists call “moral licensing.” “We do this with dieting,” says Wynes, explaining the term. “We say, ‘I went for a jog, now I can eat cake.'' Some people do this with green behaviours: ‘I have recycled for a year, so therefore I can go on a vacation to Cuba.’ ”

References

1	(n.d.). The Dragons of Inaction – Diagnosing and Slaying the Barriers to .... Retrieved July 24, 2019, from https://www.dragonsofinaction.com/
2	(2019, July 22). Why we can't shake our carbon-emitting habits, even as the world burns. Retrieved July 24, 2019, from https://www.macleans.ca/society/health/why-we-cant-shake-our-carbon-emitting-habits-even-as-the-world-burns/

Making necessary policy with a price on carbon

Merran Smith & Dan Woynillowicz report that in July, the Conservative Party of Canada announced that, just like the price on pollution, Canada’s clean fuel standard would be met with a falling axe if the party were to form government in October.

 

Coastal Erosion

What is the argument put forward to scrap it? In Conservative Party Leader Andrew Scheer’s words, because it’s “a secret fuel tax” that would increase the cost of gasoline by four cents. That number, according to the party, was informed by Clean Energy Canada’s 2017 report on the clean fuel standard, along with stakeholder interviews.

 As Simon Fraser University professor Mark Jaccard put it, rather bluntly, “If a politician focuses only on the increase in the price of gasoline and does not point out that this lowers the price of zero-emission alternatives that we must be quickly switching to — like Norway, Sweden, California, Brazil, China — (that politician) should score at the maximum on the baloney meter.”1

Here are the facts as they pertain to gasoline prices:

• The clean fuel standard (which was never secret and is literally not a tax) will not become a regulatory requirement for liquid fuels like gasoline and diesel until 2022.
• It will add a cent or two to the cost of a litre of gasoline in 2025.
• And it is not until 2030 that the policy could add about five cents to the price at the pump

Mia Rabson reports that federally, Elizabeth May, leader of the Green Party of Canada, says she could support a minority government of any party but only if that party is serious about acting to stop climate change.

A serious balance

Nanos Research says the "best scenario" for May and the Green party is that Canadians don't think anyone will form a majority and they want more Greens in the House of Commons.

May doesn't say it quite as directly.

 "I think it's really important to communicate with Canadians how our democracy works and that a minority Parliament is the very best thing, if, and this is a big if, you have parties and MPs in Parliament who are committed to working together," she says.
And by "working together" she specifically means to slow climate change with policies that drastically reduce greenhouse-gas emissions, don't build any more oil pipelines and replace fossil fuels with renewable energy as fast as possible.2

Brendan Frank answers What’s a price on carbon? It’s a charge on fossil fuels, the main drivers of climate change. The charge is based on how much carbon pollution (a.k.a. greenhouse gas emissions) the fuel produces when it is burned. For example, a litre of diesel produces more carbon pollution than a litre of gasoline, so the carbon price is higher on a litre of diesel. This creates an incentive to conserve energy, or look for alternative sources. If we want our climate to remain as stable as possible, economists overwhelmingly recommend we start by putting a price on carbon.

	Places where carbon pricing is working
1	How it worked: B.C.’s carbon tax reduced the use of gasoline and natural gas by seven per cent per person. There’s even evidence that it spurred people to buy more fuel-efficient cars. Key fact: B.C. used the revenues to cut income taxes and, more recently, to cut health premiums and invest in green technologies. It has some of the lowest income tax rates in Canada.
2	In 2009, 10 states, including New York and Massachusetts, worked together to put a price on carbon. They used the other type of carbon pricing: cap-and-trade. Their system is known as RGGI (Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative), or “Reggie.” How it worked: Electricity producers started burning way less coal and started using more natural gas and renewable energy, which reduced greenhouse gas emissions. Key fact: “Reggie” improved public health. Less coal meant less soot, and these states avoided more than US$5 billion worth of asthma attacks, hospital visits, chronic illnesses and premature deaths.
3	Sweden has had a carbon tax since 1991. It started at €25 per tonne of greenhouse gases and is now €120 per tonne, the highest carbon tax in the world. Since implementing carbon pricing, Sweden’s economy has grown well above the European average. How it worked: Businesses and homes started using less coal, gas and oil for heating, and started using biofuels instead. Sweden has reduced its greenhouse gas emissions by 25 per cent since 1995. Its carbon tax was a key contributor. Key fact: Sweden wants to be carbon neutral by 2045 and will use pricing to help get there.
4	The United Kingdom has had a bipartisan consensus on climate change for a long time. They introduced a carbon price in 2001 and gradually ramped it up over time. How it worked: The carbon price completely transformed how the U.K. generates and uses electricity. Its emissions haven’t been this low since 1890, and studies point to carbon pricing as a key contributor. Key fact: The U.K. got serious about carbon pricing in 2013. In 2012, the U.K. got 36 per cent of its electricity from coal. In 2018, it got six per cent of its electricity from coal.
5	Tokyo was the first city to put a price on pollution back in 2010. About 1,300 of its largest buildings pay a price on carbon. How it worked: Building operators started massive upgrades and retrofits. The most common initiatives were the installation of high-efficiency furnaces and lights. Key fact: Over 70 per cent of buildings met their 2020 targets by 2013.
6	Fighting climate change isn’t controversial in the EU. It has had a price on carbon for 15 years, fostered international co-operation and emphasized the need for collective action. The system applies to most of Europe’s large industrial facilities (manufacturing, power, etc.). How it worked: It took a while to get working, but the EU’s system is finally humming along. It led to a direct increase in the number of low-carbon patents and innovations, and it’s slowly changing how the EU produces electricity. Key fact: The EU’s carbon market is the largest in the world, but it will fall to No. 2 when China launches its carbon market in 2020.

The evidence shows that it helps the environment in a way that’s best for the economy. Pollution pricing works. It’s working around the world. It’s working here in Canada.

 As long as we take the time to do it properly, carbon pricing can be a key part of the solution to climate change. And at a time when cost-of-living concerns are high, how we get there matters. Let’s lay the right foundation.3

A climate change plan without a price on carbon is like a house without a foundation. Sure, it can do the job, but you’ll take on a lot of unnecessary costs.

References

1	(2019, July 22). How to misrepresent good climate policy | National Observer. Retrieved July 23, 2019, from https://www.nationalobserver.com/2019/07/22/opinion/how-misrepresent-good-climate-policy
2	(2019, July 21). May says Greens will work with any party that has a serious plan for .... Retrieved July 23, 2019, from https://calgaryherald.com/pmn/news-pmn/canada-news-pmn/may-says-greens-will-work-with-any-party-that-has-a-serious-plan-for-the-climate/wcm/c361056c-9c9d-4e8d-b7e6-c479e97ed1fb
3	(2019, July 22). Six places where carbon pricing is working | National Observer. Retrieved July 23, 2019, from https://www.nationalobserver.com/2019/07/22/opinion/six-places-where-carbon-pricing-working

Critical questions in climate politics

Clean Energy Canada comments that the political spotlight of an election campaign can be an awkward place for non-partisan policy wonks. But they are committed to doing what they always do: tracking the clean energy transition—in Canada and around the world—while sharing their views and analysis of how Canada can do our part to cut pollution and compete in the growing clean energy economy.

Clean Energy Canada asks

 As the final sitting of this parliament draws to a close, the issue of climate change—now declared a climate emergency—has been getting a lot of attention. And with good reason. We needn’t even look beyond our borders to see that emergency is the right word to describe climate change. Two record-breaking years for wildfires—and already a bad start to 2019. Once-in-a-century floods that are no longer once in a century. Deadly heatwaves.1

Megan Ogilvie, staff reporter at the Star notes that In Canada, each successive federal government has claimed to have the best climate emergency solution. Heading into the October federal election, each political party insists they have the best plan to tackle climate change. Federal candidates will soon take to TV, social media and the streets to make a case for their party’s political agenda. And all signs point to climate change being a top talking point.

To help you decipher whether your riding’s federal candidates are up to the task, the Star checked in with four Canadians for whom climate change is constantly front of mind. Here, they highlight what any politician must know about our warming climate — and provide examples of when a politician is skating over the scientific truth.2 

Fossil fuel concerns

Health concerns

  What any politician must know about our warming climate...

Critical Questions

Transition minded flags

Health and economy flags

While once abstract to people, climate change has become part of our day-to-day lives over the last decade, and here in Canada, where we’re warming twice as fast as the global average, we are on the front lines.

References

1	(2019, June 19). Anybody can have a climate plan, but what makes for an effective one .... Retrieved June 21, 2019, from https://cleanenergycanada.org/what-makes-an-effective-climate-plan/
2	(2019, July 12). What you can do about climate change now | The Star. Retrieved July 21, 2019, from http://projects.thestar.com/climate-change-canada/what-you-can-do

Love and nobility resonates with conversion

The common ground in interpretation of serendipity, coincidence, and inspiration is perhaps that we are surprised an insight or event that seems to spontaneously materialize.

Resonance in Faith and Reason

Twitter alerted me that the video of Bishop Robert Barron nearly two-hour interview with Jordan B.Peterson is available on YouTube.

The issues that arose during curation of my blog post “Moving with mercy and justice” ( http://tinyurl.com/yyobdkum ), were resonant with themes of chaos, guidance, and modern isolation in the discussion between Barron and Petersen.

Bishop Barron is seeking to understand the appeal that Petersen has with young people when he lectures on the Scriptures, particularly Genesis and Exodus. Petersen sheds light on his reluctance to declare a spiritual affiliation as he offers observations of the changes that he recommends in the approach of the Church to be more relevant to the needs of the young to move forward in a meaningful way in society.

Perhaps we are as astonished, as some in Catholic Church circles seem to be, that Barron and Petersen should share “common ground”. Jordan Peterson talks with Bishop Barron about church and false mercy. The introduction offered of Bishop Barron accompanying the video may explain some of the overlap between these people.

Bishop Robert Barron is an acclaimed author, speaker, and theologian. He is the founder of Word on Fire Catholic Ministries and Auxiliary Bishop of the Archdiocese of Los Angeles. He is also the host of the "CATHOLICISM" series, a groundbreaking, award-winning documentary about the Catholic Faith which aired on PBS. Bishop Barron is the second most-followed Catholic leader in the world on social media, behind only the Pope. He has been invited to speak about religion at the headquarters of Facebook, Google, and Amazon. His latest book is titled "Arguing Religion: A Bishop Speaks at Facebook and Google," which debuted as a #1 Amazon bestseller in both Catholicism and Atheism categories. 

The Word on Fire website brings the video interview together with some highlights on Love and nobility and the background of the participants in the video (https://wordonfire.institute/bonus/peterson/ ).

Our first gift from the Creator is freedom, without which Love is impossible, and as Bishop Barron reiterates Catholic Tradition moves in tension and respect for Faith and Reason. Hopefully you will find some common ground in this presentation.

References

(2019, July 19). Jordan Peterson talks with Bishop Barron about church ... - YouTube. Retrieved July 20, 2019, from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u0Bf7bfJTI8

Critical climate choice in the fall election

Critical thinking about the critical choice we will have to make in the fall election requires that we continue to assess the quality of the various strategies proposed by the political parties to address the climate emergency.

Source (Extinction Rebellion Nova Scotia, 2019)

David Taylor, Assistant Professor in Global and Civil Engineering, University of Toronto, write that Andrew Scheer’s green investment plan is missing key details and needs two major improvements.

Reinvestment makes green technologies and their emissions reductions available at a lower cost to consumers and businesses. Owning profitable and growing green technologies gives businesses, consumers and heavy emitters a transition plan, which my colleagues and I call “black-into-green,” or the BIG transition.
Combining investment and reinvestment into proven and successful green technologies allows green technologies to expand more quickly. Our work suggests Scheer should make another modification to his plan: The green investment standards should mandate that heavy emitters make profitable or cost-saving green investments and reinvest a portion of those profits or savings.1 

Kathryn Harrison, professor of political science at the University of British Columbia, (Bachelor’s degree in Chemical Engineering, Master’s degrees in Chemical Engineering and Political Science from MIT, PhD in Political Science from UBC) writes that the longer-term challenge looms even larger. A pipeline is an investment in long-lasting infrastructure. Yet Canada’s 2030 target is just the first step. It will be ever-harder to make the deeper cuts needed after 2030 (if not before!) if we chain ourselves to new pipeline infrastructure and associated heavy oil production expected to operate for decades to come.

 As with fossil-fuel consumption, we face a collective-action problem in fossil-fuel production. Oil-exporting countries say they support the Paris Agreement, but hold out hope that their oil will be the last drop consumers buy. This is especially unrealistic for Canada: our oil is relatively costly to produce and carbon-intensive to refine, and thus likely to be the first to go.2

Without the explicit emissions-reduction targets for investments, the CPC plan may be ineffective. With the purchase of a pipeline, the Liberal plan seems to support continuing profits for oil and gas in the hope that Canadian carbon energy is chosen to carry users through the transition to net zero emissions.

References

1	(2019, June 25). Without changes, Scheer's climate plan will be expensive or useless. Retrieved June 30, 2019, from http://theconversation.com/without-changes-scheers-climate-plan-will-be-expensive-or-useless-119266
2	(2019, July 4). How 'serious' is a climate plan that relies on pipelines? | National .... Retrieved July 8, 2019, from https://www.nationalobserver.com/2019/07/04/opinion/how-serious-climate-plan-relies-pipelines
3	Extinction Rebellion Nova Scotia. (2019, July 5) Some words of wisdom! Retrieved July 7, 2019 from https://www.facebook.com/ExtinctionRebellionNovaScotia/photos/a.664158343980857/797617523968271/?type=3&__xts__%5B0%5D=68.ARBW4BtKJdPSxbDQHecGmz-GzUtwsmX9GmsX6vY-ErcLMHAWaTtZIYoXAJ2RP_JZ6HQ1NgutJEQc1tqNnW6utz4DcBRCupaQE_PT2IRhkJTm8NZbyd0BhUU1u8WhrWJR686UNDdR5gYj7DYF-Vz7NKDViYZ_zMUogIRPC7_IozYRNLwrfAsnR15CQts9mQpbTGAKIEPMYRbCZfx0PiAfVJDdHOXEDFRIGtUIadS_qON3bkqAvBF9Uu6MhMG87qLaIhRAYsFZm_VHcCgVOmseKMfsYCR5ZH25UWmvpyUMH5RFsX62jczlo4zWwnpilaEHhumIJRuFeK7g5XxOzw&__tn__=H-R

Politics surrounding the detention of migrants at America’s southern border

The Intelligence is a daily burst of global illumination from The Economist’s worldwide network of correspondents as they dig past the headlines to get to the stories beneath—and to stories that aren’t making headlines, but should be. This episode is entitled “New Democracy in an old one: Greece’s election”

 Kyriakos Mitsotakis looks likely to lead his New Democracy party to victory in this weekend’s snap election. But can he deliver on all the promises of his big-tent campaign? We examine the controversy and the politics surrounding the detention of migrants at America’s southern border. And, it’s clear that the quality of women’s football is rocketing—we’ve got the data to prove it.1

Will Eiserman is a friend of the family and Director of the Early Childhood Hearing Outreach (ECHO) Initiative, at the National Center for Hearing Assessment and Management, Utah State University.

  (Eiserman, 2019)2

Please pay attention and share this as far and wide as you can.

References

1	(n.d.). Economist Radio | Listen via Stitcher for Podcasts. Retrieved July 6, 2019, from https://www.stitcher.com/podcast/the-economist-all-audio
2	Eiserman, W. [Willl]. (2019, July 2). On Monday I had a meeting with Senator Gardner's staff to discuss my concerns about the treatment of children at the border and about our nation's over-arching approach to immigrants. [Facebook status update]. Retrieved July 6, 2019 from https://www.facebook.com/davmacit/posts/10157350780151796