"Consumption is a thorny issue for us, but we need to start discussing it."
"For human beings, the consumption of resources is a thorny issue. However, we must start discussing these issues. "
Peter Reiner, executive director of the Natural Resources Defense Council, said. This is welcome news. Like other large environmental NGOs, NRDC avoids telling people what to eat (eat less red meat and dairy products), what kind of car to drive (smaller), whether to fly (not too many) or how many houses to own (one).
Peter Lai Na, executive director of the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), said. Then this is good news. Because the Natural Resources Conservation Society, like other NGOs, is often ashamed to tell people how to eat (eat less red meat and dairy products), what car to use (the smaller the better), whether to fly (not too many times) and how many headquarters (one) there are.
This situation may be about to change.
It seems that this situation will change.
Last week, after a three-day seminar on climate, thinking and behavior sponsored by NRDC and Garrison Institute, I had a talk with Lerner (right). Garrison Institute is a non-profit organization, and its "Ecological Transformation" project is led by Jonathan F.P. Rose, a real estate developer in new york, who is also a member of the board of NRDC. The purpose of this activity is to explore how to change behavior on a large enough scale to have a significant impact on global greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.
Last week, NRDC and Garrison Institute (a non-profit organization led by Jonathan FP Ross, a real estate developer and director of NRDC, whose purpose is "ecological transformation") jointly sponsored a seminar on "Climate, Psychology and Behavior". After the meeting, I talked to Reina. The purpose of this seminar is to explore various ways to completely change people's behavior and strive to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
The main participants include environmentalists, investors, businessmen and scholars.
Participants in the seminar mainly include environmentalists, investors, business people and scholars.
The headline news of this activity is that simple and cheap changes can reduce1000 million tons of global warming emissions.
The theme of this seminar is that simple and cheap behavior changes can reduce 1 100 million tons of greenhouse gas emissions.
In other words, NRDC said that the change of behavior can produce as many emission reductions as the famous "climate stability wedge" in the article published by Princeton University professors Stephen Pacala and Robert Socolow in Science in 2004.
NRDC also said that, in other words, behavioral changes can produce many reductions, which are "climate stability wedges" (Steven Pacala and Robert socolow published an article on "climate stability wedges" in Science in, which made them famous among meteorological enthusiasts).
As Reiner said: "If all Americans act together and take quite moderate measures, many of which can save or not increase costs and let them live a better life, we can reduce the emissions equivalent to the whole of Germany."
As Lai Na said: "If all Americans act together and take their proper steps, they can save costs or consume properly and bring them a better life, then we can reduce greenhouse gas emissions equivalent to the whole of Germany."
"People often ask, if I change my behavior, what will be different?" Reina continued. "This analysis shows that this is very different. This is so exciting. "
"People often ask, if I change my behavior, what will be different?" Reina continued, "Our analysis shows that the change will be earth-shaking. This makes us very excited. "
He quickly added that individual actions cannot replace the policy changes needed to curb emissions and promote clean energy. On the contrary, he hoped that individuals and their actions would lead to activism.
He added that individual actions cannot replace policy changes, which can promote the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions and the development of clean energy. Reina also hopes that in addition, personal actions can also be put into practice.
"If you start cycling to work, you may become more active in your community to ensure that there are bike lanes," he said. "Policy is no longer abstract. Very real. "
Reina said, "If you start cycling to work, you should be more active in community activities and make sure there are bike lanes. After that, the policy will no longer be vague, but gradually clear. "
The following are some suggestions from NRDC and Garrison Research Institute. They may sound familiar, but please be patient with me-there is potential for new ideas:
The following are some suggestions made by NRDC and Garrison Institute. These suggestions sound common, but they need to be considered-because they encourage you to have new ideas.
Less flying once a year: The average one-way commercial flight from London to Los Angeles produces more GHG emissions per passenger than the average British commuter combined by car, train and subway every year. Although it is unreasonable to expect those who only fly once or twice a year to give up flying (that flight is likely to be their holiday), frequent fliers, especially business travelers, can use alternatives such as telecommuting to reduce air travel.
Fly only once a year or not: In every commercial flight from London to Los Angeles, the per capita greenhouse gas emissions of passengers are much higher than those of car passengers, train passengers and subway passengers who use monthly tickets every year. However, it is unrealistic to ask those passengers who only take 1-2 flights a year not to fly (a journey or their holidays), but those frequent "pilots" (especially business passengers) can choose another way of working, such as working remotely by computer, which can reduce the number of flights.
Eat less red meat and dairy products: not all meat is created equal. In the United States, an average pound of beef emits 20 pounds, while a pound of chicken emits less than two pounds. Today, the average American consumes a lot of red meat, which is equivalent to a McDonald's Angus bacon and cheese burger every day. By 2020, replacing two days of red meat with poultry will reduce emissions by more than 70 million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (MMtCO2e). Cows also produce a lot of GHG emissions. Giving up dairy products for two days a week and eating plant-based foods will not only benefit health-animal fat is closely related to obesity, diabetes and various cancers-but also save more than 35 million tons of carbon dioxide in 2020.
Eat less red meat and drink less dairy products: all meat products will emit different amounts of greenhouse gases during eating. In the United States, every pound of beef people eat will produce 20 pounds of greenhouse gases, while every pound of chicken will produce less than 2 pounds of greenhouse gases. Now, every American eats an amazing amount of red meat, which is equivalent to eating an Angus bacon and a cheeseburger at McDonald's every day. In 2020, replacing red meat food with poultry food for two days can reduce 70 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent. In addition, the consumption of dairy products will also produce a lot of greenhouse gases. Eat more plant food than dairy products two days a week. These foods are not only healthy-animal fat is closely related to obesity, diabetes and various cancers-but also can reduce 35 metric tons of carbon dioxide by 2020.
Consume paper and plastics more responsibly: buying recycled paper, reducing two-thirds of unnecessary catalogues and reducing one-third of printing paper consumption (which can be easily achieved by double-sided printing) will save more than 50 million tons of carbon dioxide in 2020. In the same time, reducing the consumption of bottled water by 50% will save 80 million tons of carbon dioxide equivalent.
Use paper and plastics correctly: People should buy recycled paper, reduce 2/3 unnecessary catalogue paper and use 1/3 printing paper (double-sided printing can achieve this goal), which can reduce the equivalent of 50 metric tons of carbon dioxide in 2020. In addition, reducing the use of boiling water by 50% in a period of time can reduce the emission of 8 metric tons of equivalent carbon dioxide.
I deliberately chose suggestions that affect consumption. Others are less controversial and more familiar: replacing incandescent bulbs with energy-saving lamps, reducing idling of cars, repairing water leakage and heat loss in houses, unplugging electrical appliances, turning down the thermostat in winter and raising it in summer (cardigan is not needed).
Because the others are not controversial and unfamiliar, I deliberately chose suggestions that affect emissions: replacing incandescent lamps with energy-saving lamps, reducing motorcycle dripping, repairing water leaks and heat sinks at home, unplugging, and making the temperature of automatic regulators low in winter and high in summer.
Is there anything new here? I think there are two things.
Is there anything new? I think there are two.
First of all, behavioral economics and the new work around happiness research and climate change communication provide new insights on how to make people change. I have written about these developments before (see what for lunch? Behavioral economics meets climate change and how to talk about climate change. They are exciting.
First of all, the work done by behavioral economics and the communication system around happiness research and climate change provide a new perspective on how to change people. I have written this suggestion before (refer to what is lunch? Behavioral economics and climate change will collide, and these suggestions are wonderful.
A basic viewpoint of behavioral economics is that man is not only a rational and self-interested creature in economics, but also an emotional creature, which can be altruistic and influenced by the behavior of others. Many of our political discourses, including the debate on climate change policy, revolve around "What's in it for me?" That's why we hear so much about "green jobs". Some behavioral economists believe that environmentalists will better cater to our better nature.
A basic viewpoint in behavioral economics is that human beings are not only rational and selfish as mentioned in economics 10 1, but also sentient beings who dare to help others and will be influenced by others. In many political speeches, including the debate on climate change policy, people will pay attention to "what will I get from it?" This is why the word "green job" always appears frequently. Some behavioral economists say that environmentalists will benefit the natural environment.
The following are some brief excerpts from a draft paper delivered by John Gowdy of RPI at the meeting:
The following are some excerpts from the speech made by John Gaudi of RPI at the seminar:
Contrary to the policy suggestions of most economists, relying on monetary incentives to solve collective choice problems such as global warming may actually have a negative impact. As many environmental philosophers have argued (Norton 2005; It is a more effective way to let people share the responsibility and directly arouse public awareness of public welfare, which can make people accept environmental protection policies. ...
Compared with the policy suggestions of most economists, relying on monetary incentives to seize the same choice issues, such as global warming, will have adverse effects. Because many environmental thinkers (Norton said in 2005; O 'Neill argued in 1993 that it is more efficient to let people bear the same responsibilities and let people directly feel the attraction of the same interests than to let environmental protection policies pass.
A successful response to global climate change may require unprecedented cooperation between people with very different values and needs. Formulating policies that make use of the social and genetic heritage of our cooperation provides the greatest hope for success.
Successfully dealing with climate issues requires the joint efforts of people with different global values and different needs. Making good social and genetic policies can bring people the greatest expectation of success.
Another new thing is the potential dialogue about consumption. To a large extent, enterprises will not dominate this dialogue, and until recently, environmental organizations did not. As Lehner said, "We have discussed it passively on our website ... what we are exploring now is to talk about it more actively."
Another new idea is about the possibility of holding a conference on emissions. Importantly, until recently, business people and environmentalists have not held such talks. As Reina said, "we always talk passively on the website ... and what we are exploring now is that we should give a statement more actively."
It's not easy. Talking about excessive consumption is hard to hear. It doesn't sound like threatening people. "It's tricky because it's a personal problem," Lerner said. "It's hard to talk about other people's lives."
It is not easy. If it doesn't sound like yelling, it's hard to say who has exceeded the standard. Reina said: "Because this is a personal problem, we have to be cunning. Because it is difficult for us to interfere in other people's lives. "
But as we used to say in the 1960s, the individual is politics. Driving an SUV when it is not needed is not a simple personal choice; This is an antisocial behavior, just like letting your car idle when it is parked outside a dry cleaner or Starbucks. The food we eat, the cars we drive, the size of the houses we build and buy, and other choices we make will all have an impact on the global environment-especially because Americans are one of the biggest polluters on earth per capita. So let's start a dialogue.
However, as we often said in the 1960s, people's private lives are protected by law. Only when you need it, will you selectively drive an off-road vehicle; When the car is outside the dryer or part of Starbucks, the car is wasted, which is also anti-social behavior. The food we eat, the cars we drive, the size and price of the houses we build, and other choices we make are all special environmental results, because the United States is the most polluted country per capita. Then, let's have a meeting.