1. 1 Preferences for change: Do individuals prefer voluntary actions, soft regulations, or hard regulations to decrease fossil fuel consumption? Shahzeen Z. Attari shahzeen.attari@gmail.com Carnegie Mellon University Ecological Economics, Volume 68, Issue 6, Pages 1701-1710 International Conference on Social Dilemmas 2009

2. 2 Risk Reduction Through Governmental Regulations (Viscusi, 1993) 2

3. 3 Impacts of Climate Change (IPCC, 2007) 3

4. 4 The Social Dilemma of Conservation Private Interests at odds with collective interests I Conserve Do Not Conserve Others Conserve WINFree ride Do Not Conserve Drop in the bucket LOSE

5. 5 How to Solve Tragedy of Commons “the tragedy of the commons as a cesspool must be prevented by… coercive laws or taxing devices that make it cheaper for the polluter to treat pollutants than to discharge” - Garrett Hardin (1968)

6. 6 Regulations Rest On Political Will and Public Support 6

7. 7 Ways to Change Public Behavior VOLUNTARY ACTIONS Lack of regulations: e.g. Recycling, Pledging SOFT REGULATIONS Incentives (taxes) or changes in default: e.g. Tobacco, Carbon, Organ donation HARD REGULATIONS Enforced rules or bans: e.g. Seat belt law, Ban smoking, Ban trans fats

8. 8 One Hypothesis… Hard regulations will be preferred as “we are all in this together” and we may not trust the other person to do the right thing (Debated in Behavioral Economics)

9. 9 …or Psychological Reactance People respond negatively to any force which restricts their freedom of action (Brehm et al. 1966) (Mazis et al. 1973) Women forced to switch their laundry detergent brand expressed strong negative attitudes towards the law Some even smuggled phosphate detergent from neighboring counties

10. 10 U.S. CO 2 Emissions from Fossil Fuel (EPA, 2007)

11. 11 Issues Studied 11

12. 12 Survey Asks: Voluntary Action Would you pledge not to buy low mileage or high emission vehicle? Would you pledge to buy green energy from energy supplier? Soft Regulation Would you support tax breaks for high mileage or low emission vehicles? Would you support automatic purchase green energy with opt-out allowance? Hard Regulation Would you support government restricting purchases of SUVs and trucks? Would you support government regulation requiring energy mix? 12

13. 13 Framing Affects Behavior 75% Lean25% Fat (Levine & Gaeth, 1988)

14. 14 Study Contrasts Two Frames Environment “damages ecosystem” “pollutes the atmosphere with toxic substances and contributes to climate change” National Security “dependence on foreign oil” “decreases our national energy security – that is our ability to ensure and control our energy supply.”

15. 15 Four Survey Versions 1234 Voluntary? Soft?Hard?Soft?Hard? Voluntary? Soft?Hard?Soft?Hard? All participants provided reasons for each choice

16. 16 Results: SUV Soft, National Security Soft, Environment Hard, National Security Hard, Environment Voluntary ActionRegulation

17. 17 Results: Green Energy Soft, National Security Soft, Environment Hard, National Security Hard, Environment Voluntary ActionRegulation

18. 18 Voluntary Intercept -2.3-1.2 Frame (environmental = 1) -0.14-0.19 Regulatory option (soft = 1) -0.090-0.62 Pro-environmental attitudes 0.690.84 SUV ownership -1.5 0.74 Alternative energy 0.09012 Green energy 1.314 Democrat 0.50-0.32 Republican -0.670.29 Independent 0.13-0.051 Political views 0.240.11 Gender (male = 1) -0.81 Age 0.00300.0079 Income -0.016-0.27 Education 0.0980.15 Max-rescaled R 2 0.310.29 Significance level: ( p < 0.05 ; p < 0.01 ; p < 0.001 ) 18

19. 19 Regulation Intercept -2.9-2.8 Frame (environmental = 1) -0.088-0.20 Regulatory option (soft = 1) 2.21.21 Pro-environmental attitudes 0.620.73 SUV ownership -0.290.081 Alternative energy 0.640.72 Green energy 0.981.51 Democrat -0.440.43 Republican -1.5 -0.19 Independent -1.4 -0.61 Political views 0.0890.16 Gender (male = 1) -0.28-0.69 Age 0.00700.0032 Income 0.064-0.069 Education -0.0320.14 Max-rescaled R 2 0.310.29 Significance level: ( p < 0.05 ; p < 0.01 ; p < 0.001 ) 19

20. 20 Reasons for Preferences Reason categoryCount Economic incentives 167 Personal freedom and need for choice 129 Environmental reasons and cost 109 Lifestyle requirement 70 I already do this 60 More information is needed 31 Safety and health reasons 31 Better choices needed 24 Other reasons (mentioned only once) 24 Government needed 19 Foreign dependency, cost, environment 11 I do not believe in global warming 7 People will accept this 5 This requires too much effort 2 This is a drop in the bucket 2 I do not care 2

21. 21 Findings - Framing did not matter - For SUVs and Trucks: Soft >> Voluntary >> Hard For Green Energy: Soft ~ Voluntary >> Hard - Voluntary Actions  female, pro-environmental Regulations  soft, pro-environmental - Reasons: Economic incentives Personal freedom

22. 22 Defaults Save Lives Johnson and Goldstein (2003)

23. 23 Future Work - Are there ways to decrease psychological reactance ? Introduce soft regulations first - Preferences for other behaviors: Health, Safety : Hard >> Soft >> Voluntary

24. 24 Acknowledgments Cliff Davidson Mike DeKay Robyn Dawes Mitch Small Wändi Bruine de Bruin Liz Hohenstein Funding ICSD Conference Travel Funding Environmental Research and Education Foundation National Science Foundation Mary Schoen

25. 25

26. 26 Demographics of Participants 209 Pittsburgh residents Median Income: $20,001-$50,000 Median Age: 28 years 47% Male 52% Dem, 16% Rep, 13% Ind 46% Liberal, 24% Conservative 21% Own SUV 9% Buy Green Energy Although a Convenience Sample, Reasonably Representative of Pittsburgh Demographic

27. 27 Other Measures Used in the Survey Pro-environmental attitudes (NEPs, Dunlap et al. 2000) Currently own SUV Use alternative energy Purchase green energy Political party affiliation (Dem, Rep, Ind, Not sure) Political views (extremely liberal   extremely conservative) Gender Age Income Education

28. 28 Logistic Regressions Probability of saying yes Used for categorical, dichotomous responses Regression results

29. 29 Who are the major carbon players? 25% The U.S. emits 21% of the world’s carbon emissions, but has only 5% of the world’s population. Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency (2007)

30. 30 How to Address the Problem Supply SideDemand Side Carbon Capture and Sequestration Renewable electricity generation Efficient electricity generation Efficient technologies Fuel Switching Adopting efficient technologies Buying renewable energy Changing preferences Changing lifestyle Conservation

31. 31 Carbon Cycle (Vaclav Smil, 2007)