so it’s pretty funny
a lot of mankind’s earliest documented
problems have been all about us doing
things that we know we shouldn’t be
doing so great examples of this are Adam
and Eve and Pandora’s Box and despite
explicit instruction not to do the one
thing that would harm them
our protagonist found themselves doing
them anyways now we were like that back
then
and we are like that now except now
there’s a crucial difference the fate of
our planet is at stake and we’re on the
clock to act accordingly
of course I’m talking about climate
change now the thing that’s remained
consistent over time is that there’s
been a certain disconnect between our
beliefs and our behaviors while we may
intend to do something have a certain
belief in our mind that we should do
something a lot of the times this does
not manifest itself in action it just
stays in our minds and I know I’m guilty
of this I know taking 30 minute showers
is a waste of water and bad for the
environment but I took one this morning
so so and even small reminders and in my
bathroom there is a plaque that’s saying
don’t waste water and that has helped me
a little bit but the change that those
small reminders results in are small
they’re minimal and they’re only
short-term they’re not the kind of
change that we need so what kind of
change do we need I like to use the term
sustained and systemic behavior change
what’s that mean it means that it’s not
privy to our whims so just because we
don’t feel like doing something we don’t
feel I mean taking a shower is just so
comfortable just because we don’t feel
like doing something doesn’t mean we’re
not going to do the right thing for the
environment it also means we’re
necessarily changing the system or
operating in and so the environment
around us makes it easier to make the
decisions that are helpful for the
natural environment
so how can we bring about this change
there are a couple approaches and a lot
of them don’t work a lot of them have
been proposed to maybe kind of work so
one of them is an appeal to Reason I’d
like to call this the Bill Nighy
approach considers we take facts and
figures and throw them at you until we
get them to change because people are
informed they’ll make the right
decisions No so instead instead I don’t
think it I don’t think it matters how
many times I tell you we’ve contributed
X amount of gigatonnes of carbon dioxide
into the environment in the last year or
if I can point out a logical
inconsistency in your argument using a
reductio ad absurdum you know this
doesn’t change life itself the kind of
change that we need makes it so that the
actions that we feel like doing to help
the environment don’t feel like actions
they just feel like life another appeal
that doesn’t work as an appeal to
emotion something I like to call the Al
Gore approach now a lot of you have
probably seen the documentary An
Inconvenient Truth and it’s popular for
a reason it evokes a particular
emotional response in us so it can be
encapsulated with a video of a drowning
polar bear so imagine one swimming
through the ice trying to find stable
footing on a sheet to just rest its paws
on because it’s been swimming for so
long but it doesn’t and the screen fades
to black and we’re left thinking it died
now this this elicits a pretty powerful
emotion a lot of you may be feeling this
right now but this emotion doesn’t last
by the end of this talk you all will not
be feeling it so sympathetic for the
polar bear in fact you will be
forgetting about it so and this is not
something that we can base sustained and
systemic change on so what can we base
it on well there’s one approach come up
in part by a Nobel Prize winner in
economics just Pat this past year
Richard Thaler
and he gave it a name that none of you
will like it’s called libertarian
paternalism it’s so perfect perhaps it
is as much as we don’t like the sound of
that or I can convince you that two
seeming wrongs can make a right so let
me break it down for you libertarian
means its freedom preserving I’m not
limiting the choices you’re making your
day to day live libertarian policy
simply is it’s not for instance limiting
the amount of days that you can drive
saying oh only Mondays Wednesdays and
Fridays for you this limits our choice
it’s not libertarian the paternalism
part comes in while you are able to make
all the choices you want we’re
rearranging those choices in a way where
it’s easier for you to make the decision
that is best for you okay so an example
of a libertarian paternalistic policy is
making use of a thing called default
choice so if I make something you have a
bunch of options to choose from and one
of them is the default choice and then
you have to go out of your way to select
the different one the default choice is
going to be what the majority of people
pick pretty much every time so or at
least it increases it by a lot and so
think about if you’re shopping for a
you’re thinking about making getting an
electricity plan the default electricity
plan the company provides you with it’s
probably going to be one you choose okay
so that’s an example of libertarian
paternalism but some people think so
behavioral scientists think we know
enough about behavioral science and we
know enough about what’s good for you
what’s good for the environment that we
can ditch the libertarian part that we
can limit the amount of choices you have
consisting of for instance banning a
certain kind of sunscreen that hurts the
environment or for instance if the local
government perhaps here in Durham shrunk
the size of the trash cans it would
result in less waste I think you have a
small closet you fill it you have a big
closet you also fill it it’s that kind
of thing so but regardless of the
approach that we take
the same players are in the game
remember thinking of specific policy we
have to consider who’s actually making
the decisions so I like to break them up
into three categories first there’s the
individual next there’s the government
and then finally the corporation now
this isn’t an exhaustive list by any
means but I fit for the sake of outline
that we’re just going to stick with that
so they all have a certain amount of
influence and they all have a certain
amount of bureaucracy they also have
their own unique intention to action
GAAP I’ll start with the individual
individual has no bureaucracy the the
time it takes between an intention and
then doing the action is quite small but
because there’s no bureaucracy there’s
no structure because there’s no
structure the natural in we go with our
natural inclinations and our natural
inclinations are not as what’s best for
us and is not what’s best for the
environment so there needs to be a kind
of structure a bureaucracy for the
individual and the players that can
create that are corporations and the
government which are also made up of
individuals but they’re in a certain
kind of bureaucracy right so let’s
consider the government the government
has a very high amount of bureaucracy it
takes a long time to get things done but
when it does get things done it has
power that can’t be ignored the problem
is with climate change is that we have a
lot of people in the government who
believe in climate change and a lot of
people in the government who don’t and
because of this because the intentions
aren’t aligned they’re conflicting the
action isn’t produced and so the
question becomes how do we get the
people in the government to have aligned
intentions about wanting to save the
planet well we need some kind of change
change comes out of necessity necessity
comes out of crisis but if we wait for
crisis to come about with climate change
it’s going to be too
and so recently there’s an example and
so there was a school shooting in
parkland and no coming from South
Florida it really really impacts me but
we can use it as an example to see um
how when some kind of crisis arises that
the government can actually come
together and hopefully make some kind of
change at least we’re seeing evidence of
that but we can’t wait for that kind of
change for the climate but so what can
we do I have one proposal for us and
it’s to vote for people who do believe
in climate change so help with the
government’s kind of bureaucracy if we
have all the people in the room with the
same goal in mind they recognize that we
are facing a crisis and don’t have to
wait for some tangible thing that they
can come together and do something but
in the meantime that doesn’t look like
that’s going to be getting done so what
are we left with we’re left with the
corporation the corporation has a
certain amount of influence they have a
certain amount of bureaucracy and
they’re kind of in the middle with this
Goldilocks zone their influence is
pretty large if they want to think about
the products use in your day to day
lives they’re not made by the government
and their bureaucracy is not that large
either if they want to get something
done they will get something done
otherwise they will go out of business
that’s how corporations work the problem
is with their intention action gap even
though it’s small that their intentions
are not in the right place they’re
focused on economic incentives not
saving the planet so the question
becomes how can we get governments to
care about the planet and I have another
solution for you so the remember your
first solution is to vote for people who
believe in climate change that’s for the
government the second solution for the
corporations to get their intentions in
order to speak with their wallets to buy
products to create an incentive for the
corporation to create new products to
create the Syst
that we need structure the bureaucracy
us as individuals mean in our day-to-day
lives to make the right decisions for
the environment unless we have this I’m
unsure of where the plant is going to go
I don’t think it’s going to be very good
but there is hope if this structure
arises I believe that there is hope and
so I hope you will join me in the future
in coming up with new ways we can
influence the government influence
corporations to create the structure we
all need thank you very much [Applause]
a lot of mankind’s earliest documented
problems have been all about us doing
things that we know we shouldn’t be
doing so great examples of this are Adam
and Eve and Pandora’s Box and despite
explicit instruction not to do the one
thing that would harm them
our protagonist found themselves doing
them anyways now we were like that back
then
and we are like that now except now
there’s a crucial difference the fate of
our planet is at stake and we’re on the
clock to act accordingly
of course I’m talking about climate
change now the thing that’s remained
consistent over time is that there’s
been a certain disconnect between our
beliefs and our behaviors while we may
intend to do something have a certain
belief in our mind that we should do
something a lot of the times this does
not manifest itself in action it just
stays in our minds and I know I’m guilty
of this I know taking 30 minute showers
is a waste of water and bad for the
environment but I took one this morning
so so and even small reminders and in my
bathroom there is a plaque that’s saying
don’t waste water and that has helped me
a little bit but the change that those
small reminders results in are small
they’re minimal and they’re only
short-term they’re not the kind of
change that we need so what kind of
change do we need I like to use the term
sustained and systemic behavior change
what’s that mean it means that it’s not
privy to our whims so just because we
don’t feel like doing something we don’t
feel I mean taking a shower is just so
comfortable just because we don’t feel
like doing something doesn’t mean we’re
not going to do the right thing for the
environment it also means we’re
necessarily changing the system or
operating in and so the environment
around us makes it easier to make the
decisions that are helpful for the
natural environment
so how can we bring about this change
there are a couple approaches and a lot
of them don’t work a lot of them have
been proposed to maybe kind of work so
one of them is an appeal to Reason I’d
like to call this the Bill Nighy
approach considers we take facts and
figures and throw them at you until we
get them to change because people are
informed they’ll make the right
decisions No so instead instead I don’t
think it I don’t think it matters how
many times I tell you we’ve contributed
X amount of gigatonnes of carbon dioxide
into the environment in the last year or
if I can point out a logical
inconsistency in your argument using a
reductio ad absurdum you know this
doesn’t change life itself the kind of
change that we need makes it so that the
actions that we feel like doing to help
the environment don’t feel like actions
they just feel like life another appeal
that doesn’t work as an appeal to
emotion something I like to call the Al
Gore approach now a lot of you have
probably seen the documentary An
Inconvenient Truth and it’s popular for
a reason it evokes a particular
emotional response in us so it can be
encapsulated with a video of a drowning
polar bear so imagine one swimming
through the ice trying to find stable
footing on a sheet to just rest its paws
on because it’s been swimming for so
long but it doesn’t and the screen fades
to black and we’re left thinking it died
now this this elicits a pretty powerful
emotion a lot of you may be feeling this
right now but this emotion doesn’t last
by the end of this talk you all will not
be feeling it so sympathetic for the
polar bear in fact you will be
forgetting about it so and this is not
something that we can base sustained and
systemic change on so what can we base
it on well there’s one approach come up
in part by a Nobel Prize winner in
economics just Pat this past year
Richard Thaler
and he gave it a name that none of you
will like it’s called libertarian
paternalism it’s so perfect perhaps it
is as much as we don’t like the sound of
that or I can convince you that two
seeming wrongs can make a right so let
me break it down for you libertarian
means its freedom preserving I’m not
limiting the choices you’re making your
day to day live libertarian policy
simply is it’s not for instance limiting
the amount of days that you can drive
saying oh only Mondays Wednesdays and
Fridays for you this limits our choice
it’s not libertarian the paternalism
part comes in while you are able to make
all the choices you want we’re
rearranging those choices in a way where
it’s easier for you to make the decision
that is best for you okay so an example
of a libertarian paternalistic policy is
making use of a thing called default
choice so if I make something you have a
bunch of options to choose from and one
of them is the default choice and then
you have to go out of your way to select
the different one the default choice is
going to be what the majority of people
pick pretty much every time so or at
least it increases it by a lot and so
think about if you’re shopping for a
you’re thinking about making getting an
electricity plan the default electricity
plan the company provides you with it’s
probably going to be one you choose okay
so that’s an example of libertarian
paternalism but some people think so
behavioral scientists think we know
enough about behavioral science and we
know enough about what’s good for you
what’s good for the environment that we
can ditch the libertarian part that we
can limit the amount of choices you have
consisting of for instance banning a
certain kind of sunscreen that hurts the
environment or for instance if the local
government perhaps here in Durham shrunk
the size of the trash cans it would
result in less waste I think you have a
small closet you fill it you have a big
closet you also fill it it’s that kind
of thing so but regardless of the
approach that we take
the same players are in the game
remember thinking of specific policy we
have to consider who’s actually making
the decisions so I like to break them up
into three categories first there’s the
individual next there’s the government
and then finally the corporation now
this isn’t an exhaustive list by any
means but I fit for the sake of outline
that we’re just going to stick with that
so they all have a certain amount of
influence and they all have a certain
amount of bureaucracy they also have
their own unique intention to action
GAAP I’ll start with the individual
individual has no bureaucracy the the
time it takes between an intention and
then doing the action is quite small but
because there’s no bureaucracy there’s
no structure because there’s no
structure the natural in we go with our
natural inclinations and our natural
inclinations are not as what’s best for
us and is not what’s best for the
environment so there needs to be a kind
of structure a bureaucracy for the
individual and the players that can
create that are corporations and the
government which are also made up of
individuals but they’re in a certain
kind of bureaucracy right so let’s
consider the government the government
has a very high amount of bureaucracy it
takes a long time to get things done but
when it does get things done it has
power that can’t be ignored the problem
is with climate change is that we have a
lot of people in the government who
believe in climate change and a lot of
people in the government who don’t and
because of this because the intentions
aren’t aligned they’re conflicting the
action isn’t produced and so the
question becomes how do we get the
people in the government to have aligned
intentions about wanting to save the
planet well we need some kind of change
change comes out of necessity necessity
comes out of crisis but if we wait for
crisis to come about with climate change
it’s going to be too
and so recently there’s an example and
so there was a school shooting in
parkland and no coming from South
Florida it really really impacts me but
we can use it as an example to see um
how when some kind of crisis arises that
the government can actually come
together and hopefully make some kind of
change at least we’re seeing evidence of
that but we can’t wait for that kind of
change for the climate but so what can
we do I have one proposal for us and
it’s to vote for people who do believe
in climate change so help with the
government’s kind of bureaucracy if we
have all the people in the room with the
same goal in mind they recognize that we
are facing a crisis and don’t have to
wait for some tangible thing that they
can come together and do something but
in the meantime that doesn’t look like
that’s going to be getting done so what
are we left with we’re left with the
corporation the corporation has a
certain amount of influence they have a
certain amount of bureaucracy and
they’re kind of in the middle with this
Goldilocks zone their influence is
pretty large if they want to think about
the products use in your day to day
lives they’re not made by the government
and their bureaucracy is not that large
either if they want to get something
done they will get something done
otherwise they will go out of business
that’s how corporations work the problem
is with their intention action gap even
though it’s small that their intentions
are not in the right place they’re
focused on economic incentives not
saving the planet so the question
becomes how can we get governments to
care about the planet and I have another
solution for you so the remember your
first solution is to vote for people who
believe in climate change that’s for the
government the second solution for the
corporations to get their intentions in
order to speak with their wallets to buy
products to create an incentive for the
corporation to create new products to
create the Syst
that we need structure the bureaucracy
us as individuals mean in our day-to-day
lives to make the right decisions for
the environment unless we have this I’m
unsure of where the plant is going to go
I don’t think it’s going to be very good
but there is hope if this structure
arises I believe that there is hope and
so I hope you will join me in the future
in coming up with new ways we can
influence the government influence
corporations to create the structure we
all need thank you very much [Applause]
Please follow and like us: