THE IMPLICATIONS OF CLIMATE CHANGE
Climate Change Science
Modeling is an important part of the scientific understanding of climate change, but perhaps the most compelling example of climate change data comes from the long-term link between carbon dioxide and temperature. 28 Changes in Earth's orbit and other influences are thought to affect temperature and carbon dioxide levels.
Potential Harms of Climate Change
Framework Convention on Climate Change.39 Although critics have derided the ambiguity of this goal, scientists have identified a number of outcomes that meet the definition of dangerous, such as "warming that poses a risk to unique and threatened systems and warming that poses a risk of large- scale discontinuities in the climate system."' 40 An example of the first type of outcome is the destruction of coral reef systems on a large scale,. Although we agree with Judge Posner that abruptness is important because it reduces our ability to adapt, we conclude that abruptness is not a necessary predicate for action regarding some of the low probability and severe effects of climate change.
Emissions Reduction Targets
THE CONTRIBUTION OF INDIVIDUAL BEHAVIOR
Individual Behavior as a Source Category
By dividing emissions resulting from individual behavior into two categories, one of which (transport) includes emissions from many types of sources other than individuals, this framework obscures the size of total emissions from individuals as a separate source category. With this framework in mind, the size of the total contribution of individual behavior will become clear as emissions from household activities and personal transportation are added together.
A Model of Individual Carbon Dioxide Emissions
Individual Behavior Defined
Next, we obtain the total residential electricity consumption for 2000 using EIA data.7 4 We convert this electricity consumption into carbon emissions using the EIA coefficients, which take into account the fuel type used in the electricity generation. To validate the top-down approach, we also calculate household carbon dioxide emissions using a bottom-up approach.
R esults
Each of these behaviors accounts for at least 1% of the total emissions of individual behaviors. Government reports inform the public about many of the potential effects of climate change.
EMISSIONS REDUCTIONS FROM INDIVIDUAL BEHAVIOR. 1695
High-Yielding Behaviors
The model demonstrates that transportation is responsible for 9107 pounds of carbon dioxide per person (63% of total annual emissions),1°1 and that personal motor vehicle use accounts for the vast majority of that total. This reduction dwarfs the total emissions for many industrial sectors, such as iron and steel (144 billion pounds), cement manufacturing (90.8 billion), and petrochemical production (6.6 billion).102 The model also demonstrates that sport utility vehicles (SUVs) are responsible for approximately one-third more carbon dioxide emissions than their proportional share of all personal motor vehicles.10 3 Changes in consumer vehicle choice can therefore also. The model also shows that household activities account for 5416 pounds, or 37%, of emissions from the average individual, much of which stems from appliance use.
Based on the EIA data that formed the basis of our bottom-up analysis for households,'104 the top eight categories of appliances in terms of total carbon emissions are refrigeration/freezing (89.2 billion pounds), air conditioning (83 .2 billion), space heating (52.8 billion), water heating (47.6 billion), lighting (46 billion), home electronics (37.6 billion), clothes drying (30.2 billion), and stoves/ovens ( 24.2 billion).'0 5. Although Gardner and Stern conducted their work in the early 1980s, it provides the best analysis available of the behavioral changes that produce the highest returns.10 6. Taken together, the model results and the Gardner and Stern analysis that there is no shortage of believable behavior. changes that can bring about large emission reductions.
In fact, the list shows that relatively small steps can reduce the contribution of emissions from individual behavior by almost two-thirds.
Low-Hanging Fruit
THE ROLE OF NORM ACTIVATION
- Norms Theory
- Empirical Studies
Norm Activation and Climate Change
The Abstract Norm of Personal Responsibility
While the widespread existence of the personal responsibility standard suggests that it has enormous potential to influence behavior, the link between the standard and individual carbon emissions reductions has received little attention. 190 A July 2006 search using the Google search engine and the search term “personal responsibility site: Heritage.org” yielded 1,330 hits on the Heritage Foundation's website, http://www.heritage.org. 191 See, for example, Dennis Prager, co-director, Empower Am., Lecture at the Heritage Foundation: The American Tradition of Personal Responsibility (available Sept. at http://www.heritage.org/Research/PoliticaIPhilosophy/HL515.cfm ( arguing that the founders demonstrated a commitment to personal responsibility).
In fact, we found almost no examples of conservative commentators connecting the concept of personal responsibility with environmental protection.194. In our view, conservatives are correct in noting that the personal responsibility norm is likely to influence behavior and that promoting the norm is an appropriate government concern. However, they fall short in failing to recognize the role of personal responsibility in ameliorating environmental damage, and climate change in particular.
One way to do that is to link the norm of personal responsibility to carbon neutrality, using information that resonates with individuals across the political spectrum.
The Concrete Norm of Carbon Neutrality
The presidents of more than 150 colleges and universities in the United States have signed a statement pledging to take steps to achieve carbon neutrality.21 5. Carbon neutrality also fits well with the abstract norm of personal responsibility: it allows individuals to be sure , yes - less behavior of others, do not contribute to the damage. Because carbon neutrality can be achieved through a combination of emissions reductions and offsetting, it does not require large behavioral changes or financial costs.
Carbon neutrality is not without its critics.229 One concern is that offsets may not always deliver real emissions reductions. A third concern is that the price of offsets is likely to rise as carbon neutrality spreads and more carbon offsets are purchased. Furthermore, individuals who have adopted a carbon neutrality norm may resist acting outside the norm even after compliance becomes more costly.239.
Widespread adoption of a carbon neutrality standard may begin to set the standard at zero, even if the standard allows for the standard to be met through emissions reductions and offsetting.
Integration with Traditional Remedies
INSTITUTIONAL DESIGN AND INSTITUTIONAL ACTION
Information Disclosure
- The Individual Carbon-Release Inventory
- Information on Specific Behaviors
- Information on Economic and Human Health
- The Carbon-Neutral Registry
Although no single approach is likely to lead to universal changes in carbon-emitting behaviors, in combination these approaches can lead to widespread adoption of the carbon neutrality norm and behavioral change. One of the most important roles that government can play is to provide individuals and policymakers with accurate information about overall emissions attributable to individual behavior and the emissions of the average individual. EIA may release ICRI data at the same time and in the same format as the release of TRI industrial data on toxic chemical emissions.
275 For the purposes of this discussion, we will assume that Congress would delegate responsibility to the EIA, which already collects and publishes much of the data necessary to compile an ICRI. Based on our earlier example, a quantification of the average and total emissions associated with idling of personal motor vehicles could be included in the annual ICRI report, and media reports on these emissions would challenge individuals' outdated views of the personal and be able to update the social costs of idling. 277. As discussed above, the standard of personal responsibility may be more broadly held than the standard of environmental protection.283 Individuals are more likely to be motivated by information that their behavior will cause economic or physical harm to other people than by information about harm. As a result, government efforts that reveal estimates of the potential harm to human health and the economy from climate change could activate carbon neutrality standards among those who feel strongly about climate change.
Leaving aside whether rational risk regulation by policy makers can take place if one of the most important long-term reasons for adopting a standard is excluded from the regulatory impact analysis, if the government wants to influence the behavior of those who hold the personal responsibility norm. but not the environmental protection norm, it would need to express quantitative ranges for the dollar value of the economic and human health harms of climate change.288 Academics and policymakers have shown that cost-benefit analyzes can be conducted using broad ranges of potential costs and benefits, even if the exact costs and benefits are difficult to calculate.289.
Direct Carbon-Neutral Subsidies
Standard Development and Enforcement
Agency Management and Oversight
We convert these values into kilos of carbon dioxide by multiplying them by the respective conversion factors (kilos of carbon dioxide per million Btu).330 While the EIA further subdivides each primary energy source and provides multiple conversion factors for each source, we calculate an average of all the conversion factors for any broad energy source (coal, natural gas, petroleum and wood). Finally, we divide these values by the number of households and the population size to determine the amount of CO2 emissions per household and per person.331. We also calculate percentages based on the dollars spent per fuel source on various types of household energy use, such as space heating and lighting, to examine the relative correlation between fuel type and use.33 5 We calculate these percentages for each fuel and distribute the numbers next. through the model to represent the amount of carbon dioxide emissions per fuel source per activity.
To confirm the top-down approach, we also calculate carbon dioxide emissions in households using a bottom-up approach. We also calculate a conversion factor for pounds of carbon dioxide emitted per Btu of electricity by dividing the total weight of carbon dioxide emitted in pounds for all sources of electricity by the sum of Btu used. Using this factor, we further convert the reduced electricity values into pounds of carbon dioxide emitted in total and per household.
The EIA provides data on the amount of motor fuel consumed annually by household uses of passenger cars, vans, SUVs, trucks, and recreational vehicles.342 We translate these values into pounds of carbon dioxide using the same conversion factors used in household calculations and then in pounds per person.343.
