With the arrival of the carbon tax earlier this month, many people will be looking to see where they can make savings through their behaviour. Alan Pears’ article in The Conversation last month pointed out some ways in which simple changes to purchase choices and behaviour can result in energy and cost savings. While these calculations present a clear financial case for changing our ways, whether people will take these economic arguments into consideration and change their behaviour accordingly requires scrutiny. For one-off or irregular behaviours such as purchasing new appliances and retrofitting they may have some bearing. However, for habitual behaviours, the case could be quite different.
Habit can rule personal lives and public policy alike
Habits are behaviours that we perform frequently in stable contexts without much conscious thought or deliberation. They represent a significant component of our everyday lives at home and in the workplace. Researchers have suggested that the proportion of our behaviours that might be considered habitual can range from 45% (in terms of behaviours that are undertaken in the same place almost every day) to 95% (in terms of behaviours which are controlled in part by the subconscious mind). While habits are beneficial when they are in line with our intentions and goals (e.g., to lose weight; to reduce energy use or waste), the opposite can also be true (e.g., our smoking habits interfering with our goal to be healthier; leaving lights on in a room and our goal to reduce household energy consumption).
The same point can be made at the level of policy – habits can be useful or problematic in terms of how far they are aligned to policy goals. To this end, how habits are formed, what holds them together, and what makes them vulnerable to change are critical questions for researchers and practitioners working in behaviour change.
How to break habits
A number of methods have been applied in an attempt to break problem habits (particularly in health). These have included:
People coming together to discuss a common issue and make public commitments to adopt alternative behaviours (e.g., a “kitchen table” or EcoTeams approach)
Using “vigilant monitoring” to avoid triggers for problem habits
Developing “if-then” plans that articulate deliberate and desirable responses to specific triggers
While evidence suggests that these approaches can be effective in challenging problem habits, they also have a number of potential downsides, especially from a policy perspective. The first is their feasibility to be rolled out across a broader population. A second challenge is “inclusivity”, as many of these approaches require a level of pre-motivation to get people involved in the first place. A third downside is whether these approaches are effective against the full spectrum of habits, with the concern that stronger habits might be more resistant to these self-change techniques.
‘Teachable moments’ for breaking habits
An alternative approach involves looking for moments of change where our habits are particularly vulnerable. Health professionals have long recognised that there are certain “teachable moments” that represent opportunities where interventions stand a better chance of success. In these moments (e.g., the birth of a child; a cancer diagnosis), people are often forced to reconsider their habits, whether or not they are looking to do so.
The same approach can also potentially be applied in the field of environmental sustainability, with a scattering of studies on travel-mode choice highlighting how disruptive events such as moving house or changing jobs can lead to moments of conscious reflection about habitual behaviours. Described as the “habit discontinuity hypothesis” by Professor Bas Verplanken from the University of Bath, these events represent windows of opportunity during which the level of sensitivity, openness and receptivity to a behaviour change intervention is increased. Such an approach to habit change is less about the intervention’s content, and more about getting the timing right.
A fundamental question for the federal government as it strives to realise its carbon targets through both business and individual behaviour is whether the introduction of the carbon tax can cause sufficient reflection on behaviour to change habits. In other words, does its introduction represent a teachable moment?
Professor Bas Verplanken will be visiting Monash University from 23-27th July as a guest of BehaviourWorks Australia. He will be giving a free public presentation entitled “If you don’t understand habits, how can you hope to change them? The challenges and opportunities of habits to encourage sustainable living” on July 24th in Melbourne.
Comments welcome below.
Gerard Dean
Managing Director
The Carbon Tax does not have the immediate and traumatic impact of a cancer diagnosis, therefore it won't be a mass "habit discontinuity" for Australian society. But is that a bad thing if you want to change society's behaviour over the long term?
Doctors use the "teachable moment" - after diagnosing a life threatening disease - to advise us to stop smoking and start excercising. Unfortunately, despite our earnest promises to the doctor, our family and ourselves, most of us will revert to our…
Read moreGary Murphy
Independent Thinker
Don't feel too guilty Gerard - airplanes can use biofuels. And there is always carbon offsets. And renewable energy can be used to refine aluminium. And there are always hot air balloons...
http://www.proactiveinvestors.com.au/companies/news/27229/algaetec-hones-in-on-biofuels-production-at-shoalhaven-one-facility-27229.html
Mike Hansen
Mr
Gerard.
You have posted your point about the Rio conference so many times here - 20 to 30 times by my recollection - that anyone googling "JetA1" fuel is going to find you.
Believe me - the point does not get any better with the retelling.
The point is that the carbon tax is already changing behaviour. Electricity demand is falling. In Qld, prompted by a change in feed in tariff, 75,000 applications were received for solar panels in the 13 days between the 26th of June and the 9th of July…
Read moreMike Hansen
Mr
Gary
While Gerard's point about the carbon footprint of air travel is valid, his concern is fake. Gerard is a "concern troll" (a polite internet blog way of saying he is a BSer).
His objective is to disparage sustainability and renewable energy by pretending to be concerned but then pointing out "look it is too hard and look at what you have to give up."
Just in case anyone thinks I am exaggerating, the google search term is
www.theconversation.edu.au "jeta1" "gerard dean"
These are…
Read moreGerard Dean
Managing Director
Mr Murphy
I am afraid that Biofueling the worlds Boeing and Airbus planes isn't feasible. Unfortunately, biofuels cannot break the law, "You can't get back more than you put in".
Biofuel made from food such as cereal crops or sugar cane barely make more fuel than it takes to grow and process. More importantly, from an ethical perspective, it diverts food from an increasingly hungry world. If the entire US corn crop was turned over to fuel production, it would only supply 12% of the US fuel…
Read moreMike Hansen
Mr
Gerard. Not a single reference to back up your claims. While trolling is not ethical, making stuff up is simply dishonest.
Gerard Dean
Managing Director
Mr Hansen
Calling me names such as "Concern Troll" and a "BSer" brings you no merit.. Why not contribute something factual that rebuts my argument.
I pointed out that most people will not view the Australian Carbon Tax as a "Teachable Moment" because it lacks the traumatic shock described by Professor Verplanken's hypothesis relating to "Habit Discontinuity"
The authors postulated that the introduction of the Carbon Tax, treated as a "Teachable Moment", may be "applied in the field of…
Read moreRoger Crook
Retired agribusiness manager & farmer
'Electricity demand is falling.'
Sure is! Try paying for it on a pension!
Op shops doing great business on woolen clothing.
Just watch, we will see a gradual and progressive negative effect of high electricity prices on Australian business, which in turn will make us less competitive in world markets.
Mike Hansen
Mr
Gerard. I have provided evidence of your trolling. It is not name calling - it is fact.
While we are on the issue of considered responses. On this thread you made another one of your unsubtantiated claims
"Imagining jobs in alternative energy and fuels is all you can do Mr Boxall, because there are virtually none in Australia"
https://theconversation.edu.au/one-piddling-light-and-the-plummeting-cost-of-wholesale-electricity-8125
When I and other commenters spent some time doing the research and linked the articles proving your claim wrong you ignored the responses and moved on to making more unsubstantiated claims.
You are a troll. You make stuff up. Responding to you is a waste of time.
Roger Crook
Retired agribusiness manager & farmer
With respect, Mr Hansen, I hardly think it your position to determine who is a 'troll' and who is not. That is a job of the moderator(s). It would be a pity to see yet another discussion on this site degenerate into name calling as it demeans the objective of the exercise.
Liam Smith
Director, BehaviourWorks at Monash University
Gerard,
Three points.
1. I think you are missing the point of our article. We pose the question rhetorically. I don't know whether the carbon tax will be significant enough to change habits or not but I think the Government is hoping it will be.
2. Moments of habit discontinuity is certainly not limited to "traumatic shock" but rather "moments of change" which include moving house, changing jobs, having kids, retiring or, potentially, other events such as bill shock or the introduction of a carbon price.
3. In reference to flying, it is not an habitual behaviour so not the subject of interest. But for the record, I know that Bas personally makes considerable effort around sustainability (like not owning a car and rarely traveling).
Liam
Gary Murphy
Independent Thinker
"I am afraid that Biofueling the worlds Boeing and Airbus planes isn't feasible."
Apparently the investors in this unsubsidised public listed company disagree.
"biofuels cannot break the law, "You can't get back more than you put in"."
No - but you are not considering that one of the major inputs is sunlight. Biofuels are effectively a form of solar energy. (via photosynthesis)
Gerard Dean
Managing Director
Mr Hansen
What did I make up?
Did I make up that growing food to make biofuel to fly rich westerners around world the while millions starve is unethical?
Did I make up the fact that you cannot more energy out of a process than you put into a process?
Did I make up that it takes 2.5 times the energy to turn coal into jet fuel than it takes to make jet fuel from crude oil?
Did I make up that jet air travel uses irreplaceable metals, minerals and oils from the earth?
My claims are based on years of experience in the design and manufacture of multi-cylinder engines and test instruments that are exported to some of the worlds largest manufacturers.
Instead of calling me names and ridiculing me, why don't you show everybody where I am wrong. Then we will gain something from this excercise.
Gerard Dean
Glen Iris.
Gerard Dean
Managing Director
Gary
I have read the link about the company in NSW claiming they will be producing output from the algae process by the end of this month, July 2012
Hmmmmmm. I note that the article is written by an organisation promoting the sale of shares in the company. This is a concern.
However, I will keep an open mind and monitor their progress over the months to come.
Your comment that the major input is sunlight is also a concern. The amount of sunlight energy required to lift a fully loaded Airbus 380 into the air will require a very large sunlight catchment area.
Again, I will do the maths and work out the sunlight area needed to fly an A380 to London.
I will keep you up to date
Thanks
Gerard Dean
Glen Iris
Gerard Dean
Managing Director
Hello Liam
Thanks for responding.
1. I accept that you put the question rhetorically.
2. I also accept your point, however, the Federal government has missed it. They are bending over backwards to prevent "Bill Shock" by providing cash compensation as well as propping up aluminium smelters that the Carbon Tax is designed to punish.
3. I don't accept your point at all. Of course flying is habitual. I doubt that Professor Verblanken checked the price of a sea voyage to Australia. He would have done what we all automatically and habitually by jumping on the web and booking an airfare that suited his pocket and travel schedule.
Thanks
Gerard Dean
Glen Iris.
Mike Hansen
Mr
Gerard. I am not playing "whack-a-mole" with you.
Respond to this comment first.
http://theconversation.edu.au/is-the-introduction-of-a-carbon-tax-a-teachable-moment-to-change-habits-7737#comment_54422
Bernie Masters
environmental consultant at FIA Technology Pty Ltd, B K Masters and Associates
There are 2 major problems with the carbon tax. The first is its impact on the international competitiveness of those exporting businesses that don't get compensation payments back from the federal govt. I assume that Gillard and company have accepted this as the price to pay for being seen as a world leader on the carbon issue.
The second problem is that, with most Australian individuals and families receiving more compensation than the amount they'll be paying out as a result of the carbon tax, there's no pain. Hence there will be little incentive for these people to reduce their energy consumption so the short and medium term impact of the carbon tax is, in my view, likely to be far less effective than the federal govt hopes it will be. Yes, people are responding to the bribes offered to them as subsidies for PV systems but, in the big Australia-wide picture, I fear that most people won't change their energy-consuming behaviour enough to make much of a difference.
Ian Donald Lowe
Seeker of Truth
No doubt we need to move to a cleaner system, especially in areas of high population density because the current model is no longer working.
This is where I have great difficulties with a "carbon tax" as a way of doing anything other than teaching people that:
1. Energy is expensive and will continue to get even more expensive over time;
2. Every action has an energy cost and someone want's a cut of that;
3. Energy scarcity and other shortages may have to be the way we live in the future;
4. We the people are not responsible enough to make the adjustments without government oversight and control.
None of that is true.
We can have both a clean energy future and high standards of living without financial impositions for going about our lives but a tax or an ets is not going to get us anywhere near that point.
Daryl Deal
retired
Ah, day nineteen of the carbon tax, the country has not imploded.
There is an old native American saying:-
"Only when the last tree has been cut down; Only when the last river has been poisoned; Only when the last fish has been caught; Only then will you find that money cannot be eaten."
Such is life!
James Jenkin
EFL Teacher Trainer
The writers believe experts have the right and the responsibility to change normal people's behaviour for the greater good. This is controversial. However, the authors.use language cleverly to avoid stating this directly.
For example, they write:
"A number of methods have been applied in an attempt to break problem habits (particularly in health). These have included:
- People coming together to discuss a common issue ...
- Using “vigilant monitoring” ...
- Developing “if-then” plans ..."
The second and third omit mentioning who, in fact, is 'using vigilant monitoring' and 'developing plans'. Of course it's the authorities, overseeing people's lives and directing what they do.
You can make a case that an educated elite needs to limit the harm normal people can do to themselves. What's scary is when proponents disguise the redistribution of power they're proposing.