24/05/2021

(UK The Conversation) Net Zero Will Mean Breaking Bad Habits, But Can We Get There In Time?

The Conversation - 

Commuting by car can be tough to give up. daisy / shutterstock

Author
 is Professor of Environmental Psychology, University of Bath.
Three-fifths of the measures required to get to “net zero” emissions will require at least some degree of behavioural and social change, according to the UK government’s climate advisers, the Committee on Climate Change.

But this only factors in changes in consumer behaviour, such as switching from petrol to electric cars, or gas boilers to heat pumps. This is a very narrow definition of behavioural and social change. People are not only consumers – they are citizens, parents, members of communities, employees, employers and political actors.

 As an environmental psychologist, I have long been interested in how changes to our everyday behaviour can help fight climate change. These changes aren’t limited to people buying electric cars and eating less red meat, though such consumer behaviour is important.

Other changes will include more people accepting large-scale low-carbon infrastructure, or deciding to take political action (voting, protesting, boycotting) or community and voluntary action. And it will also mean more people creating and disseminating narratives that normalise and promote low-carbon lifestyles, and calling out inaction from businesses, governments, friends and family.

Using this broader definition of “behaviour change” implies that closer to 100% of what is required to get to net zero will require at least some degree of behavioural change, because it involves decision-making by people as agents of change.

A matter of when

Researchers are increasingly recognising the importance not only of how to intervene to achieve social and lifestyle change, but also when. Much of our behaviour is habitual – unconscious routines triggered by contextual cues (“it’s 8am, time to drive to work”) rather than conscious deliberation of alternatives (“which mode of transport would be best today?”).

Habits are among the strongest impediments to lifestyle change, acting to “lock in” behaviour. Similarly, organisational and policy change can be stymied by routines and preference for the status quo.

Much of our behaviour is habitual.

But since habits and routines are cued by stable contexts like work starting in the same place and at the same time every day, a change in context disrupts habits.

Consistent with this, sudden “moments of change” have been identified as one of the most important levers for lifestyle change. Research shows that disruptions – either personal (such as moving home) or societal (economic downturn, extreme weather) – can provide opportunities to reshape social practices, for example shifting from commuting by car to home-working.

Furthermore, interventions targeted to these moments of change are more effective than at other times. For example, measures to cut car use and save energy are more effective when timed to just after relocation. Other opportunities to intervene include milestones such as a new year or turning 18, having a child, retiring or COVID-19.

The pandemic has demonstrated just how large-scale and rapid behaviour change can be. A shift into what we might call “lockdown living” has inadvertently reduced carbon emissions. As we come out of lockdown, how can we learn from this change?

Moments of COVID change

COVID-19 has led to maybe the most significant disruption to lifestyles since the second world war. Citizens are working, consuming and interacting in new ways – some of which may be more desirable both personally and environmentally.

COVID restrictions have led to less commuting, flying, consumption and food waste, and more climate-friendly hobbies such as gardening and reading. Many people intend to retain these imposed lifestyle changes once restrictions are lifted because they afford wider benefits, such as saving money and improving health and wellbeing.

Importantly, of course, intentions do not always lead to behaviour change. Since new habits take two to three months to form, lockdown periods in most countries have been long enough to establish new routines. However, when restrictions are lifted, there is a risk of recidivism into pre-existing habits, particularly if economic stimulus measures promote unfettered, high-carbon consumption.

So while COVID-19 may represent a unique window of opportunity, a switch to low-carbon lifestyles is only likely to occur with appropriate infrastructure and incentives to promote and lock in new routines.

Fortunately, there is strong public support for a green recovery and policies, including shifting to low-carbon transport or reducing consumption of red meat. This provides a mandate for bold climate change measures to establish and lock in low-carbon habits.

As COVID restrictions ease in the UK and elsewhere, and people once again change their behaviour, we must think about how to “build back better”. Achieving net-zero will be central to that mission, and whether it is accomplished will depend, in large part, on behaviour change.

Links
at No comments:

(AU SBS) Australia Accused Of Being 'Out-Of-Step' On Climate As G7 Agrees To Stop International Funding For Coal

SBS

In a communique, the Group of Seven nations - the United States, Britain, Canada, France, Germany, Italy and Japan - plus the European Union said "international investments in unabated coal must stop now".

The IEA says all future fossil fuel projects must be dropped to reach net-zero emissions by 2050. Source: AP
Former prime minister Malcolm Turnbull has warned that Australia is more "out-of-step" with its allies than ever on the issue of climate change after G7 countries agreed to stop international funding for coal-fired power.

The world’s seven largest advanced economies agreed on Friday to stop international financing of coal projects that emit carbon by the end of this year, and phase out such support for all fossil fuels, to meet globally agreed climate change targets.

Stopping fossil fuel funding is seen as a major step the world can make to limit the rise in global temperatures to 1.5 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial times, which scientists say would avoid the most devastating impacts of climate change.

Australia doesn't finance overseas coal projects, but Mr Turnbull said Australia's “coal-hugging gas-loving sentiment” made it an outlier.

“I cannot recall Australia ever being so out-of-step with our friends and allies as we are today on climate,” he tweeted. Dr Simon Bradshaw, a researcher on climate science and impacts at the Climate Council, said such projects are proof Australia is behind the rest of the world on climate change.

“This is hugely significant for Australia, and it’s really showing just how out-of-step we now are with international action on climate change and fossil fuels,” he told SBS News.

“By continuing to fund fossil fuels, we’re really starting to trash our reputation internationally. Our biggest allies and trading partners are sure of where they’re going - out of coal and into renewables. We need to be doing the same.”

Dr Bradshaw warned there were “very clear implications” for Australia’s future, saying we will “trash our international reputation” and put ourselves at “a lot of economic self-harm”.

“We have to stop hedging our future economy on coal and gas. This is gonna further speed the world’s move beyond fossil fuels. It’s gonna further diminish the market for coal and gas exports.

"It’s really telling us yet again that we need to be moving further away from fossil fuels as a nation, and explore the enormous potential in renewable energy.”

Australia was a guest at the virtual G7 meeting, with Environment Minister Sussan Ley telling peers the country is "building climate resilience through practical actions to adapt and manage risks, and protect communities, lives and livelihoods".

Energy Minister Angus Taylor, meanwhile, said Australia supported and welcomed the G7's focus on action.

"For our part, we are committed to achieving net zero emissions as soon as we can, and preferably by 2050, and to meeting and exceeding our 2030 commitment, as we already have with our 2020 commitments," he said. "We are already well and truly on track to do this."

'International investments in unabated coal must stop now'

The G7 getting Japan on board to end international financing of coal projects in such a short timeframe means those countries, such as China, which still back coal are increasingly isolated and could face more pressure to stop.

In a communique, which Reuters saw and reported on earlier, the Group of Seven nations - the United States, Britain, Canada, France, Germany, Italy and Japan - plus the European Union said "international investments in unabated coal must stop now".

"(We) commit to take concrete steps towards an absolute end to new direct government support for unabated international thermal coal power generation by the end of 2021, including through Official Development Assistance, export finance, investment, and financial and trade promotion support," they said. 

School students hold up placards as they march at a School Strike 4 Climate rally during a mass school strike for climate action in Melbourne on May 21, 2021. GETTY

Coal is considered unabated when it is burned for power or heat without using technology to capture the resulting emissions, a system not yet widely used in power generation.

Alok Sharma, president of the COP26 climate summit, has made halting international coal financing a "personal priority" to help end of the world's reliance on the fossil fuel, calling for the UN summit in November to be the one "that consigns coal to history".

He called on China to set out its "near-term policies that will then help to deliver the longer-term targets and the whole of the Chinese system needs to deliver on what President Xi Jinping has set out as his policy goals".

Calls from green groups to 'be more specific'

The G7 nations also agreed to "work with other global partners to accelerate the deployment of zero emission vehicles", "overwhelmingly" decarbonising the power sector in the 2030s and moving away from international fossil fuel financing, although no specific date was given for that goal.

They reiterated their commitment to the 2015 Paris Agreement aim to cap the rise in temperatures to as close as possible to 1.5 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial times and to the developed country climate finance goal to mobilise US$100 billion annually by 2020 through to 2025.

US climate envoy John Kerry urged countries in the Group of 20 world's largest economies to match the measures.

But some green groups said while they welcomed the steps, the G7 needed to set a stricter timetable.

Rebecca Newsom, head of politics at Greenpeace UK, said: "Too many of these pledges remain vague when we need them to be specific and set out timetabled action."

In a report earlier this week, the International Energy Agency (IEA) made its starkest warning yet, saying investors should not fund new oil, gas and coal supply projects if the world wants to reach net zero emissions by mid-century.

The number of countries which have pledged to reach net zero has grown, but even if their commitments are fully achieved, there will still be 22 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide worldwide in 2050 which would lead to temperature rise of around 2.1C by 2100, the IEA said in its "Net Zero by 2050" report.

Additional reporting by Reuters.

Links
at No comments:

(AU The Guardian) The Coalition Doesn’t Want To Focus On Climate Change – But Australia Will Be Forced To

The Guardian - 

Announcing a new gas-fired power plant when a report urges the world to reduce emissions is in keeping with the climate policy farce

‘When the science and economics of climate change demand transition to renewables, of course this government would invest in an asset no private investors would touch with a 10-foot carbon rod.’ Photograph: Dean Lewins/AAP


Author
Greg Jericho writes on economics for Guardian Australia. He is a former public servant and author of the book The Rise of the Fifth Estate: Social Media and Blogging in Australian Politics.
This week we took another spin on the deranged carousel that is Australian climate change policy as the government announced it will fund a gas-fired power station at the very moment an international report detailed the need to do the exact opposite.

I wish this was a new development, but it just felt like a repeat of late 2018, when less than a year before the federal election, the IPCC released a report stating that if nations acted together we could limit the increase in global temperatures to 1.5C above pre-industrial levels.

We had to get to net zero emissions by 2050 and achieve a global 45% cut in emissions from 2005 levels by 2030 if we started straight away.

We didn’t.
Australia, led then as now by those who profess not to be climate change deniers but who are able to pull off the most astonishing imitation, set about undermining attempts to limit emissions.

In the 2019 election Scott Morrison declared that Labor was going to end the weekend because it had a policy of achieving a target of 50% of new car sales being electric by 2030.

It didn’t matter that the Coalition’s own policy at the time had a similar (if undefined) target. Reality is not something that ever gets in the way of an electoral con.

The ALP was also relentlessly asked to cost its target of a 45% cut in emissions by 2030 while the Coalition was able to skate by saying theirs would be cheaper (because theirs only involved a 26% cut).

Now, alas, nothing has improved – that target still remains; but the ALP’s is gone, yet to be replaced.

Thus it felt very familiar when this week, again within a year of the next election, a major international climate change report was released announcing a path to net zero emissions by 2050.
There is little hope the next election will have any focus on climate change other than to sow fear
The International Energy Agency’s “Net Zero by 2050” roadmap report gave some clear detail of what needs to be done in five year intervals out to 2050.

It noted, for example, that by 2030 60% of new car sales should be electric, with no internal combustion cars being sold after 2035.

I suppose the weekend will just be abolished at that point …

The roadmap also calls for an end to new oil and gas fields or coalmines and that “unabated natural gas‐fired generation peaks by 2030 and is 90% lower by 2040.”

So it was oddly in keeping with the climate change policy farce that is the Coalition that it chose the same day the report was released to announce it was going to spend $600m on a gas fired power-plant in the Hunter region.

When the science and economics of climate change demand transition to renewables, of course this government would invest in an asset no private investors would touch with a 10-foot carbon rod.

The report suggests by 2030 we need to cut emissions to 38% below 2020 levels. By contrast, it argues if nations barely co-operate we will likely achieve a mere 13% cut over the next decade and will only reach net zero emissions by 2087.

By that time the world will almost definitely be 2C warmer than pre-industrial levels and there would be a 50% chance of reaching 2.7C by 2100.

 
Australia, of course, is doing worse than that. Currently we are on track to emit only 7% less in 2030 than we did last year.

We are not the world’s leader but its anchor.

There is little hope that the next election will have any focus on climate change other than to sow fear, and yet it should be the number one issue.

The report notes that the move to net zero emissions will “affect multiple aspects of people’s lives – from transport, heating and cooking to urban planning and jobs”.

The choice is whether we act in a manner that will manage that change with the least social and economic damage to people’s lives, or as is currently the case under the Morrison government, we put off paying the cost until it is much greater.

And worse, it will be at a time when action will be forced on us by other nations and by the climate itself.

Links
at No comments: