Barrier to Change

Hi Michael,

In a nutshell what you are battling is entitlement, and let me assure you it sure isn't specific to America. "I have a right to ____ because I work hard, and it's my money, and I can do what I please with it." (Insert any carbon intensive behavior in the space). These folks are not only brown, but defiantly so. The community-engagement experts advise us to write off this section of the pie chart, and instead target on the "undecided," often via baby-step programs. Personally, I think we need to broaden the discussion by reframing things a bit, by turning this entitlement on its head: "I have a right to a balanced atmosphere; my kids have a right to the same kind of life and prosperity I did..." etc. Some on this list will say don't waste your energy, but I love a good challenge. You obviously need to come at this gang obliquely. To some extent, as a public agency you are hamstrung a bit. Humor is one strategy, but it has to be carefully played... Here's a fun little video I made recently that cuts to the core of what you are up against: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w90Fno6kbsk

James Glave
[email protected]
www.glave.com

Hi James,

YouTube won't let me comment on your video, but I am touched you featured a pigheaded abusive Glaswegian in you video. I grew up with those people, but where did you find one? Seriously though, this idling is a tricky business to tackle. Here in Australia the same attitudes are rife. Anyone would have to be brave (and INCREDIBLY optimistic) to go from car to car with leaflets. Some thoughts though: going straight for the "greenhouse gases" angle will alienate a lot of people from "brown" to "undecided". Probably better to point out they will reduce wear on their engine, save petrol and, for people dropping off kids at school, improve the air quality that their own kids breathe - in that order. I'd go so far as to keep quiet about the greenhouse gases in the majority of cases. Also a "local air-quality" initiative is likely to get a better response from these people than global concerns. But I love the "I have a right to a balanced atmosphere" approach!

cheers,
Lorna

Yes James, you tapped a small but representative sample of the damaging 'individualism' that destroys communities and ultimately societies. I'm sure the Roman Empire in decay was full of it. Sadly, in the town of about 160,000 where I live, we have a very significant number of people with the same attitude to driving and traffic regulations. You can guess the outcomes which occur every week of the year. Greed is a powerful motivator and I know from a couple of good examples that the "You can save MONEY" approach will grab more attention than "You can save the WORLD". What a dismal comment on humanity.

regards
Lisha K.

James Cook University
Australia
Tel: (07) 4781 6535
Mobile: 0438 011 550

I watched James video and note that the Glaswegian attitude is alive and well in Australia too. I think in Australia and maybe in other affluent societies a major barrier is the point of view expressed as " I can afford to (keep all my house lights on; use as much water as I want, drive a souped up V8...) so what's the problem." The video also shows how important is our approach to changing attitudes in others. Clearly it was much easier for James to approach the lone black haired women that the thick set Glaswegian guy with his family. Choosing our approach means choosing our language with care and sensitivity to the other parties. Telling someone they are engaged in an illegal act (that they had no idea was illegal) straight away puts them in the wrong and immediately on the defensive. they will be inclined to react automatically by expressing justification for their current action, thereby consolidating their resistance to change. Furthermore it is vital that our attitude and motivation is not self satisfaction (as James may have shown at the end of his video); its great to get a sense of satisfaction from doing good works but this must not become our reason for undertaking them.

Ned Crossley

I have done some outreach concerning floodplain regulations and found the same initial reaction as Mr. Bergman encountered. The most prevalent comment was, "It's my property and I can do anything I want to do on it." Using a model built by the US Army Corps of Engineers, we showed the consequences of various land uses. When someone filled in a swamp, for example, the water ran off onto adjoining properties. What we did during the presentation was say, "Yes. It's a free country. You should be able to do whatever you want with your land. However, is it fair to these people downstream? They have rights, too." Most people understood the fairness issues. I think this approach may prove more effective than right and wrong. Is it fair to make our grandchildren mine the landfills we built to get resources they need? Is it fair to alter our own landscapes when the changes will affect neighboring properties? Is it fair to buy all the water to put it in bottles to sell for the convenience of Americans and leave villagers without the water they need to survive? I have not tested this tactic or done any research with it beyond the anecdotal experiences mentioned above, but it might be an interesting study.

Laureen Gibson Gilroy,
CFM Recycling Coordinator
Field Customer Services
City of Tulsa Public Works
470 West 23rd Street
Tulsa, OK 74107
Tel: (918) 596-2859
Fax: (918) 596-1869
www.tulsarecycles.com

Laureen -

This is a very insightful example. It draws on the 'actions-and-consequences' model of developing ethical behaviour in children and I believe it should work with the majority of 'normal' adults but not the portion of the community with extreme attitudes who are effectively beyond rational approach. Like the hardest-core smokers or drinkers or road-rage cases, the rest of society can really only operate by effectively ignoring or isolating these people in a variety of ways -- there appears to be little else to do so I think we shouldn't feel bad about that.. they care nothing for the rest of society and if there was a Krypton-style 'Phantom Zone', they would certainly be candidates for moving there.

regards
Lisha K.

Tel: (07) 4781 6535
Mobile: 0438 011 550

I am not sure that blogs are the way to go on communicating sustainable behaviors just because there is no accountability to who is writing them. I have to wonder would these same people write that in their local newspaper with their name all over it? Also, those kinds of comments will continue the trend toward not really understanding the issue. I think, as Michael has mentioned, when you turn it around to future generations. Most people want a good future for their children and they have a right to it as well. The old Native American proverb sums it up: "We do not inherit the earth from our ancestors, we borrow it from our children" How many grandparents are willing to lose the respect of their grandchildren for the sake of "because I can...I will." I read an article once that said inside the average American their lives two people: the concerned citizen and the consumer. The concerned citizen does care about the environment, but consumer side still participates in bad environmental habits. Why? Because our society is largely based on the bigger and the better and it is generally accepted that these behaviors show higher social status. Take transportation for example, how many wealthy people would consider the bus? When buying a home, how do you get it across to people that a 1,700 sq.ft home with a small backyard is better than a 4,000 sq.ft home? I think by working in small groups, using pledges, working with children especially, and using effective marketing strategies as mentioned in Doug's book are the key to making these behaviors the social norm. The goal should be to make the concerned citizen and the consumer the same. I am doing a local stormwater education campaign where I am using local boy scout and girl scouts to get pledges from their parents, friends, and neighbors about the harm that washing cars in driveways does to our local creeks and streams. The scouts also hand out a magnet after someone signs the pledge reminding them of their promise. I can't tell you how effective it is. There was a quote in our local newspaper that told the story of a father who became more environmentally aware because his daughter came home from a Girl Scout day camp and told him all about storm drain pollution and now he will not wash his car in his driveway again.

Rebecca Fotu
Environmental Programs Coordinator
City of Morgan Hill 
( 408.779.7247 ext.413

And I would agree that most behavioural change models recommend isolating those who are at the extreme end, for reasons both of resource use (you will use twice as many resources effecting half as much change, if you spend those resources on that end of the behavioural spectrum, as opposed to much more effective impacts by engageing with those who are interested, or at least partially receptive) and of social norms - those at the the extreme end are more likely (although not guaranteed!) to move by dint of exposure to the vast majority moving, not by efforts targeted just at them. A recent report on social norms on this list serv was very enlightening on the latter point -

SOCIAL NORMS: AN UNDERESTIMATED AND UNDEREMPLOYED LEVER FOR MANAGING CLIMATE CHANGE Vladas Griskevicius, University of Minnesota, Robert B. Cialdini, Arizona State University

Def worth a read!

Warm regards,
Manda

Manda Brookman
Director CoaST:
Cornwall Sustainable Tourism Project
Penstraze Business Centre,
Truro, Cornwall, UK TR4 8HY
p: 01872 562 057
f: 01872 560450
m: 07816 061 780
w: coastproject.co.uk