Facilitating Climate Change Responses: A Report of Two Workshops on Knowledge from the Social and Behavioral Sciences (2010)

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

Appendix A December 2009 Workshop Agenda and List of Participants Workshop on Issues in Public Understanding and Mitigation of Climate Change Agenda and List of Participants December 3-4, 2009 This workshop, the first of two sponsored at the National Academies by the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation, will include four half-day sessions devoted to the following topics of pressing interest: • Public Understanding of Climate Change • pportunities for Limiting Climate Change Through Household O Action • Public Acceptance of Energy Technologies • Organizational Change and the Greening of Business Each session will begin with presentations of current knowledge by leading social and behavioral researchers and will proceed to discussions of the practical implications of the knowledge for action by governmental and nongovernmental organizations tasked with responding to climate change. It is hoped that the discussions will stimulate participants to undertake future activities, such as new policies, programs, or research activities, to develop and implement insights arising from the workshop. 14 

14 FACILITATING CLIMATE CHANGE RESPONSES Session #1—December 3, 2009 Public Understanding of Climate Change Climate change as a phenomenon has attributes that make it is ex- tremely difficult for nonspecialists to understand. For example, although people typically rely on their senses and personal experience to assess condi- tions in the external environment, these sources are a poor guide to whether the global climate is changing or to the effects of such change. People often apply cognitive short-cuts to make sense of complex topics, but doing this with climate change easily promotes misunderstanding. The short-cut of relying on trusted sources of information is problematic because conflicting information sources claim expertise on climate change. The polarization of U.S. public opinion on climate change can be traced to such social and psychological processes. This session will present the current state of knowledge about how non- specialists attempt to comprehend climate change and why public opinion has become increasingly polarized, even as scientific opinion has become less so. It will conclude with discussion of what might be done about this situation—in education, in the mass media, and through the communica- tion efforts of the nation’s scientific community. Welcoming comments, Roger Kasperson, Clark University, Panel Chair Anthony Leiserowitz, Yale University, Session Moderator Presentations: Why is climate change hard to understand?—Susanne Moser, Susanne Moser Research and Consulting Mental models of climate change—Daniel Read, Yale University Insights from research on risk perception—Elke Weber, Columbia University The polarization of public opinion—Riley Dunlap, Oklahoma State University Comment and discussion topics: —Implications for climate change education —Implications for the mass media —Implications for scientific communication Discussants: Frank Niepold, Climate Program Office, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Bud Ward, Yale Forum on Climate Change and the Media 

14 APPENDIX A Session #2—December 3, 2009 Opportunities for Limiting Climate Change Through Household Action The most commonly proposed strategies for limiting climate change— developing low-carbon energy technologies and creating systems that put a price on greenhouse gas emissions—are likely to take a decade or more to yield appreciable reductions. Changing the adoption and use of existing technology can yield savings much faster if the requisite behavioral changes can be brought about. This session will focus on the potential in the household sector—direct energy use in homes and nonbusiness travel—which accounts for about 38 percent of U.S. energy use. It will present new estimates of the technical and reasonably achievable potential in this sector and knowledge about the ef- fectiveness of various strategies for achieving this potential. It will conclude with discussions of attractive policy options for achieving significant emis- sions reductions from the household sector in a 5-10-year time scale. Loren Lutzenhiser, Portland State University, Session Moderator Presentations: The national potential for emissions reduction from household action—Thomas Dietz, Michigan State University Achieving the potential for residential energy efficiency—Karen Ehrhardt-Martinez, American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy Inducing action through social norms—Wesley Schultz, California State University, San Marcos Interventions in the supply chain for consumer products and services —Charles Wilson, London School of Economics Comment and discussion topics —Economic perspectives on household actions —Policy opportunities and barriers Discussion Adjourn Session #3—December 4, 2009 Public Acceptance of Energy Technologies Many current proposals for limiting climate change depend on the de- velopment and expeditious deployment of new low-carbon energy supply technologies and new technologies for energy efficiency. Past and recent 

10 FACILITATING CLIMATE CHANGE RESPONSES experiences make clear that public acceptance often slows these processes, sometimes significantly. This session will present summaries of knowledge about the conditions under which public acceptance issues have and have not significantly slowed implementation of new technologies, particularly energy technologies, and about the effects of different ways of addressing public concerns. Discussion will focus on the implications for the development and deployment of such technologies as wind power, bioenergy technologies, and carbon capture and sequestration. It will surface ideas about how to reconcile pressures for rapid deployment and for well-informed democratic decision making. Roger Kasperson, Clark University, Session Moderator Presentations: Lessons from the past: Governance of emerging energy technologies —Nicholas Pidgeon, Cardiff University Lessons from the past: Addressing facility siting controversies— Seth Tuler, Social and Environmental Research Institute Public acceptance issues with renewable energy: offshore wind power —Jeremy Firestone, University of Delaware Public acceptance issues with carbon capture and storage—Wändi Bruine de Bruin, Carnegie Mellon University Comment and discussion topics: —Implications for managing technology development and introduction —Implications for reaching carbon reduction goals —Acceptance issues with other new technologies: bioenergy, geoengineering, etc. —Can government learn the lessons of past energy technologies? Discussants: Robert Marlay, U.S. Climate Change Technology Program Baruch Fischhoff, Carnegie Mellon University Session #4—December 4, 2009 Organizational Change and the Greening of Business Businesses are major contributors to climate change through their di- rect use of energy and land and through their effects on the life cycles of goods and services they use, process, and sell. Behavioral evidence shows that significant resistances exist in business organizations to making transi- tions to “greener” operations that would be economically rational. 

11 APPENDIX A This session will begin with presentations on barriers to change in busi- ness that have been identified in organizational theory and research and will then move to a discussion of practical knowledge about the greening of business and about barriers to change. It will end with discussions of what businesses, business organizations, and governments can do to facilitate transitions to greener business practices. Andrew Hoffman, University of Michigan, Session Moderator Presentations: Psychological barriers to organizational change—Max Bazerman, Harvard University Organizational and institutional barriers to change—Royston Greenwood, University of Alberta Survey results on barriers to change in businesses—Clay Nesler, Johnson Controls, Inc. Roundtable discussion among practitioners: Andre de Fontaine, Markets and Business Strategy Fellow, Pew Center on Global Climate Change Melissa Lavinson, Pacific Gas and Electric Clay Nesler, Vice President, Global Energy and Sustainability, Johnson Controls, Inc. Comment: Policy possibilities for facilitating organizational change—John Dernbach, Widener University College of Law List of Participants David Allen, U.S. Global Change Research Program Rep. Brian Baird, U.S. Congress, Washington State Max Bazerman, Harvard University Bill Blakemore, ABC News Jay Braitsch, U.S. Department of Education Wändi Bruine de Bruin, Carnegie Mellon University Bruine Robert Corell, Global Environmental and Technology Foundation Corell, Andre de Fontaine, Pew Center on Global Climate Change de Linda DePugh, The National Academies John Dernbach, Widener University College of Law Dernbach, Riley Dunlap, Oklahoma State University Karen Ehrhardt-Martinez, American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy Jeremy Firestone, University of Delaware Firestone, 

12 FACILITATING CLIMATE CHANGE RESPONSES Baruch Fischhoff, Carnegie Mellon University Ilya Fischhoff, U.S. Agency for International Development Fischhoff, Sherrie Forrest, The National Academies Robert Fri, Resources for the Future, Washington, DC Jason Gallo, Science and Technology Policy Institute Elisabeth Graffy, U.S. Department of Interior Royston Greenwood, University of Alberta Rachelle Hollander, National Academy of Engineering Douglas Kaempf, U.S. Department of Energy Prajwal Kulkarni, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Kulkarni, Katrina Lassiter, Office of Rep. Brian Baird, U.S. Congress, Washington State Melissa Lavinson, Pacific Gas and Electric Linda Lawson, U.S. Department of Transportation Lawson, Meredith Blaydes Lilley, University of Delaware Ed Maibach, George Mason University Robert Marlay, U.S. Climate Change Technology Program Tanya Maslak, U.S. Global Research Program Meg McDonald, Global Issues, Alcoa Michael Meirovitz, Lewis-Burke Associates, LLC Claudia Mengelt, The National Academies Clay Nesler, Johnson Controls, Inc. Frank Niepold, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Niepold, Robert O’Connor, National Science Foundation O’Connor, Eleonore Pauwels, Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars Nicholas Pidgeon, Cardiff University Pidgeon, Daniel Read, Yale University David Rejeski, Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars Marcy Rockman, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Rockman, Joseph Ryan, William and Flora Hewlett Foundation Ryan, Sarah J. Ryker, Science and Technology Policy Institute Ryker, Wesley Schultz, California State University Stephanie Shipp, Science & Technology Policy Institute Rachael Shwom, Rutgers University Paul Stern, The National Academies Rita Teutonico, National Science Foundation Seth Tuler, Social and Environmental Research Institute Louie Tupas, U.S. Department of Agriculture Kenneth Verosub, U.S. Agency for International Development Bud Ward, Yale Forum on Climate Change and the Media Elke Weber, Columbia University Thomas Webler, Social and Environmental Research Institute Charles Wilson, London School of Economics