If we are willing to admit that we human beings have now become the planet's biggest environmental problem, then perhaps we can accept that our best corrective strategy will come from a greater awareness of who we are and why we behave as we do. Dan Ariely's ideas on behavioural economics provide us with some useful insights.
"Much of standard economic analysis assumes rationality," explains Ariely (MacLean's, Feb. 18/08). "If you ask a standard economist why people don't save enough money, they'd say it's a meaningless statement; people are reasonable, they know what they're doing.... Behavioural economists, though, believe that people make all kinds of irrational mistakes.... For instance, have you ever gone to a restaurant wanting to watch your diet, but when the waiter came with a tray of desserts, you succumbed to temptation?"
"Well," explains Ariely, "a standard economics perspective would say, 'If you eat a cheesecake, at the end of the day, it means you are not really concerned with your weight.' Behavioural economists say, 'No, people are really concerned with their weight, they just can't handle the emotion that comes over them from getting so close to the chocolate soufflé, and as a consequence, they make a mistake and regret it later.' You have a different long-term goal than the short-term goal, and in many cases, short-term goals have an emotional component that overtakes us and makes us forget our long-term goals."
Ariely's research suggests that many decisions we make are rather "arbitrary", and that once we've made one, "other decisions can be based on it." Standard economics would argue that we do a "cost-benefit analysis" of a product or service we purchase. "But it turns out," concludes Ariely, "we don't really know how to evaluate something in terms of its value. Think about something as simple as a piece of chocolate: it's melting in your mouth, it's oozing sweetness – how much is this experience worth?" Because it's difficult for people to "translate it into monetary value, [they] think about their past decisions as a starting point for their next behaviours."
Now, translate these ideas on behavioural economics into the environmental challenges facing us today. Most people now realize that the local and global threats we face are real and serious. They agree with the long-term goals of protecting ecologies, saving species, reducing pollution, having fewer children, increasing energy efficiencies and cutting carbon dioxide emissions. Polls consistently confirm that a majority of people actually recognize the problems of over-consumption, that they want carbon taxes and are willing to pay more for green products and services. When people are relatively well informed on the large issues, why have they generally been so slow to reform?
First, if the insights of behavioural economics are correct, a notable part of what we do is irrational. Our initial inclination is to respond reflexively to the immediacy of the moment ‹ to do what we want to do rather than what we should do. Wise and precautionary behaviour requires the discipline of consideration and foresight. Putting out the garbage is a chore we might do; being certain that it doesn't befoul our drinking water requires a higher level of concern and effort. The easiest course and our initial preference is to live in a self-gratifying present. Because the future is always distant and abstract, we have to respond to it by a deliberate act of will power.
A more excusing explanation for our slow reform is simply the momentum of habits. Change takes effort, makes us uncertain and induces anxiety. Although we may agree with the long-term environmental goals, the growing guilt of succumbing to short-term temptations is not yet sufficient to change much of our behaviour. Instead, we urge our governments to legislate for us. Unfortunately, the same psychology usually applies to our politicians, so legislated changes are often slow and hesitant ‹ only brave and visionary governments initiate major reforms.
We also live in an induced milieu of short-term goals. Advertising is always pressing us to "Buy Now" and "Pay tomorrow". Production and consumption have an established continuity that does not want interruption. Our digital info-age exudes an air of compelling immediacy. Even "Save for Tomorrow" has an urgency that asks for prompt attention. Deferment and patience are not attributes cultivated in an era of short attention span and instant gratification.
As Ariely also points out, some behaviour is extremely difficult to change because "past decisions" determine what we do next. An irresistibly charming house in the suburbs will commit a home owner to years of commuting. A bargain on a high performance car can oblige a buyer to a decade of costly fuel consumption. Irrational decisions that fulfil short-term goals can easily subvert long-term goals.
But perhaps the most poignant lesson offered by behavioural economics concerns our inability to measure the true value of a healthy environment. We really don't recognize the importance of water until we are confronted with thirst or drought. Clean air, normal seasonal weather and secure food supplies are usually unnoticed until they become unpredictable. We have trouble determining the significance of fish until our rivers or seas no longer supply them ‹ ask Newfoundlanders about cod. In BC, we are about to learn the worth of our interior pine forests, and ‹ if we are not careful ‹ our wild salmon.
If Dan Ariely and his ideas about behavioural economics have a strategic message for us, it's that our impulse for short-term gratification should yield to the imperative of long-term goals. Each of our small decisions needs to be made in the context of a larger vision for a sustainable future. The key is moment-by-moment awareness. Our present environmental circumstances are pointing to prospects so worrisome that they urge us to be both conscious and disciplined in everything we do.