Cutting Back on Unhealthy Oils

Focus the Nation Essay Contest Winner - Motivating Change Cutting Back on Unhealthy Oils: Lessons on Motivating Positive Environmental Behavior from the World of Dieting Advice. Colin West

Many a stand-up comedian has joked that there ought to be a new holiday added to the calendar towards the end of January: a sort of “memorial day” to the countless diets and exercise regimens which have been abandoned, a tribute to New Year's resolutions that could not withstand the siren song of super-sized fries. Similarly, comedienne Totie Fields once quipped, “I've been on a diet for two weeks and all I've lost is fourteen days,” a sentiment which testifies both how frustrating and short lived a diet can be these days. But while its unlikely that “Willpower Remembrance Day” will ever appear on our official calendars, the struggles of sticking to a self-imposed diet are relevant today as far more than just comedic fodder. With the world facing the unprecedented ecological challenge of global warming, and with fossil fuels becoming increasingly scarce (but not prohibitively expensive), scientists and policymakers alike need to decide just how the American public can be persuaded to lead greener lives. In the face of this, our reputation for giving up on diets is discouraging, and we will need to do far better with our planet than we often do with our bodies. Just as with diet and exercise, our habits must start changing now if we hope to see progress in the future, and with recent report confirming that drastic improvements are needed by mid-century, there is very little time to lose. (i) American government must combine the lessons of history with the dieting strategies of alternative motivation and goal visualization if we are to see behavioral change that outlasts the average New Year's resolution.

The primary lesson to be learned concerns finding the right motivations for change. As many a physician will attest, it can be extremely difficult to get a patient to stick to a diet no matter how aware he is that his health is at risk. In many cases, it takes a major incident like a heart attack to trigger real commitment. This behavior is clearly unhealthy for an individual, and it absolutely will not do when the patient in question is the planet itself. We cannot afford to wait for a catastrophic wake-up call before beginning environmental reforms. Unfortunately, this is not the attitude held by much of America. Just as many Americans will admit that their diet is unhealthy, but do not seem to see that as a reason to change it, much of the public subscribes to similar doublethink when it comes to climate change. 71% believe that global warming is real and presently occurring (ii), and yet nearly 60% essentially believe that climate change is neither urgent enough nor sufficiently understood to warrant immediate action.(iii) This “wait and see” attitude seems intuitively reasonable to most Americans, because humans are used to dealing with systems they can instantaneously control.(iv) When we see a red light, we put off the act of applying the brakes in hopes that the light will turn green again. This works because the breaks can typically be counted on to respond immediately; caring for the climate, on the other hand, is more like trying to brake on an icy road: it takes early, planned action to avoid causing a wreck. And yet, speech and actions the current administration often serve to validate the “wait and see” mindset.(v) This same mindset has held back dieters for years, and will hold back green technologies if tactics are not changed.

But while long term health concerns rarely help Americans cut calories, many people begin dieting of their own volition when they feel that it will help them appear more attractive and boost their self confidence. Statistically, it appears that using self-image as an alternative motivation can make it easier for obese Americans to diet, producing the desired results even if done for shallow reasons.(vi) Theoretically, climate change can be treated the same way. As impossible as it may seem, if energy conservation and greener living can be made attractive, the ecological equivalent of a slim waistline and firm thighs, then the American people may have less trouble changing their ways on a large scale. This concept, of course, is not entirely new. Recently, many environmental groups and government agencies have made efforts to give green living an air of “coolness” (including an infamous attempt by the Canadian government that drew criticism for its insinuation of explicit language).(vii) But making energy conservation “cool” is not the same as making it appear attractive. Not only does a “hip” repackaging risk alienating the adult population, but the US government does not have a stellar record reaching young people when “trying to speak their language.”

Instead, advocacy groups should focus on playing up the patriotic aspects of energy conservation. After all, reduced oil consumption would reduce the leverage of many foreign nations against the United States, including some with possible terrorist ties. If the patriotism that fuels the War on Terror could replace the petroleum which fuels our cars, the energy crisis would be resolved overnight. And while this is, of course, not literally possible, the massive amounts of public support and political capital which were created in the aftermath of the September 11th attack certainly could be employed as a tool to motivate green living. Indeed, the overlap between energy independence and national security is one of the few areas in which the scientific community and the evangelical wing of the Republican party have ever found common ground.(viii) If the two were able to collaborate on a message that stressed energy-reducing practices as part of a patriotic Americans' duty to keep our country safe from foreign extortion, many millions of citizens could be reached. The strategy would hearken back to the messages used by the government during World War II to encourage public support for salvage drives, rationing programs, and war bonds. Instead of the negative rhetoric currently originating from environmental groups condemning those who lead energy-intensive lives, positive messages about how and why we must reduce oil consumption could originate from the Commander-in-Chief himself, and perhaps from other military leadership. Historically speaking, Americans have not hesitated to make sacrifices when called upon strongly to do so by our nation's highest leaders. If this remains the case, it could be instrumental in motivating behavioral change today.

Unfortunately, detailed economic analysis of the World War II salvage drives show that while they created massive public desire to help, lack of a focused goal reduced the overall effectiveness.(ix) Thus, it will also be necessary to use another tactic from the playbook of personal trainers. Many a dietitian suggests that forming a clear mental image of an impressive (yet achievable) body can help dieters to sustain their motivation. The same can be done in America, with the President and other leading figures helping create clear vision of a desirable future, with America leading a world revolution in energy technologies. There is much historical precedent for this: after World War II, for example, Truman used this technique to build public support for the Marshall Plan, emphasizing that his European aid demonstrated America's place as an emerging superpower. Kennedy did the same to stir patriotism and optimism during the space race, and by giving America a specific, exciting, yet imaginable goal, he succeeded in creating both public a and private buy-in to the moon program.(x) Because individual citizens were becoming excited about the plausibility of new space-age technologies, businesses responsible for space-related technologies acquired extra incentives to participate, for not only were they competing for government contracts, but those who won could capitalize on their connection to the space race as proof that they stood on the cutting edge of their field, and represented the beginning of a stunning new future.  

Applied correctly, the ability to envision an idealized end result simultaneously makes the goals seem more impressive and also more attainable. Similarly, if the government and scientific community can create public yearning for a “futuristic” energy portfolio as it once created a space craze, the effect on public opinion can provide incentives for businesses and individuals alike. For example, a recent BBC poll found that when asked if they would support using tax policy to encourage energy conservation, 51% of Americans say they would not. However, when the phrasing of the question is changed to imply that the tax revenues would be used to develop exciting new energy sources, a full 74% of the public endorses the plan.(xi) Much of the business community responds the same way, presumably assuming that they could stand to gain considerably from government investment in new technologies. Such rhetoric would also continue feed the (clean burning) patriotic fire, for it hints at the idea that America is again at the forefront of a major scientific development, and polls show that Americans are much more eager to support involvement in international programs when the US is perceived as “taking the initiative” in orchestrating the change.(xii)

Some negative messages will have to be used as well. After all, it is not enough to begin a diet. One must find a way to make it sustainable; no small feat considering the massive snack food industry which spends millions in advertising every year tempting dieters back to their old habits. Similarly, some oil companies, auto makers and manufacturers will always choose not to embrace the talk of “new technology” and instead continue to peddle carbon-spewing contraptions across the country. But in the same way that government statements and advocacy groups created a public outcry over the use of trans fats, government messages that reinforce the negative labeling of dangerous technologies can work for environmental issues as well. It was done before with CFC's, as studies show most Americans know them to be a threat even if they do not know why.(xiii) And as phrases like “gas guzzler” slowly make their way into public use, the same trend is beginning to show itself in the world of energy conservation. Without the resources to educate every American about the dangers of anthropogenic carbon emissions, this may be the best way for the government to harness the power of market forces, driving businesses to cooperate by reducing demand for products which come to be known as unpatriotic and dangerous.

Of course, Americans remain obese, and thus environmental advocates must be careful taking cues from dietary strategies. However, many of these techniques have shown success on an individual basis, and have simply not been implemented with sufficient scope to make a difference on a national scale. With poll data and historical precedent to back them up, alternative motivation and goal visualization have much to offer to striving to create public support for and involvement in green living programs. It may not be enough to simply tell Americans that it is their best interest; after all, the same words often do little to persuade young people to reduce their sodium intake. Instead, messages must be tailored to appeal to the Americans' well documented sense of duty and patriotism, framing oil independence as a matter of national security and technological innovation as a matter of national pride. Furthermore, since many a diet has failed as the result of lack of focus or inspiring goals, government and industry leaders must work together to craft a vision of a post-petroleum world that Americans can truly become excited about. This, coupled with negative labeling of wasteful products and activities, can create market-driven incentives for corporate buy-in as well. Overall, Americans must be extremely careful when we set about to reduce our appetite for oil. There must be clear, consistent motivations and achievable but inspirational goals. Otherwise, we shall soon find ourselves paraphrasing Ms. Fields: We'll be on an oil diet for years, and all we'll lose is precious, precious time.

Citations