Awkward Comparison

Here's a look at a sales comparison.

1. Let's imagine a buyer walking into a automobile dealership and asking the salesperson for help in purchasing a new car that produces low CO2 emissions and is economical to purchase and own. The buyer is willing considering electric cars, hybrids or even gas engined cars with excellent mileage and lower purchase price. You'd expect the salesperson to be familiar with the cars available at that dealership that were likely to meet those criteria. You'd also expect the salesperson to be somewhat familiar with the technologies of the different approaches to fuel efficiency and driving tips to help increase mileage.


BTW I recently bought a 2013 Porsche Boxster. Not an archetypical "green" car, but Porsche has developed some interesting technologies that allow a sports car that is 94% recyclable and capable of 163 mph top speed to get 30 mpg on the highway. Oh, and the salesperson explained all that to me (I already knew the details from their website).

2. Now, consider a home buyer walking into a real estate office and asking an agent for help in purchasing an energy efficient home in a location and orientation that minimizes utility and transportation costs. Will the agent know which homes are energy efficient? Will the agent know why? Will energy saving technologies be discussed? What about possible upgrades for older homes that are in prime locations, but lack current technology? Will solar path, wind patterns and commuting distances enter into the discussion?

Yes, the comparison is awkward! Maybe you've had the good fortune to find an agent who's knowledgable about green features and things to look for in an energy efficient house. There are excellent "green" agents out there, but not many. If you asked about an ocean view or granite counters, you'd get lots of assistance.

Car salespersons may be the brunt of some classic sales jokes, but, on average, car manufacturers and those that sell their cars are doing a much better job in addressing CO2 emission than the real estate industry. Look at several automobile websites to see lots of information about energy efficiency. Now look at major real estate websites. See anything about energy efficiency? Views are mentioned and lot size and sqft and granite etc. Utility costs?

What's it gonna take? What scientific revelation would push awareness across a magical threshold and cause the real estate industry to seriously consider Climate Change as a real estate related matter that represents an immediate priority? The real estate industry ignores the science that continues to flow out of copious research and continues with "business as usual" because it can.

Ultimately, the consumers of real estate services get the kind of representation they deserve, but what about the Earth?

System 1 and System 2 cont'd

SLOWLY reading Thinking Fast and Slow---Kahneman does not write page turners. I'm up to Chapter 8 and yesterday had a mild epiphany about the significance of System 1 and System 2 in society. Much of organizational control, be it governmental, corporate or even consumer marketing aims to create an environment in which System 2 NEVER COMES INTO PLAY.

When the established order of things is operating optimally, System 1 makes all the decisions based on whatever information (or lack of information) is made available. When System 2 enters the decision process control erodes. The subject might ponder the information, deem it inadequate or see it in a way not even imagined by those creating and conveying it. Uncertainty enters the arena. The status quo is thereby threatened, and the institutions that created the status quo thrive on the absence of uncertainty in the outcome of decisions.

This will become an increasing problem with Climate Change issues. Creative, out of the box, solutions are needed and those generally arise from System 2 processes. Is there a way to shift System 1 generated responses in a more energy efficient direction or at least to trigger increased reference to System 2 thinking prior to decisions great and small?

BTW this System 1 bias is and has been a major problem for real estate. Information is carefully filtered by trade organizations to create a very predictable sale process conducted by a minimally diverse population of agents and brokers who represent a very diverse array of clients, each with unique interests. Somewhere between the real world and the pigeon holes of a one size fits all business environment, real estate ceases to be an art and becomes a pursuit predominantly practiced by adept technicians.

System 1, System 2

Several years ago I became interested in the process of decision making. At the time I was starting to take more photographs for other brokers and also doing some website design. I thought if I understood how Buyers made decisions about housing purchases I could build better websites and take photos with strong resonance for Buyers. I read a number of books and papers (the latent academic streak at work). Among them were papers by Daniel Kahneman and Amos Tversky.

As you know from this blog, I'm increasingly troubled by the apparent inability of people from most walks of life to make apparently rational decisions about energy use and the future of Earth. Consumers, those in government and those in the corporate sector are not performing in a way that creates much optimism for the quality of life to be experienced by coming generations.

I purchased Kahneman's Thinking Fast and Slow just over a year ago and never got around to reading it. I always have 3-4 books going and Thinking Fast and Slow just never made it into the mix, I think because the book is of substantial size and rich content. I knew it was going to be slow going and it was a busy year--best for quick reads, if not for optimal effect.

A few days ago I was looking at the smallish pile of unread books for the next read--to follow Visualizing Climate Change (a BIG book indeed!). I had the idea that Kahnman's System 1 and System 2 might offer a platform for understanding why Climate Change decisions aren't going very well and, more importantly, how to get System 2 fired up more often in confronting choices affecting the Earth.

I anticipate a nexus between the visualization elements able to alter behavior and System 1/System 2.

That's a brief background for some upcoming posts---if it sounds interesting, read the Visualization of Climate Change and Thinking Fast and Slow. A thorough understanding of those two books will move the reader well along a path to the cutting edge of Climate Change psychology. It will also demonstrate the failure of our various institutions to meaningfully engage the real challenges ahead.

Technical Tipping Point?

We continually see new graphs, maps and tables showing changes in temperature, sea level, precipitation, ice cap area, etc., etc., BUT the impact on public perception of Climate Change seems minimal. How come?

Most people are pretty self absorbed-- interested in themselves--and perhaps their immediate family and a few friends. Information concerning global trends doesn't resonate. It's not so much the technical aspects as the fact that people don't pay much attention to information that is not local and specific and readily visible. There's a tendency for humans to depend on innate perception of what could possibly affect their immediate environment. Of course that innate sense has been wrong, dead wrong, countless times over the millennia--but that fact offers no solace for the future of Climate Change mitigation.

Soooo, as far as technical information goes---it probably doesn't matter that much. I find each new data point intriguing, but I'm a scientist. It will be a long wait till some particular study galvanizes massive public action to reduce CO2 emissions in an attempt to save the Earth as a quality human habitat.

Consider folks who fly on commercial airlines (which account for a HUGE amount of CO2 emissions, by the way). Most do NOT even vaguely understand aeronautical engineering, navigation systems or cockpit flight controls. They still board the planes and fly at 20,000+ feet of elevation at amazing speeds, through storms and think nothing of it. Why? Because some entity WANTS them to fly---and spend money for the experience. There's profit in flight--perhaps not what there used to be, but there's still profit. People don't understand the technology of automobiles, but they buy and drive them by the millions. Fortunately, with automobiles, there is labeling--mpg figures have made a difference--at least to some Buyers. There's a lesson there, but few are learning from it.

Generally, less CO2 emission means less profit. Of course there's the Earth to consider and future generations of humans and other living creatures, but our track record as a species isn't that great at preservation and enhancement. Humans are more highly skilled at discovery and exploitation. Rain forests, ivory, buffalo herds, gold, coal, oil, etc etc all displaced and destroyed or decimated. How do we perform against that pattern with Climate Change? Is there a tipping point in terms of behavioral change among individuals? Can that change occur quickly and create small, but significant reductions in CO2 emissions holding the potential to avert non-linear, catastrophic climate events?

I believe it can and that is has in various communities around the world--none in the US.

I read an important book recently (below) that focuses on those communities and suggests that similar efforts could occur nearly anywhere, given some carefully planned programs that address human perceptions and Climate Change in a realistic way. The book has a huge amount of material, from which I plan to pull some particularly interesting ideas that might produce easy, pleasant changes in human behavior.

Visualizing Climate Change

A Guide to Visual Communication of Climate Change and Developing Local Solutions

By Stephen R.J. Sheppard

The documentary "I AM"

This is a post that got deferred---for a while!!

If you haven't seen this short documentary (77minutes) you should. It's not primarily focused on Climate Change--made back in 2008 when that topic was not quite as prominent as it is now. 

www.iamthedoc.com 

The above link takes you to the website--info, order the DVD, watch, join forum, etc. 

The movie involves discussions with famous intellects concerning what is wrong with human society (much), how come (many reasons) and what can be done to change it. 

From the Climate Change perspective TIME is the most ominous problem. If there is a 4-5 year window of opportunity within which to avoid unknown non-linear acceleration of climate degradation, slow progress toward change is not going to avert a major reset of the Earth's environment and the biota dependent on it. 

Humans tend to ignore warnings in preference for "business as usual, as long as possible".
This is often followed by "OOPS" episodes and in the case of Climate Change, a very big 
"OOPS" may transpire. 

For the 1% that makes partial sense, because however bad things get, the rich will find a place and a way to minimize any diminution in their lifestyle. The health effects in terms of disease, famine, etc will be borne mostly by the 99%.  

2012 retrospective

Yes, this retrospective is a little strange--this blog didn't start till way into 2012 and then it sorta went sideways along the way. With escrow challenges, plus Sandy effects, and general malaise arising from  a lack of engagement during the election followed by post election fiscal cliff posturing, inconsequential Doha UN Climate Talks, etc, etc. , there's been an big gap in posting. 

Nonetheless 2012 was a significant year for Climate Change. The Climate IS changing--faster than most forecasts and although humans are the primary cause, they have, at this point, no control over the process and for the most part no clue in how to get that control. Guess that means I'm not using "significant" in a good way?

The local Green Your Business Challenge finished up with some winners--well, most offices were winners, but there weren't many participants. It's safe to say the gasoline consumed by the members of the committee in attending the meetings exceeded the CO2 saved by the conservation measures undertaken by the offices. That's pretty common with many Climate Change programs. The Energy Event put on the the County of San Luis Obispo was another example in which the carbon footprint of the gathering far exceeded any CO2 savings generated by the content (there were photo-ops for politicians, so it wasn't a total waste--LOL). 

Personally, the most important epiphany of the 2012 occurred when I quit trying to identify a threshold of factual information about how bad things were getting in a more rapid than forecast way to turn the tide. The scientist in me kept seeking the holy grail of statistics that, when viewed by any remotely rational person, would instantly galvanize them into focused, energy wise action. The information keeps flowing, but there is no magical tipping point related to public action. Quite the contrary, many people are sick of hearing, reading, thinking about the negative news concerning Climate Change. The incredible super storm Sandy came, went and except for the areas still recovering, or attempting to, has largely left public consciousness, certainly as a possible artifact of Climate Change. I still review the latest new on the science front, but that's my background. The majority of people really don't care to be aware of the details. 

This "tuning out" process is a danger, because of the time factor. As I've mentioned previously, there may be a 4-5 year window within which CO2 emissions must depart the "business as usual" curve and begin to decline. If they don't, the chance of non-linear, unpredictable climate events occurring could increase to a virtual certainty. Few of the governmental, organizational, technological "solutions" aimed at achieving CO2 reduction will come to meaningful fruition inside that 4-5 year window. 

What CAN happen within 4-5 years are simple changes in personal behavior that could reduce CO2 emissions by 10-20% with little adverse affect on lifestyle. The challenge to find a way to achieve that behavior change. Forget media and big money. They flow elsewhere, as does the political power. In fact, it makes many of those industrial-institutional types extremely uneasy that the public even consider changes in present lifestyle---who knows where that might lead? 

I'll explore this line of reasoning further soon (really!), but it is really very simple. Motivation and awareness meet a trigger and choices are made. Where does that process happen every day, millions of time across the nation? Restaurants! People desire food (motivation) they become aware of options and consequences (the promise of gastronomic delight vs calories and price) and with the help of a menu (the trigger) they make choices. WHAT IF there were a menu or menus to help trigger energy wise decisions? 

That's one of the projects in development for early 2013. 

WebRep

currentVote

noRating

noWeight

Great vid clip!

Still getting caught up from state association meetings and an escrow that resulted from a negotiation completed while at the meetings---way too much time in the hotel room on the phone!

I ran across this Huffington Post clip a couple days ago---which is 54 minutes long. It has an excellent panel and it goes fast. Take it in a couple of doses if necessary, but I bet you'll watch it all.

http://youtu.be/ii9b8V6PhlM

It raises some tough questions and makes the point that I am now stressing at every opportunity.

Technology, government and corporate enlightenment MAY provide some significant CO2 emission reductions EVENTUALLY. That's MAY and EVENTUALLY.

What if tipping points representing non linear and unpredictable rapid climate change events arise in the next 4-5 years, if CO2 emission continue along the "business as usual" curve? What can be done in the next 4-5 years to prevent or reduce the odds of that happening?

How many degrees centigrade does it take to set off the non-linear hounds of hell? 2 or 2.5 or 3? If it goes to 4, is there any way out of population crashes and species extinctions? I won't be around by then, but this contest between humans and the Earth has no end and no winner. Our materialistic win/loose perspective has no relevance.

Fortunately, behavior can change NOW. CAN--we're back to ABILITY, MOTIVATION AND TRIGGER among individuals, but it CAN happen. It is also the Earth's best hope.

So the question is this: could most people cut their personal CO2 emissions by 10-15% with little effort, while experiencing little change in lifestyle? I'm betting the answer is YES!! 

We need a movement to encourage that sort of behavior change. Many people making a small change can reduce CO2 emissions rapidly. Many people also could grab the attention of politicians and corporate heads.

If the institutions finally get their acts together, that will be a huge help, but what if they don't? They haven't so far---as evidenced in the election campaigning. Energy was a bigger issue in 2008 than it is now and we know much more than we did in 2008---AND NONE of it is good news.

Individuals should do what they can do now. The present prevailing lifestyle of excessive consumption isn't all that alluring, when viewed from the perspective of a future Earth unable to support human populations living quality lives.

BTW you'll not see much about real estate in this blog---I've come to the conclusion that the real estate industry/trade organizations and Climate Change are not ready for each other just yet. There are more effective ways to spend my time than bucking the inertia of a multi million dollar a year lobbying/marketing machine focused on Climate Change denial and protecting antiquated business practices out of step with the best interests of the public.

Individuals in the industry and among the public have the ability to make better decisions about real estate and their future, decisions that are more consistent with sustaining the future of the Earth as a habitat for a rich diversity of living organisms, including humans.