Polar ice
caps
the $100 million ad campaign the
Martin Agency is developing for the
Alliance. The campaign is still in
development but is due out in the
next few months. Its primary aim:
to point voters to public policy
solutions for the looming climate
crisis. “Right now,” Hughes says, “we
have incredible numbers of people in
the US who say global warming is an
important problem that needs to be fixed.
But most people think there’s nothing they
can do about it—or that someone should do
something about it, but that someone isn’t them.”
The Alliance and the Martin Agency are hoping to make
climate change a major issue in the upcoming presidential race.
“Even though people think climate change is important,” Hughes
notes, “it’s not one of the top three issues that people cite when
talking about their choices for president.” Public policy isn’t the
only focus of the ad campaign, though. The Alliance is also hoping
that in conjunction with what it’s calling “community partners”
across the nation, it can inspire significant changes in Americans’
environmental behavior: in the ways we drive; heat, light, and cool
our homes; wash our laundry; and buy our food. Such changes could
have a tremendous worldwide impact on the environment. After all,
we Americans are among the worst polluters on earth, responsible
for approximately 26.5 tons of greenhouse gas per person every
year, not to mention a host of persistent pollutants, toxic chemicals,
solid wastes, and other environmental offenses. Our greenhouse
gas production alone is three and a half times the world average
and at least twice that of most of Europe.
At their meeting, Hughes tried to absorb all that Gore was telling
him: The polar ice caps scientists thought might last 50 years may
now survive only 10 or 20 more; severe droughts, floods, and heat
waves are already taking their toll, especially in poor and low-lying
places across the globe; and more species are being lost now than
ever before in history. It was a lot to take in over omelets.
The conversation Gore and Hughes had in that Manhattan
hotel is one that everyday American environmentalists have
often, too. How can we change not only our climate policy but our
environmental behaviors as well? Making significant efforts to curb
our production of greenhouse gases and other detrimental habits
is key to a livable future here and in places where the American
lifestyle has become an enviable model.
There are good reasons to believe, however, that many such
campaigns—the
Alliance’s
included—may
well come to naught. Not because the Martin
Agency’s advertising expertise is in any way
lacking, or because the Alliance won’t be able
to accurately depict the urgency of the crisis.
And certainly not because certain government
officials and grassroots organizations aren’t
trying hard enough. But the agency might
come up dry because we as a nation seem almost
immune to such efforts. In fact, study after study
shows that the majority of interventions aimed
at improving environmental behavior—advertising
included—demonstrate few, if any, long-term benefits.
Does this mean we’re doomed to continue our planetdestroying ways? The clock ticks loudly for activists. “Mike,” Gore
declared to Hughes that bright September morning, “we cannot fail.
We cannot fail.”
scientists
thought
might last
50 years
may now survive
only 10 or 20
more.
46%
In March 2007, the Yale Center for Environmental Law and
Policy released the results of its annual poll measuring Americans’
attitudes toward the environment. Here’s the very good news: 83
percent of those surveyed believe that global warming is a serious
problem—the majority label it “a very serious problem.” That’s up
from 74 percent who identified it as “serious” in 2005.
According to the poll, Americans are believers in the power
of individual action and in the ability of regular people to make
a difference. When asked, “Which group or person would be most
effective at improving efforts to reduce emissions connected to
global warming?” 27 percent chose consumers. (Big business and
Congress followed closely; the president came in at a lowly 10
percent.) But for all of their belief in the power of one, in the very
same poll, 46 percent said they would seriously consider buying an
SUV, up from 42 percent in 2005.
How can Americans, who express pro-environment sentiment in
the polls, engage in such anti-environmental behavior? And what
can those hoping to change their habits learn from these facts?
To begin with, say those who study environmental behavior, let’s
do away with the idea that most people are rational actors who learn
information and translate it into behavioral change. Instead, “it’s good
to see every person as consisting of two people—a citizen and a
consumer,” says Halina S Brown, professor of environmental science
and policy at Clark University in Massachusetts.
The citizen is the one who voices the aspirations and awareness we
find in surveys like the Yale Center’s. The consumer, who inadvertently
damages our ecosystems with SUVs, air travel, and unsustainably
said they would
seriously consider
buying an SUV, up from
42% in 2005. What gives?
68 | february-march 2008