Carbon reduction through social pressure works -- occasionally - by Doug Mohney

Views and Opinions on Green IT (Aug 17 2010)

1. 

   Two different methods of persuasive influence are being used to push companies and individuals to be greener, but the end-results are mixed at best.

   The public shame approach, standing on a virtual soap box and issuing press releases flogging a company for bad practices, is preferred by Greenpeace and other environmental organizations. Greenpeace has made a lot of fuss about flogging Facebook's data centers and their use of coal-burning power, racking up nearly 500,000 followers so far on (yes, you guessed it) Facebook for a campaign to get the social networking company to go to 100 percent renewable energy.

   Of course, Greenpeace isn't without sin. The organization keeps some of its servers at evil coal-burning companies, but since those companies don't have the public profile of Facebook, well, it's OK to do-as-I-say, not-as-I-do.  It would be nice if Greenpeace could take its own carbon-zero pledge for its operations, but I'm not holding my breath.

   A more subtle approach is the use of "persuasive technologies" --- the ability to use software and monitoring to monitor energy consumption and compare it to what your neighbors/peers are doing.  The theory is that if you can do better than the guy next door, you will/may modify your behavior in order to do so -- assuming you don't have twelve other things to worry about this week.

   But results aren't overwhelming.  A MIT/NYU study of one persuasive energy scheme showed a reduction of energy usage of about 1.9 percent relative to baseline consumption.  Worse yet, the effects appear not to be "durable" -- i.e. people fall of the bandwagon and go back to their sinfully old power consuming ways. 

   And if you want a really gloomy thought on how individuals prefer to stick with the status quo, there are about 250,000 apartments across New York City that are "utilities included," reports the New York Times.  Estimates are that these households burn 30 percent more electricity year-round than their better-metered counterparts.   Moves to install sub-meters sets off a battle with tenants, who prefer an "all you can eat" approach to hot water and power and don't want to give it up even if they might save money on the rent.  Greenpeace, where is thy outrage?

   Bookmark or Share this article

Login to comment.

Related Articles