Guest essay by Eric Worrall
Psychologists Claudia Nisa and Jocelyn J. Bélanger believe even people who say they believe in climate change are unlikely to make low carbon choices unless they are “nudged”, by removing or disincentivising the option of making high carbon choices.
Can You Change for Climate Change?
Probably, but research shows that most people need behavioral “nudges” to do so; just the facts aren’t enough
By Claudia Nisa, Jocelyn Bélanger on December 23, 2019
Swedish climate activist Greta Thunberg has scolded world leaders for failing to save her generation from climate change, rallying youth climate strikes and taking millions of people to the streets worldwide, demanding action. For many, Thunberg’s emotional oratory is a spark.
To us, however, Thunberg’s environmental actions are more impressive than her words. Thunberg crossed the Atlantic Ocean aboard a zero-emission sailboat to attend September’s climate talks in New York, eating freeze-dried food, not showering, and eschewing other comforts of air travel to spend 15 days on the high seas.
Thunberg’s sacrifice epitomizes the challenge underlying climate change: if global warming is to be curbed, comfortable lifestyles in developed countries must be amended. Put another way, it doesn’t matter how much uproar an activist’s speech creates because it distracts from the fundamental fact that the only way to save our planet is to change how we live.
…
But our research, which was recently published in Nature Communications, throws ice water on a theory that was already frosty. People do not change their environmental behaviors simply because they are told to. Rather, they must be enticed to make greener lifestyle choices with interventions sufficiently compelling to overcome the strong resistance to changing habitual, comfy habits. Identifying these motivators, and the psychology behind them, could help slow the climate-change crisis.
…
Read more: https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/can-you-change-for-climate-change/
The abstract of the study;
Meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials testing behavioural interventions to promote household action on climate change
Claudia F. Nisa, Jocelyn J. Bélanger, Birga M. Schumpe & Daiane G. Faller
Abstract
No consensus exists regarding which are the most effective mechanisms to promote household action on climate change. We present a meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials comprising 3,092,678 observations, which estimates the effects of behavioural interventions holding other factors constant. Here we show that behavioural interventions promote climate change mitigation to a very small degree while the intervention lasts (d = −0.093 95% CI −0.160, −0.055), with no evidence of sustained positive effects once the intervention ends. With the exception of recycling, most household mitigation behaviours show a low behavioural plasticity. The intervention with the highest average effect size is choice architecture (nudges) but this strategy has been tested in a limited number of behaviours. Our results do not imply behavioural interventions are less effective than alternative strategies such as financial incentives or regulations, nor exclude the possibility that behavioural interventions could have stronger effects when used in combination with alternative strategies.
“Choice architecture” sounds so innocuous, but in my opinion it is a deeply unpleasant form of government coercion.
For example, in 2012 Britain banned incandescent lightbulbs, following a phaseout which began in 2009.
The available alternative to incandescent light bulbs at the time was compact fluorescent lightbulbs like the one pictured above, which flicker and contain small quantities of toxic mercury.
I once managed to accidentally break two fragile compact fluorescents on one day, trying to replace a bulb in an awkward location. I was less than enthusiastic about splattering microscopic droplets of mercury around a confined indoor space used by my child. But the low carbon “choice architecture” imposed by the British Government didn’t grant me the option of choosing a safer but less energy efficient incandescent lightbulb.
Imagine if your entire life was constrained by a series of such “nudges”. The nanny state coercion might well drive you to reduce your carbon footprint – but I doubt politicians and bureaucrats would care about any problems caused by their restriction of your freedom, their imposition of “choice architecture”; the government’s desire to force you to cut your carbon footprint would override any personal concerns you might have about the choices they imposed on your life.
What do they mean “Even believers” – I’m of the mind that ONLY climate change believers should be compelled to live low carbon lifestyles. They’re the ones preaching it.
The Wizard Of Baca Grande
I leave the Baca with Strong, retracing our route of a week earlier. We pass the Lazy U Ranch and turn south on Highway 17. The desert slides by. Strong tells me he has often wished he could write. He has a novel he’d like to do. It’s something he has been thinking about for a decade. It would be a cautionary tale about the future.
Each year, he explains as a background to the telling of the novel’s plot, the World Economic Forum convenes in Davos, Switzerland. Over a thousand CEOs, prime ministers, finance ministers, and leadings academics gather in February to attend meetings and set economic agendas for the year ahead. With this as a setting, he then says: “What if a small group of these world leaders were to conclude that the principal risk to the earth comes from the actions of the rich counties? And if the world is to survive, those rich countries would have to sign an agreement reducing their impact on the environment. Will they do it?” And Strong, driving as I take notes, looks at me. Then his eyes go back to the Highway 17. The man who founded the United Nations Environment Program and who wrote parts of the Burndtland Report and who in 1992 will try to get the world’s leaders, meeting in Brazil, to sign just such an agreement, savors the questions hanging in the air. Will they do it? Will the rich countries agree to reduce their impact on the environment? Will they agree to save the earth?
Strong resumes his story. “The group’s conclusion is ‘no’. The rich countries won’t do it. They won’t change. So, in order to save the planet, the group decides: isn’t the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn’t it our responsibility to bring that about?”
“This group of world leaders,” he continues, “form a secret society to bring about an economic collapse. It’s February. They’re all at Davos. These aren’t terrorists. They’re world leaders. They have positioned themselves in the world’s commodity and stock markets. They’ve engineered, using their access to stock exchanges and computers and gold supplies, a panic. Then, they prevent the world’s stock markets from closing. They jam the gears. They hire mercenaries who hold the rest of the world leaders at Davos as hostages. The markets can’t close. The rich countries…” And Strong makes a light motion with his fingers as if he were flicking a cigarette butt out the window.
I sit there spellbound. This is not any storyteller talking. This is Maurice Strong. He knows these world leaders. He is, in fact, co-chairman of the council of the World Economic Forum. He sits at the fulcrum of power. He is in a position to do it.
“I probably shouldn’t be saying things like this,” he says.
http://nwodb.com/?e=03620
Davos Forum Elites to Demand Immediate Global Action on ‘Climate Change’
https://www.breitbart.com/environment/2019/12/26/davos-forum-elites-to-demand-immediate-global-action-on-climate-change/
It’s better to look at the root cause of the environmental issues we’re facing than to be looking at carbon taxation that simply allows corporations to win twice.
The biggest cause of global pollution is excessive production for consumerism.
Put simply this is because they produce far in excess of what is actually needed the global needs can be sustained with production levels of at least half of their current rates.
Why?
Because of the use of “planned obsolescence” a mechanism that artificially reduces the functional life of a product such that you are forced to replace it frequently , for example a washing machine can easily be designed to run for 25-30 years, but in fact fails in as tittle as sis years, just after the five year warranty runs out! This is deliberate design function to ensure future sales of replacement product.
It is also exasperated by the fact that spares are often difficult to obtain and with many products are impossible to repair due to the design of the product that prevent basic repairs from being carried out.
LED lamps are another example, after 40 years of electronics experience, I know that LEDs have an extremely long life if the electronics are properly designed 30,000 hours plus should be expected, but manufacturers are now bringing that down to less that 10,000 by designing the power supply to fail earlier with underrated components that will fail in about 10,000 hours.
These are just two examples of domestic devices that are designed to fail before their time to increase the profit margins for businesses and their shareholders.
In other areas, millions of plastic products are made with plastics that are designed to deteriorate far quicker than necessary to produce repeat purchases,
Shoes have soles made of materials that wear much faster than they should.
Cars used to be really bad before there was a consumer backlash in the 1970-80s after many deaths caused by cars that were designed to rust quickly getting involved in crashes and causing deaths by completely crushing as they were weakened by corrosion, or in some cases causing crashes by breaking up while being driven.
Then there is “perceived obsolescence” where consumers are being pressurised into replacing stuff that is perfectly functional with the latest and greatest model, which is usually the same as the previous one except for some more go-faster stripes or similar. The fashion industry is the worst offender here.
Then there is all the “single use” plastics to reduce costs in a fast food restaurant for example, to avoid paying for someone to wash dishes afterwards.
Finally to add insult to injury, there is a whole “recycling & waste management” industry created to get rid of all this rubbish.
People just need to know what is happening in the world, whinging about climate change is a cop out, they need to be looking at their own consumerism and the corporate greed that is feeding it.
“Probably, but research shows that most people need behavioral “nudges” to do so; just the facts aren’t enough”
Such utter crap. They won’t read the facts on their own or they pretend the facts don’t exist. If the facts were on their side, it would certainly be enough to convince most people to do something.
No change in sea level rise for 150 years
no increase or decrease in hurricanes, droughts, floods, penguin happiness or any of the factors we hear about
Climate models have failed statistically to predict temps even over 30 years. – they run way too hot.
No facts = no response from thinking public.
Lectures from self important know-nothings are only irritants.
My mother once asked my great-grandmother to write out her daily activities before the advent of modern conveniences. Her description is an accurate depiction of late 19th/early 20th century life in the rural South.
It’s not something I want to go back to, and clearly these clowns don’t, either, since zero of them have adopted anything close to a zero carbon lifestyle.
This is a naked power grab, and these Lysenkoists hope they’ll be among the accepted elite.
The amount of mercury in CFLs is TINY. However, skeptics seem to love blowing it all out proportion thinking that somehow makes them look smart and the Climate Cult look stupid. It doesn’t. CFL’s were never a threat, ever. If one is dealing with a “zero mercury” climate fanatic, the tiny amount could be relevant. Otherwise, another cult-type over-reaction by the so-called science side.
True but that doesn’t make them safe. A few years ago I got tired of having to get a ladder to change bulbs downstairs every few months. So I bought cfl bulbs. Couple weeks later I just happened to be looking up and saw smoke coming from one of them. By the time I got to the switch it was a jet of flame. I got very lucky, but I won’t count on that again.
Lifestyle Nudges? Nudges will do absolutely nothing to reduce CO2 emissions to zero by 2050.
Eating tofu burgers instead of actual burgers would6put the slightest dent in the problem.
The Climate Alarmists invented a problem that’s too big to actually fix.
A FIX would require:
• Commissioning over 25,000 New Nuclear Power Plants (each 1Gw) Globally.
• Retooling the entire global Auto Industry AND the Electrical Grid for EV Transportation.
• Heavy Equipment and Agricultural Machinery require conversions from diesel (batteries won’t work). Little is being done there.
• Inventing an ENTIRE INDUSTRY for Synthetic Liquid Aviation Fuel (for converting electrical energy into aviation fuels). That’s not even on the drawing boards yet…why not?
• Immediately halting the plans for adding around 700 hundred of Coal Plants in Asia and Africa. So far…little talk and no action….why not?
• Refitting hundreds of millions of homes for electric heating.
• Railroad fuels? Synthetics diesel fuels required. Where is the serious work being done about that?
• The entire global shipping fleet (and Navy’s) requires conversion to ?what…nuclear?…from burning oil. Plus, the entire nautical recreation fleet needs refitting for synthetic fuels (or sails?). Nothing serious is on the drawing board that could possibly be online by 2050 for any of this.
The Total Climate Story just doesn’t hold together:
• The science doesn’t prove worsening extreme climate events EVEN IF we get the 3 C warming…which we are not seeing.
• The warming isn’t happening at the “promised rate”.
• None of their predictions are on track. Almost all the predictions have been wildly inaccurate.
There are no actual consolidated Plans out there that even come close to eliminating CO2 emissions at any time scale…let alone the REQUIRED 20 years.
The Climate Story doesn’t hold together under the most casual scrutiny. The EMERGENCY they invented is too big to fix.
“Retooling the entire global Auto Industry AND the Electrical Grid for EV Transportation.” Presently don’t work in cold climates period. When near or below 0 C and they are toast, long charging times and short run times, real short battery life. I lived in North Dakota and Northern Minnesota most of my life a month without see a high temperature of 0 C is not uncommon, a month of not above 0 F can happen and has happen and I have lived it as well in 72 hours of the high not above -22 F.
EV battery designers factor in the cold weather when they design the battery packs, they incorporate heaters that prevent the batteries from getting too cold. Fast Charging technology has come a long way in recent years and a fast charger can add about 100km range in less than 15 minutes also many of the newer models have a range that exceeds 500km, that’s enough to get coast to coast (in Ireland) . It’s only cars that have now been designed well enough that fail in weather extremes.
Yes, they have battery heaters. BUT our Tesla took about 100 minutes this morning to get warm enough to START charging at minus 11C, drawing 10,000 watts, so the first 17 KWH just heats the battery enough to put in another 20 KWH, and then it will take about 5 KWH to warm the interior. As you start driving, the wind cools the battery and the cabin, so it takes about 80% more electricity to go a given distance. I suppose it might go farther if we wore the ‘ski-doo suits’ but that’s not happening.
You won’t see that properly explained on the sales website, just something vague about ‘some range loss’ occurring in colder weather. And some people will tell you that you can get by with only 110V, 1500 watt charging. Not in winter, if you want to go somewhere more than about once or twice a week.
It’s far less expensive ($10 for 200 KM winter / $8 for 400 KM summer) to drive on electricity than gasoline (and not because of avoiding the various fuel taxes) over the whole year. In summer it’s practically free driving, in winter it’s just pretty good.
Contrary to what some ‘greens’ believe, currency is pretty much used to exchange time and energy. Those pieces of paper printed by the Government aren’t free to make, and making twice as many dollars to pass out doesn’t make everything cost half as much in time and energy. An easy way to tell whether you’re saving energy / cutting emissions is whether you’re spending more, or spending less. An Tesla is might be more fun, but probably not ‘greener’, than a Civic. (unless you plan to drive it 80,000 KM a year).
You should be leaving it plugged in if you know the temperatures are going to drop so far that it takes 100 minutes to reach fast charging temperatures. Batteries don’t perform well at all at the temperature extremes, so we all need to ensure that they are kept within their optimal operating temperature range. A granny cable should be enough to maintain the battery temperatures during periods of extreme cold.
It’s a bit like using anti-freeze in an ICE vehicle, there are ways to keep them running in extreme conditions.
It is plugged in, all the time that it’s home, which has been two days. The battery heating is automatic, the controls are dumbed down to setting the charge level.
If it got below minus 30, the battery heater would turn on at any charge setting. Attempting to charge from a 110v / 1500 w cable in minus 10C mostly just wears out the coolant pump.
Not every great idea for air-conditioned California makes sense anywhere it snows from Sepember to April. PHEVs are easier to live with in the cold, still cut fuel use by 80% or more, need 1/8 the battery size.
“Need behavioral nudges”
From the barrel of a Kalashnikov in the spine.
Everything I like is illegal, immoral or a high-carbon choice.
I think that the climate cognoscenti might find that no nudge would be needed if they, themselves, lived as if they believed the endgame of their religion. They don’t. When they jet off to meetings when they could meet online, when they have celebrities attend, flying in private jets, and when they enjoy fabulous meals, while selling the idea that the entire world must change or catastrophe, the are hypocrites, and seen as such. The idea that there are two levels of compliance with their prophecies (one for the rich and shameless, along with the “right” intelligentsia, and one for the rest of the world) is what keeps them from getting anybody else from going along with this farce. Get out there, live off the grid, avoid travel, and eat larvae for a few years, you might find it easier to convince others that you believe what you say.
I hear the provincial and federal Government types preaching about sustainability, I see the Hollywood types jabbering about the amazing transition to alternative energy, but at Government buildings or movie theatres there are zero Electric Vehicle charging stations, no solar PV panels on the roof, no-one adding insulation. Do they believe this propaganda, or not?
These left-wing movements are always carried forward by people who talk the talk but don’t walk the walk. As long as they repeat the same climate change talking point mantras, they are fully welcomed into the collective.
Why doesn’t the collective take action regarding acolytes who continue to sin through high-carbon emissions? Because power. It’s all about power. It’s nothing to do with carbon or the environment.
The two basic truths about Scientific American is that it is neither scientific nor American.
Jim
People… why is this so difficult?
TAX the ‘bad’, and SUBSIDIZE the ‘good’ with funds raised.
This changes — rapidly — what the public will, and won’t do. Thing is, tho’ it is “hard” pölïtically, the subsidy algorithm has to take ALL of the sin-tax raised, and apply ALL of it to subsidizing the “angel products”. And that amount will change with time.
Thing is, this scheme will also rapidly find a balance point that disincentivizes sin-product purchases and incentivizes virtue-product purchases. But ‘incentivizes’ less and less and fewer of the sin-products are sold.
IF THE BALANCE isn’t “where desired” then the TAX RATE can also be adjusted … quarterly … to further disincentivize sin-products and reward virtue-product purchases.
________________________________________
Because consumers are really, really, really, really sensitive to the ‘price of replacing a function’ in their ongoing lives. Counting on that, with the above mechanism, allows for a graceful, stately and comprehensive replacement of products with others. And no one is actually harmed.
________________________________________
However, if we’re really being sanguine about this topic, then something I wrote on another blog-site seems pretty much on point…
| How about … some REAL world solutions?
|
| № 1 — accept that AGW is real, but nowhere-near as bad
| as feared.
|
| … so, ‘mitigation’ requires WAY less mass-sequestering,
| in general.
|
| № 2 — fertilize the all-but-Fe rich, ironically sterile
| ocean … with Fe.
|
| … cheap, easy, next-to-zero technology development. Just
| scatter FeSO₄ out there, maybe from blimps in the wind from
| 25,000 ft. Cheap, easy, isn’t bothered by being slow. Could
| be done without pilots, probably. Solar cells on blimps allow
| for in-situ helium tank pumping (to reduce lift, when load
| is dropped).
|
| № 3 — reflect sunlight in the deserts, or oceans.
|
| … Its really easy to make specular corner-reflectors, and
| pave thousands of square km with them. Or float ’em out at
| sea, reflecting incoming sunlight at high efficiency. Increasing
| Earth’s albedo, reducing fraction ‘kept here’ to warm the globe.
|
| № 4 — nuke oil fields.
|
| … The big guns of last resort, taking out the largest CO₂
| contributer, IF THE ABOVE don’t mitigate “the reduced problem”
| entirely.
|
| Or, finding this ethically questionable, then a worldwide
| moratorium on new-oil ventures. Pushing “peak oil” past its apex.
|
| DITTO for coal.
| Natural gas seems fairly innocuous.
|
| Anyway, a bit ‘crazy’, but not really … except for № 4,
| all the rest can be done, starting today. Famously, it
| has been said, “give me an oil tanker full of iron, and we
| can create an Ice Age”. Gives pause, doesn’t it?
|
Just Saying,
-= GoatGuy ✓ =-
“People… why is this so difficult?”
Because the world can’t be so neatly divided between ‘good’ and ‘bad’ as you seem to think (especially for any length of time, or with any general agreement on what ‘things’ are good and bad, let alone agreement on the meanings of ‘good’ and ‘bad’).
Governments are just starting to figure out that ‘vaping’ is harmful, and slapping a tax on the stuff. It took a couple hundred years to work out that smoking tobacco might be ‘bad’, but maybe a sickly life and an early death is better for the planet, right?
So as to your No. 1, right. AGW is Nowhere near as bad, almost certainly not ‘catastrophic’, probably not all that permanent. It might be 100, 1000, or 10,000 years from now, but someday the human race will be desperate for a way to warm the Earth to stave off the next ice age. I also know that Global Warming won’t go out of control and bake everyone, because the Earth was once a molten ball of rock, shrouded in steam and CO2, yet it cooled to the point there were 3,000 metres of ice at the 49th meridian.
As to the rest maybe ‘first see rule 1’ is enough of an answer, but:
2. no. If you’re going to haul anything in solar-powered Lighter-than-air craft, why not people, food, or trade goods? If it would truly be awesomely beneficial to spread iron sulphate dust on the ocean, maybe figure out a way to use it as an energy carrier (H2S and iron?) and dump the exhausted effluent into the most deficient parts of the shipping lanes?
3. No. Instead, put silicon solar PV out in deserts, if, as, and where useful or needed. And make every Cadmium-Telluride thin film solar site, a superfund site, now.
4. no. We don’t need to re-enact ‘Fires of Kuwait’ ever again. Let’s keep nuclear weapons ready in reserve, in case someone again starts another unprovoked war of conquest and we are forced to turn their capital city to radioactive glass as a permanent warning.
And you’re confused. Oil fields produce oil and associated natural gas, not CO2. Oil fields could even be used to sequester CO2. If we want to reduce CO2 accumulation, we would need to both collect higher royalties at source, and further tax the consumption of fuels at use. I don’t see reducing CO2 emissions as a high priority because (1 above), but when / where fossil fuels are too cheap they are often wasted, and there are far worse known problems (pandemic flu, antibiotic resistance, normal catastrophic weather)
Friend, I do truely appreciate your reply . And while you handily castrated ideas № 2 thru № 4, I have to take a wee bit of umbrage at “And you’re confused. Oil fields produce oil and associated natural gas, not CO₂. ”
That argument is like saying, “sugar doesn’t substantially contribute to rapid tooth decay”, or “mining coal doesn’t contribute to atmospheric acid rain”; sure, the twice-removed part of that line of reasoning is true. But not following the causality chain is where I’m taking issue.
As you read most-everything I wrote, don’t dismiss “the nuclear option must be the last option” (paraphrased) as part of № 4. Let us consider a world-of-countries where Europe, Russia, most of the Americas forms a hard, binding, policed agreement to phase out CO₂-emissions-from-fossil-fuel over say 50 years. By the end of the century. Something like that.
And there are — because countries are sovereign — a few notable hold outs, that’ll do nothing of the kind. China, the African post-banana republics, a fair amount of equatorial South America, ‘cuz of Venezuela and yes, México. Because they produce oil, and have a socio-economic drip of money derived therein, which otherwise they’d not have, and would all become Haiti.
So, what to do about these hold-outs?
Its like when one’s next-door neighbor decides to dispose of her trash by just piling it up in haphazard stinky fœtid piles … and then she gets all up in a snit ‘cuz you are finding fault with her garbage disposal choices.
Just Saying,
-= GoatGuy ✓ =-
No, I pretty much stand by the statement about oilfields. My Tesla has a gearbox on each motor filled with oil, the coolant is a secret but probably several gallons of a natural gas derived glycol, that cools batteries filled with a petroleum derived electrolyte, in which I sit on a plastic seat and roll on petroleum tires down a tar and gravel road. And this is the future, remember.
Getting rid of the oil wells is not the way to free up time and energy to apply to scaling up battery production and silicon solar PV deployment.
We just didn’t fix the air pollution problem from the oil supply end. The Arabs tried in 1973, but pollution standards starting in 1969 made the actual change. (And the per mile standard made cars smaller, but new tech made them so clean they got bigger again)
You can’t build a battery that hasn’t been invented, or energy transmission without losses an massive amounts of metal. You can’t cut off electricity once it’s engineered in and necessary, so phasing out coal is not an easy problem.
We can make transport fuel and coal taxes higher. It would raise enough to maintain our sorry roads, and higher electricity prices would pay for CCGT plants. It’s not likely that anyone will start refining their own transport fuel from their own well. But good luck in China and India, with that tax thing.
“…People do not change their environmental behaviors simply because they are told to. Rather, they must be enticed to make greener lifestyle choices with interventions sufficiently compelling to overcome the strong resistance to changing habitual, comfy habits….”
Translation:
We must punish not only apostate Unbelievers but also True Believers into proper, acceptable behavior patterns.
Give people a better option : build a few nuclear plants and don’t bother about changing your behavior
This is a bit like going on a diet. Believe me, I know what I am talking about here as I am struggling with excess weight for the last 30 years. You start off with great intentions, make plans, plan on how you will manage your calorie intake in order to drop the pounds. Then you start to implement. On day 3 you are a nervous wreck, on day 5 you climb up walls and on day 7 (if you last that long) you wonder about the nutritional value of the wooden tabletop. Good intentions are a dime a dozen, implementation is almost always much less than perfect. Life without fossil energy is pretty brutish. The activists have no idea. I strongly support to help them getting one.
“Psychologists Claudia Nisa and Jocelyn J. Bélanger believe even people who say they believe in climate change are unlikely to make low carbon choices”
This pair are some kind of stupid.
1. They ‘believe’ this? So, no research just a feeling? Someone told them?
2. Multiple surveys and papers tell us sceptics are the ones doing something about reducing their footprints. They recycle, get solar, reduce waste and more. The true believers do none of it, vis-a-vis all the celebrity houses we see with no solar and no wind turbines.
Why do such idiots get published?
MarkMcD December 29, 2019 at 4:34 pm
“Psychologists Claudia Nisa and Jocelyn J. Bélanger believe even people who say they believe in climate change are unlikely to make low carbon choices”
They recycle, get solar, reduce waste and more.
The true believers do none of it, vis-a-vis all the celebrity houses we see with no solar and no wind turbines.
Inside this celebrity houses we see with no solar and no wind turbines where there’s often a tanning salon with sun beds / tanning beds, outside parking turboprops.
https://www.google.com/search?client=ms-android-huawei&sxsrf=ACYBGNQwLg2CDQNAzzT7SphEm5jLOl0hwQ%3A1578606715674&ei=e6AXXubkKOKErwS1x5TIBQ&q=turboprops&oq=turboprops&gs_l=mobile-gws-wiz-serp.
My son’s rented flat had dimmer switches on all of the main lights. Since he couldn’t get the landlord to change the switches, or even allow me to change them, he was forced to buy dimmable lightbulbs. Do you know how difficult/expensive those are? If he could have bought the ordinary old type, everything would have been fine – but no. And turning the dimmer circuitry with CFLs loaded just blows out the bulbs!
CFLs always were a dumb idea. Why should you have to throw away the ballast when changing a fluorescent lamp? Though I quite like the way they start dim and take a minute to reach full brightness.
Claudia F. Nisa, Jocelyn J. Bélanger, Birga M. Schumpe & Daiane G. Faller
Abstract
“With the exception of recycling, most household mitigation behaviours show a low behavioural plasticity. The intervention with the highest average effect size is choice architecture (nudges) but this strategy has been tested in a limited number of behaviours.”
________________________________________________
Eric Worrall:
“Choice architecture” sounds so innocuous, but in my opinion it is a deeply unpleasant form of government coercion.
________________________________________________
Yes, +
“Choice architecture” sounds so innocuous, and too this is reminiscent of the Russian dystopian science fiction “We”:
https://www.google.com/search?client=ms-android-huawei&sxsrf=ACYBGNRkdj9pbCFE9XHOp9p04e7XymKZcQ%3A1578603867015&ei=W5UXXvdHp-uuBMvDtpAG&q=Russian+science+fiction+we&oq=Russian+science+fiction+we&gs_l=mobile-gws-wiz-serp.