With many nations making efforts to transition away from fossil fuels to renewable energy, SciLine interviewed Erin Baker, a professor of industrial engineering and operations at UMass Amherst. Baker discussed the technological, political and regulatory efforts needed for this transition, as well as ways that our fossil fuel-dependent system disproportionately harms poor communities and communities of color.

The Conversation has collaborated with SciLine to bring you highlights from the discussion, which have been edited for brevity and clarity.

How is our country doing at making the transition to renewable energy?

Erin Baker: There has been amazing technological change over the past 15 years. Offshore wind costs 50% less than it did six years ago. Solar has had a sixfold decrease in costs since 2010. And I think there’s a lot of evidence that technology will adapt and improve if we set the goals and incentives for it.

In terms of policy and regulations, we are moving forward, but we need to be more aggressive. Something that we’re missing and that would be really helpful would be a coherent, federal-level climate policy – whether that is regulatory policy, such as we have for pollution, or a carbon tax or some kind of a cap. The Inflation Reduction Act would be a fantastic starting point if it becomes law.

A good example of something that has been done is President Biden’s move to coordinate and streamline the federal approval process for offshore wind. There are seven federal agencies involved, and having them all separate and moving at their own pace was really difficult for offshore wind energy developers. So Biden has coordinated that, and that’s fantastic. But there are tens of local and state-level agencies and processes that developers still have to go through. It would be really great if we could figure out ways to coordinate and streamline those.

How does our current energy system disproportionately harm poor communities and communities of color?

Erin Baker: Unfortunately, in a lot of different ways. Polluting facilities tend to be located disproportionally in areas that are low income and home to people of color, which can lead to negative health outcomes. Also, in the Texas blackout last winter that killed around 250 people, some research done by my colleague Jay Teneja showed that the long blackouts were four times as likely in communities of color as in predominantly white communities. And, unfortunately, the energy transition won’t necessarily be any more equitable.

For example, it’s common for states to subsidize rooftop solar. And this is good, but the people who get the subsidies are people who own roofs with sun shining on them. People who live in apartments and in cities don’t have access to this, and yet they’re paying for the subsidies. We take the money for the subsidies from everyone, including low-income people, and send them mostly to white, wealthy suburbs.

How can injustices in our energy system be rectified?

Erin Baker: There’s obviously no one solution, but there are a couple of categories of things we can do. One thing that would be really helpful would be to collect data. We have very little data about energy equity issues.

We also need to involve and listen to the traditionally marginalized communities that are most affected by the inequities.

What do you think of the federal and state targets set for offshore wind?

Erin Baker: The Biden administration set a target for 30 gigawatts by 2030. That’s an ambitious goal, since in 2019 the entire world had only 30 GW. But it’s growing rapidly, with global capacity at an astounding 56 GW.

Having this goal of 30 gigawatts helps to organize the supply chain – all the pieces that need to get done for this to happen. We need people who know how to install offshore wind farms. We need special ships. We need planning for transmission. Having these goals really helps to organize all that and make sure all these pieces are in place.

What are the environmental costs and benefits of offshore wind?

Erin Baker: Offshore wind is a really promising technology. The ocean has really good wind resources. And it’s near population centers – we have lots of cities up and down the coasts. Because wind energy is carbon-free, it will provide benefits by reducing emissions and reducing costs.

Some of the work I’ve done has shown that there are billions, and maybe even trillions, of dollars of climate value in offshore wind. We lose between US$10 million and $150 million per year per wind farm by delaying them. We really want to keep these large global environmental benefits in mind as we plan. These can be balanced against local environmental costs and benefits, as well as other factors, like jobs.

In terms of local environmental benefits, when you build an offshore wind farm, the stuff underneath the water ends up creating an artificial reef and actually increasing sea life in that area, which is a benefit.

Negatively, they interfere with bird migrations. Birds don’t actually fly into the wind turbines that much. They fly around them. But if there are a lot of wind farms, that’s a lot of flying around, and that can be hard on the birds. And some animals, like right whales, can get caught in mooring lines if we have floating wind turbines. So, there are local environmental costs. What we need to do is balance these with the global benefits from addressing climate change.

Are you hopeful about our ability to address climate change?

Erin Baker: I am optimistic that we can solve climate change, because humans are very inventive. My work on technological change has shown that once we have a goal or incentive, we tend to improve technologies much faster than we ever predicted. So I think we can be ambitious. We can aim for net-zero by 2030 instead of 2050. And we can solve climate change while at the same time stimulating innovation, fueling growth and increasing quality of life. But we have to set these goals. To access the benefits of the energy transition, we really need to act boldly and decisively.

Watch the full interview to hear more about what’s required for a just, renewable energy transition.

SciLine is a free service based at the nonprofit American Association for the Advancement of Science that helps journalists include scientific evidence and experts in their news stories.

Erin Baker, Professor of Industrial Engineering Applied to Energy Policy, UMass Amherst

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

The Earth is approximately 1.1℃ warmer than it was at the start of the industrial revolution. That warming has not been uniform, with some regions warming at a far greater pace. One such region is the Arctic.

A new study shows that the Arctic has warmed nearly four times faster than the rest of the world over the past 43 years. This means the Arctic is on average around 3℃ warmer than it was in 1980.

This is alarming, because the Arctic contains sensitive and delicately balanced climate components that, if pushed too hard, will respond with global consequences.

Why is the Arctic warming so much faster?

A large part of the explanation relates to sea ice. This is a thin layer (typically one metre to five metres thick) of sea water that freezes in winter and partially melts in the summer.

The sea ice is covered in a bright layer of snow which reflects around 85% of incoming solar radiation back out to space. The opposite occurs in the open ocean. As the darkest natural surface on the planet, the ocean absorbs 90% of solar radiation.

When covered with sea ice, the Arctic Ocean acts like a large reflective blanket, reducing the absorption of solar radiation. As the sea ice melts, absorption rates increase, resulting in a positive feedback loop where the rapid pace of ocean warming further amplifies sea ice melt, contributing to even faster ocean warming.

This feedback loop is largely responsible for what is known as Arctic amplification, and is the explanation for why the Arctic is warming so much more than the rest of the planet.

Is Arctic amplification underestimated?

Numerical climate models have been used to quantify the magnitude of Arctic amplification. They typically estimate the amplification ratio to be about 2.5, meaning the Arctic is warming 2.5 times faster than the global average. Based on the observational record of surface temperatures over the last 43 years, the new study estimates the Arctic amplification rate to be about four.

Rarely do the climate models obtain values as high that. This suggests the models may not fully capture the complete feedback loops responsible for Arctic amplification and may, as a consequence, underestimate future Arctic warming and the potential consequences that accompany that.

How concerned should we be?

Besides sea ice, the Arctic contains other climate components that are extremely sensitive to warming. If pushed too hard, they will also have global consequences.

One of those elements is permafrost, a (now not so) permanently frozen layer of the Earth’s surface. As temperatures rise across the Arctic, the active layer, the topmost layer of soil that thaws each summer, deepens. This, in turn, increases biological activity in the active layer resulting in the release of carbon into the atmosphere.

Arctic permafrost contains enough carbon to raise global mean temperatures by more than 3℃. Should permafrost thawing accelerate, there is the potential for a runaway positive feedback process, often referred to as the permafrost carbon time bomb. The release of previously stored carbon dioxide and methane will contribute to further Arctic warming, subsequently accelerating future permafrost thaw.

A second Arctic component vulnerable to temperature rise is the Greenland ice sheet. As the largest ice mass in the northern hemisphere, it contains enough frozen ice to raise global sea levels by 7.4 metres if melted completely.

When the amount of melting at the surface of an ice cap exceeds the rate of winter snow accumulation, it will lose mass faster than it gains any. When this threshold is exceeded, its surface lowers. This will quicken the pace of melting, because temperatures are higher at lower elevations.

This feedback loop is often called the small ice cap instability. Prior research puts the required temperature rise around Greenland for this threshold to be be passed at around 4.5℃ above pre-industrial levels. Given the exceptional pace of Arctic warming, passing this critical threshold is rapidly becoming likely.

Although there are some regional differences in the magnitude of Arctic amplification, the observed pace of Arctic warming is far higher than the models implied. This brings us perilously close to key climate thresholds that if passed will have global consequences. As anyone who works on these problems knows, what happens in the Arctic doesn’t stay in the Arctic.

Jonathan Bamber, Professor of Physical Geography, University of Bristol

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

If you’re like many Americans, you probably start your day with a cup of coffee – a morning latte, a shot of espresso or maybe a good ol’ drip brew.

A common explanation among avid coffee drinkers is that we drink coffee to wake ourselves up and alleviate fatigue.

But that story doesn’t completely hold up. After all, the amount of caffeine in a cup of coffee can vary wildly. Even when ordering the same type of coffee from the same coffee shop, caffeine levels can double from one drink to the next. And yet, we coffee drinkers don’t seem to notice.

So what else might be driving us in our quest for that morning brew?

That’s one question we set out to answer in our recent research. The answer has far-reaching implications for the way we approach major societal challenges such as diet and climate change.

As behavioral scientists, we’ve learned that people often repeat everyday behaviors out of habit. If you regularly drink coffee, you likely do so automatically as part of your habitual routine – not just out of tiredness.

But habit just doesn’t feel like a good explanation – it’s unsatisfying to say that we do something just because it’s what we’re used to doing. Instead, we concoct more compelling explanations, like saying we drink coffee to ease our morning fog.

This reluctance means that we fail to recognize many habits, even as they permeate our daily lives.

Unpacking what lies behind habits

To test whether people underestimate the role that habit plays in their life, we asked more than 100 coffee drinkers what they think drives their coffee consumption. They estimated that tiredness was about twice as important as habit in driving them to drink coffee. To benchmark these assumptions against reality, we then tracked these people’s coffee drinking and fatigue over the course of one week.

The actual results starkly diverged from our research participants’ explanations. Yes, they were somewhat more likely to drink coffee when tired – as would be expected – but we found that habit was an equally strong influence. In other words, people wildly overestimated the role of tiredness and underestimated the role of habit. Habits, it seems, aren’t considered much of an explanation.

We then replicated this finding in a second study with a behavior that people might consider a “bad” habit – failing to help in response to a stranger’s request. People still overlooked habit and assumed that their reluctance to proffer help was due to their mood at the time.

The gap between the actual and perceived role of habit in our lives matters. And this gap is key to understanding why people often struggle to change repeated behaviors. If you believe that you drink coffee because you are tired, then you might try to reduce coffee drinking by going to bed early. But ultimately you’d be barking up the wrong tree – your habit would still be there in the morning.

Why habits are surprisingly difficult to change

The reason that habits can be so difficult to overcome is that they are not fully under our control. Of course, most of us can control a single instance of a habit, such as by refusing a cup of coffee this time or taking the time to offer directions to a lost tourist. We exert willpower and just push through. But consistently reining in a habit is fiendishly difficult.

To illustrate, imagine you had to avoid saying words that contain the letter “I” for the next five seconds. Pretty simple, right? But now imagine if you had to maintain this rule for a whole week. We habitually use many words that contain “I.” Suddenly, the required 24/7 monitoring turns this simple task into a far more onerous one.

We make a similar error when we try to control unwanted habits and form new, desirable ones. Most of us can achieve this in the short run – think about your enthusiasm when starting a new diet or workout regimen. But we inevitably get distracted, tired or just plain busy. When that happens, your old habit is still there to guide your behavior, and you end up back where you started. And if you fail to recognize the role of habit, then you’ll keep overlooking better strategies that effectively target habits.

The flip side is also true: We don’t recognize the benefits of our good habits. One study found that on days when people strongly intended to exercise, those with weak and strong exercise habits got similar amounts of physical activity. On days when intentions were weaker, however, those with strong habits were more active. Thus, strong habits keep behavior on track even as intentions ebb and flow.

It’s not just willpower

American culture is partly responsible for the tendency to overlook habits. Compared with residents of other developed nations, Americans are more likely to say that they control their success in life.

Accordingly, when asked what stops them from making healthy lifestyle changes, Americans commonly cite a lack of willpower. Granted, willpower is useful in the short term, as we muster the motivation to, for example, sign up for a gym membership or start a diet.

But research shows that, surprisingly, people who are more successful at achieving long-term goals exert – if anything – less willpower in their day-to-day lives. This makes sense: As explained above, over time, willpower fades and habits prevail.

If the answer isn’t willpower, then what is the key to controlling habits?

Changing habits begins with the environments that support them. Research shows that leveraging the cues that trigger habits in the first place can be incredibly effective. For example, reducing the visibility of cigarette packs in stores has curbed cigarette purchases.

Another path to habit change involves friction: in other words, making it difficult to act on undesirable habits and easy to act on desirable ones. For example, one study found that recycling increased after recycle bins were placed right next to trash cans – which people were already using – versus just 12 feet away.

Effectively changing behavior starts with recognizing that a great deal of behavior is habitual. Habits keep us repeating unwanted behaviors but also desirable ones, even if just enjoying a good-tasting morning brew.

Asaf Mazar, Postdoctoral fellow in Behavioral Science, University of Pennsylvania and Wendy Wood, Provost Professor Emeritus of Psychology and Business, USC Dornsife College of Letters, Arts and Sciences

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.