Social Psychological Perspectives on Political Polarization: Insights and Implications for Climate Change.

Political polarization is a barrier to enacting policy solutions to global issues. Social psychology has a rich history of studying polarization, and there is an important opportunity to define and refine its contributions to the present political realities. We do so in the context of one of the most pressing modern issues: climate change. We synthesize the literature on political polarization and its applications to climate change, and we propose lines of further research and intervention design. We focus on polarization in the United States, examining other countries when literature was available. The polarization literature emphasizes two types of mechanisms of political polarization: (1) individual-level psychological processes related to political ideology and (2) group-level psychological processes related to partisan identification. Interventions that address group-level processes can be more effective than those that address individual-level processes. Accordingly, we emphasize the promise of interventions leveraging superordinate identities, correcting misperceived norms, and having trusted leaders communicate about climate change. Behavioral interventions like these that are grounded in scientific research are one of our most promising tools to achieve the behavioral wedge that we need to address climate change and to make progress on other policy issues.

The Environmental Cost of Misinformation: Why the Recommendation to Use Elevated Temperatures for Handwashing is Problematic.

Multiple government and health organizations recommend the use of warm or hot water in publications designed to educate the public on best practices for washing one's hands. This is despite research suggesting that the use of an elevated water temperature does not improve handwashing efficacy, but can cause hand irritation. There is reason to believe that the perception that warm or hot water is more effective at cleaning one's hands is pervasive, and may be one factor that is driving up unnecessary energy consumption and greenhouse gas emissions. We examine handwashing practices and beliefs about water temperature using a survey of 510 adults in the United States. The survey included measures of handwashing frequency, duration, the proportion of time an elevated temperature was used, and beliefs about water temperature and handwashing efficacy. We also estimate the energy consumed and resultant carbon dioxide equivalent emissions (CO2eq) in the U.S. due to the use of elevated temperatures during handwashing. Participants used an elevated temperature 64% of the time, causing 6.3 million metric tons (MMt) of CO2eq which is 0.1% of total annual emissions and 0.3% of commercial and residential sector emissions. Roughly 69% of the sample believed that elevated temperatures improve handwashing efficacy. Updating these beliefs could prevent 1 MMt of CO2eq annually, exceeding the total emissions from many industrial sources in the U.S. including the Lead and Zinc industries. In addition to causing skin irritation, the recommendation to use an elevated temperature during handwashing contributes to another major threat to public health-climate change. Health and consumer protection organizations should consider advocating for the use of a "comfortable" temperature rather than warm or hot water.

Household actions can provide a behavioral wedge to rapidly reduce US carbon emissions.

Most climate change policy attention has been addressed to long-term options, such as inducing new, low-carbon energy technologies and creating cap-and-trade regimes for emissions. We use a behavioral approach to examine the reasonably achievable potential for near-term reductions by altered adoption and use of available technologies in US homes and nonbusiness travel. We estimate the plasticity of 17 household action types in 5 behaviorally distinct categories by use of data on the most effective documented interventions that do not involve new regulatory measures. These interventions vary by type of action and typically combine several policy tools and strong social marketing. National implementation could save an estimated 123 million metric tons of carbon per year in year 10, which is 20% of household direct emissions or 7.4% of US national emissions, with little or no reduction in household well-being. The potential of household action deserves increased policy attention. Future analyses of this potential should incorporate behavioral as well as economic and engineering elements.