The globalist United Nations inserted into its International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report on weather threats ways to manipulate people into fighting global warming with subliminal messaging or “behavioral design.”
The Fast Company website wrote about the misleadingly named “choice architecture” and noted that the details were “hidden” in the massive U.N. report.
The report reads, in part:
Choice architecture can help end-users adopt, as relevant to consumers, culture and country contexts, low GHG intensive options such as balanced, sustainable healthy diets acknowledging nutritional needs; food waste reduction; adaptive heating and cooling choices for thermal comfort; integrated building renewable energy; and electric light-duty vehicles, and shifts to walking, cycling, shared pooled and public transit; sustainable consumption by intensive use of longer-lived repairable products (high confidence). Addressing inequality and many forms of status consumption and focusing on wellbeing supports climate change mitigation efforts.
But the website also framed the details as something that will help people make “better decisions” for the climate, whether it’s ditching one’s car for a bike or giving up eating meat.
It’s an important piece of the overall fight against climate change, says Mindy Hernandez, who leads the World Resources Institute’s Living Lab for Equitable Climate Action, a program that applies behavioral research to climate change.
The IPCC report estimates that “comprehensive demand-side strategies” across all sectors could reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 40 percent to 70 percent globally by 2050. The report suggests multiple types of interventions, from nudging consumers to eat more sustainably or buy more repairable, durable products, to redesigning infrastructure to help people shift from cars to biking or public transit.
“Developing vaccines—the technology—was critical,” Hernandez said, comparing it to what happened during the coronavirus pandemic. “But [the] NIH [National Institutes of Health], CDC [Centers for Disease Control], and others invested a tiny fraction of that time, money, and effort in figuring out how to get people to take those vaccines. When the outgoing director of the NIH was recently asked what the NIH could have done differently in their fight against COVID, he said: ‘Maybe we underinvested in behavioral research.’ We should not make the same mistake in the climate crisis.”
“We’ve taken a supply-driven approach to climate change for 50 years,” Hernandez said in the article. “And as the IPCC report makes clear, that approach isn’t getting us where we need to be, and we are running out of time. Supply is just one arm—the behavioral side is the other arm we need to push past the crisis. It’s not one or other. It’s both. The behavioral lens should complement the policy changes and tech side.”
The article reveals the tactics being used to lure people into the climate battle, like including a chart inside utility bills that compares your use of energy with your neighbors and congratulating those who were more “efficient.” And even if people only change their behavior a little, the cumulative result would “be like taking 100,000 cars off the road, and save consumers $60 million a year,” Hernandez claimed.
The article cited Google testing how to influence employees by giving certain names to plant-based items offered in the cafeteria, including calling those meatless offerings “power dishes.”
The article noted that bike lanes are a form of “behavior design” that conveys the message that bike riding is safe.
Hernandez said “hot spot behaviors” should be addressed more aggressively, like meat and dairy consumption, driving gas-powered cars, and air travel.
Follow Penny Starr on Twitter
Please let us know if you're having issues with commenting.