We are really, really lucky. Day in and day out, we get to do what we love for people that we really respect. It’s a gift that we absolutely recognize and don’t take fror granted. Which is why just over a year ago we created LOVErdis. It’s our mechanism for giving back. And today, on Valentine’s Day, we want nothing more than to sprinkle a little love throughout the community.

There are basically two components to LOVErdis: First, straight up cash. We’ve created a charitable giving account with the Omaha Community Foundation wherein we manage all of our “LOVErdis making”. While we’re not the biggest corporate donors in the country, every little bit helps. And those organizations we’ve supported thus far are always extremely grateful to receive our donation. Since creating LOVErdis, we have supported the following organizations:

• Together, Inc. - Providing the most basic of needs to a population in need.
• Omaha Bikes (via Livewell Omaha) – To support their College World Series bike parking lot.
• Habitat for Humanity - Everyone needs a roof over their head.
• Keep Omaha Beautiful - Because we want Omaha to be beautiful. Don’t we all?
• Emerging Terrain - Stored Potential is one of the coolest projects Omaha has ever seen. Period.
• Project Interfaith - Ensuring spiritual sustainability for us all.
• Safe Routes to School (via Livewell Omaha) – You mean kids can actually still walk or bike to school?

Our 2012 plan for giving is pretty well sketched out. We choose twleve every year. Each Verdis team member gets the opportunity to independently select one organization, and then we all must agree on the remaining seven. Gifts are made monthly.

The second element of LOVErdis is about sweat equity. We want to escape from Verdis HQ and spend some time in the community doing good. We all do this individually, but our plan is to do it as a team. Internal discussions about what to do are just getting started so we would love input from anyone. Where should we go? What should we do? Adopt a garden? Paint-a-thon? Jump Rope for Heart? All ideas are welcome! Help us determine where to spread our seeds of LOVErdis.

Happy Valentine’s Day!

The per-gallon gas tax has not kept up with inflation, and as vehicles once again become more fuel-efficient (or run on electricity) and people drive less, the highway fund struggles to keep up. Officials in Oregon have been looking for a way to replace the per-gallon gas tax for about a decade. In particular, they have been considering a mileage-based tax under which roadway users would pay for how much they use the roads, rather than how much gasoline they buy.

This story from the BikePortland.org blog features an interview with the manager of Oregon’s Road User Fee pilot program. The program has been exploring several mechanisms and structures for collecting a mileage-based fee from roadway users. After a few failed pilots, they think they have the program figured out and that it can pass through the Oregon legislature this year for implementation by 2014. Some features of the proposed system are:

• platform independent and able to evolve with technology
• a fee of 1.56¢ per mile (based on $0.30/gal tax and 21 mpg vehicle)
• flexible payment options
• GPS not required
• option for paying a flat annual fee for a mileage limit
• online reporting options

In spite of the several pilots and long evolution of the proposed system, much skepticism remains about the ability of the program to function, let alone gain approval by the Oregon legislature. Either way, this is a great example of states acting as “laboratories of democracy” attempting to find solutions to nation-wide problems, whether they succeed or not.

What do our readers think about a mileage-based tax? Is it more fair than a fuel tax? Will it provide the funding needed to maintain our roads? Is it politically feasible?

Gallup CEO Jim Clifton keynoted the Omaha Chamber of Commerce annual meeting this week. It was the first time I’ve had the opportunity to hear him speak, and two things became very clear early in his address: 1) he’s an extremely witty guy that would be an absolute treat to sit and have a beer with, and 2) he is unbelievably sharp. Neither are a surprise, of course. He is the CEO of Gallup, after all, and has brought the organization to new heights since taking the helm in 1988.

His comments on Wednesday were based on his most recent book, The Coming Jobs War, an exploration of how every countries’ ability to create jobs and grow their economy directly affects the success of their nation in many other metrics. While I’ve not read the book (yet), Clifton provided a great overview of the issue and touched on what business and government leaders should be doing to win the jobs war. I’m an economics geek, so I found it fascinating. Let’s explore a bit further, shall we.

AN OVERVIEW OF THE JOBS WAR FUNDAMENTALS

Priority #1: A Good Job
First, it’s important to understand just how important jobs are not only for Americans but for all the world’s inhabitants. Several decades ago, Gallup polling found that most Americans’ top priorities were peace and family, which makes perfect sense given that we were fresh out of WWII. But a major shift has occurred in our top priority: it’s now having a good job. This changes everything, Clifton explained, because nearly every big decision people make is impacted by their desire to have a good job. How many kids to have, where to live, when to get married, etc. And it also impacts how business leaders manage their employees because people are now defined by their job.

The shift in priorities is not unique to the U.S. Gallup found that of the world’s 5 billion adults, 3 billion said their primary desire in life is a good job, yet there are only 1.2 billion jobs in the world. Again, at the global level, this is huge. It alters geopolitical strategies. It increases tension in nearly every country, especially those that are a bit unstable. Clifton explained that the last several decades have seen about two revolutions per year. We’re blowing that average out of the water these days (Arab Spring, anyone?).

The United States as the (current) world economic leader
The next important element to keep in mind is the United States’ position in the world economy hierarchy. We are head and shoulders above everyone. It’s not even close. Our GDP is around 15 trillion. China’s is 5 trillion. Our military spending alone is about the same as Russia’s entire GDP. This affords us the ability to basically run the show. Economic dominance, Clifton said, equates to world dominance. And he’s right. Every country wants to do business with us. If they upset us, we drop a few economic sanctions (or just the threat of economic sanctions) on them, and we get what want. Lickity split. In other words, it’s really, really important that we maintain our position as the world’s economic leader.

But that’s not so easy, and many economists are predicting that in thirty years, China will overtake us. That spells trouble. The remainder of Clifton’s comments focused on what business and government leaders should be doing to ensure that the U.S. maintains its position as the world’s economic leader (as measured by GDP). The long and short of it is: 1) we need to support entrepreneurs, not innovators; 2) good policies help businesses create customers, not jobs; and 3) we must help one another in our paths to success. I agree with him on all accounts.

So by now, if you’re still with me, you might be wondering how all this relates to sustainability. An excellent question.

WHY OUR CURRENT ECONOMIC MODEL IS NOT SUSTAINABLE

I’m not trying to fool anyone into thinking that I’m as intelligent or knowledgeable as Jim Clifton. I’m not. But I do have three beefs with our current economic model.

The idea of constant growth is flawed
It seems that everyone is always out for more growth. Businesses. Cities. Economies. Children. It’s a flawed concept. Sometimes growth just for growth’s sake is highly counter-productive. Should businesses always expect 5% growth every year? Is it always ideal for a city’s population to grow? The United Nations projects that the U.S. population growth rate will continue declining and will be just a hair above 0% by the end of the 21st century. If population growth slows to such a snail’s pace, can every city really expect to continue growing? Assuming that everything must constantly be growing ignores one of the most fundamental rules of the world: in order for growth to occur, we must have the resources necessary to support it. Resources are limited, folks, and at some point our growth might outpace how quickly natural resources are replenishing (if it hasn’t already).

The U.S. GDP relies too heavily on consumers and consumerism
Our nation’s economy is one that relies heavily on consumers to keep it afloat, and we do that by buying lots and lots of stuff. If we stop buying, the economy slows down dramatically. But that pace of consumption means that we’re always buying unnecessary stuff. In April 2011, the Commerce Department reported that American consumers spent an annualized $1.2 trillion on non-essential stuff. The unfortunate part is that, as I noted in a December post, buying all that stuff doesn’t make people happy. Experiences make them happy. And even worse, the environmental impacts of all that stuff are severe. The real question is whether or not we can keep our economy moving forward while buying less junk? I don’t have the answer but we need to figure it out.

GDP doesn’t equate to happiness or well-being
Gross Domestic Product represents the total dollar value of all the goods and services produced over a certain time period. While it’s the best measurement we have for the size of an economy, it doesn’t measure how well off a country is or their citizens’ well-being. Yes, it’s important to have at least enough income to life comfortably but having (and spending) more cash doesn’t translate to being happier. Turns out The Notorious B.I.G. was right when he crooned Mo Money Mo Problems. In fact, in the research paper, Would You Be Happier If You Were Richer?, the  authors reported that “although average life satisfaction in countries tends to rise with GDP per capita at low levels of income, there is little or no further increase in life satisfaction once GDP per capita exceeds $12,000″. Ours is $47,000. While we were at the 2011 Aspen Environment Form, we heard British economist Charles Seaford talk about the need to bag GDP and consider a different metric that measures the extent to which people flourish. Love it. And even better, it looks like he’s already working on it.

WRAPPING UP

Jim Clifton is spot on correct. If our economy isn’t the biggest, baddest thing in the world, we are at risk. We need to pay attention to what he’s saying and ensure that we don’t fall behind. We must also consider other factors rather than just GDP when determining if our nation is successful. I’m sure the world isn’t going to discontinue paying attention to GDP anytime soon, but maybe we ought to actually be working towards making people happy rather than filling their wallets so that they can buy more unfulfilling stuff.

How do you get people to change their behavior so they act in a more environmentally-friendly way? This is a question that we frequently get asked by our clients who are attempting to shift their organizational culture and motivate employees to reduce the amount of energy and resources they use. As with anything behavior related, there is no simple explanation or answer. Behavior is complex and so is changing it. However, one thing is clear based on research in this field—in order to change and sustain behavior, it’s important to move beyond traditional approaches that strictly focus on boosting awareness and fostering a positive attitude about the behavior.

AWARENESS + POSITIVE ATTIDUE ≠ BEHAVIOR CHANGE

It is a common misperception that simply informing people about why a specific pro-environmental behavior is important and fostering a positive attitude about the action will directly lead to engaging in and sustaining the behavior. Research has repeatedly shown that general awareness/knowledge and positive attitudes do not highly correlate with environmental behavior change. For example, employees frequently report that they feel it is important to conserve paper (i.e., have a positive attitude). They also claim that they are aware of the positive benefits of double-sided printing and that it’s an option at their workplace (i.e., are generally aware and knowledgeable). Yet, they still do not duplex print at work. But why is this?

As with any behavioral explanation, it depends on the situation and could entail a myriad of reasons. Assuming double-sided printing is available on all machines, it may be that people don’t know how to actually select duplex, and they want to avoid looking foolish or incompetent if they try and fail. People may also think that no one else in their department is duplexing so why should they do it, or they may perceive that their efforts really don’t make a difference given the total amount of paper used by the organization.

Regardless of the reason or combination of reasons, the aforementioned example demonstrates how many people often fail to adopt a pro-environmental behavior even if they see it is as important and are keenly aware of the benefits. This is not to say that generally educating people and trying to instill positive attitudes about environmentally-friendly behaviors are unimportant—these elements are definitely valuable. However, in conjunction with disseminating benefits information and promoting awareness about the behavior, it is critical to also include details and tactics that address human nature, social influence, and any perceived barriers connected to the targeted action.

TIPS FOR INCREASING THE LIKELIHOOD OF BEHAVIOR CHANGE

There are multiple strategies that can be employed and details to consider when trying to promote and sustain behavior change. Having said this, I’d love to talk about them all (yes, I am a behavior nerd). However, for the sake of this blog post, I will only highlight a few (five to be exact) that research has shown to be particularly effective and that take into consideration human nature and perception, as well as social influence.

1. Provide Clear Procedural Instructions: Lack of “how-to” knowledge tends to be one of the most significant barriers for people who are generally willing to engage in a specific pro-environmental activity. Regardless of how motivated people are to perform a given behavior, they typically will refrain from trying it out if the process to complete the action is not clear. In light of this, it’s important to always provide clear procedural steps about how to complete the behavior even if the action appears to be relatively simple.  For example, with the double-sided printing situation discussed earlier, it would be beneficial to post step-by-step instructions on how to select duplex copying near all of the applicable copiers.

2. Model the Behavior: In addition to providing static “how-to” instructions, it can also be beneficial to have someone demonstrate the actual behavior. People are typically more willing to try something when they observe someone else do it first and can subsequently test out the behavior at their own pace and in a “safe” environment where they won’t feel publicly embarrassed if they fumble in their attempts. Video recording someone going through the steps of completing the behavior and making the file accessible online for people to independently view at their leisure is often an effective approach. Referencing the duplex example again, an IT person could video record someone going through the on-screen motions of selecting double-sided printing on their computer. Following promotional efforts that note the availability of the video online, an employee could then access and view the video via his or her own work computer, rewinding as necessary to catch each step.

3. Communicate the Norm: Even though individuals are generally unaware of it, they are strongly influenced by what the majority of people around them are doing or what is perceived to be common behavior. Considering this, if a survey or structured observation indicates that a targeted behavior is generally supported or exhibited by a majority of people in an organization, it is highly beneficial to incorporate this fact into all educational efforts. Communicating this “norm” will strongly influence people who are not engaging in the behavior; the more these individuals perceive themselves as not being a part of the majority, the greater the probability that they will adopt the behavior. Granted, there is a caveat with this behavioral tip. If less than half of the group supports or demonstrates the target behavior, do not advertise this since it will often have a counterproductive effect. This strategy is more about capturing the remaining few that are still not engaging in a targeted behavior versus trying to promote a behavior that is only exhibited by a small minority.

We recently worked with The Nebraska Medical Center (TNMC) to incorporate this strategy into the organization’s Lights Off campaign, which was focused on motivating people to shut off the lights when leaving unoccupied rooms and workspaces. Based on an initial survey of the organization, we found that an overwhelming majority of employee respondents agreed that it was important to save energy at work by shutting off the lights. This “normative fact” was then incorporated into TNMC’s promotional efforts. Mixed with other strategies, such as placing reminder stickers above light switch plates, this approach of communicating the norm helped significantly increase the percentage of employees who regularly shut off the lights.

4. Leverage the Consistency Principle: Generally speaking, people like to act in a consistent manner. Keeping this in mind, it can be very beneficial to ask people to sign some type of informal pledge form indicating that they will engage in the targeted behavior. By signing a pledge and demonstrating an initial level of commitment, there is a good chance people will actually follow through with the behavior due to a general tendency to be consistent with what they have previously promised to do. To further increase accountability and the likelihood of follow through, it’s also advantageous to publicize the names of pledgees in some fashion (assuming you receive their permission). Periodically thanking them for agreeing to engage in the behavior can also help serve as reminder of their commitment, increasing the likelihood that they will follow through and continue engaging in the behavior.

We leverage this consistency principle by creating an online pledge tool for our clients. This tool allows people to select and commit to a few simple pro-environmental behaviors. The name of each pledgee is then placed on a digital wall of honor and grouped with other departmental colleagues who completed the pledge. Automated emails are also periodically sent out to pledgees thanking them for their participation and tactfully reminding them of their commitment to engage in their selected behaviors. An example of this online pledge tool and the wall of honor can be viewed on the University of Nebraska Medical Center’s green team website, entitled UNMC LiveGreen.

5. Provide Feedback: People inherently like to know how well they are doing at something and feel successful. Consequently, providing consistent feedback about progress and advertising the collective impact of people’s efforts can be incredibly beneficial in motivating and sustaining behavior change. In fact, providing individual and/or group feedback is often more effective at sustaining pro-environmental behavior change than providing incentives—a topic I plan to discuss in more depth in my next blog post (in a nutshell, incentives can be great at inciting behavior change, but they often stink at maintaining it).

To view an example of a feedback mechanism that we use with our clients, check out the Omaha Public Schools’ (OPS) tracker tool on the OPS Green Schools Initiative website.  This feedback tool helps OPS visually demonstrate the district’s progress toward its sustainability goals, such as increasing the district-wide ENERGY STAR rating and reducing the total amount of waste produced. Feedback is also provided at the individual school level via quarterly snapshot sheets that are provided to each school, highlighting the progress they’ve each made toward OPS’ overall sustainability goals. As a result of integrating school-specific and district-wide feedback mechanisms with other behavioral strategies, OPS has been able to significantly reduce the amount of energy and resources that the district consumes.

HARNESSING BEHAVIORAL INERTIA & MIXING STRATEGIES

As noted previously, changing behavior is hard. Sometimes really hard. However, this can be viewed as a positive (I realize you may think I’m crazy at this point). If we can get people to change, they will often maintain that change simply due to behavioral inertia—their innate tendency to keep on acting in the same way. In essence, once they make the change, their natural inclination to remain consistent can set in. To promote this initial change and set the stage for maintaining the behavior (i.e., behavioral inertia), it is important to keep in mind that basic information and awareness campaigns are often insufficient at provoking and sustaining behavior change. People typically will not change simply because they are aware of the benefits of the behavior and generally have a positive attitude about it.  In light of this, promotional and educational efforts should incorporate research-supported strategies that take into account social influence and human nature and perception. However, even with some of the more effective strategies that I’ve mentioned, incorporating just one additional strategy is often not enough. Integrating several of these strategies tends to produce the best results and increase the likelihood that people will not only make the change, but also sustain it—the true goal of any campaign focused on promoting environmentally-friendly behaviors.

We’re going to be surrounded by animals quite often this year, and we couldn’t be more excited. Thanks in part to the generosity of the Peter Kiewit Foundation, we are proud to announce that we are working with the state of Nebraska’s top tourist destination, Omaha’s Henry Doorly Zoo. Over the course of 2012, we will be partnering with the Zoo to create their energy and sustainability master plan, integrating a few of our engagement tools to foster a few sustainable behavior changes, and facilitating the implementation of the new strategies.

It goes without saying that this project will present some unique opportunities. The Zoo sits on a 250+ acre campus, sees well over one million visitors every year, and is the tourist gem of the city of Omaha. And, oh, there are animals there. Many animals of all shapes and sizes. What a treat it’s been already to get to know the Zoo’s leadership team and staff. They are firmly committed to conservation, which makes perfect sense; their conservation-oriented mission is such a great foundation for the work that’s ahead.

We’re extremely pleased to have such a great opportunity to impact so many people…and animals. Now we just need to ensure we avoid the lions and tigers and bears…oh my.

Last month Public Opinion Strategies conducted a phone survey of 400 Omaha residents (registered voters) to learn about city residents’ opinions regarding transportation. Public Opinion Strategies published a memo to summarize its findings. Interestingly, the survey shows that even though there is a strong preference for driving a car among Omaha residents, 72 percent favor “increasing spending to expand and improve public transportation, sidewalks and bike lanes in Omaha.” Even more surprising is that 57 percent favor increasing such spending even if it requires a tax or fee increase.

As Omaha winds down on the transportation master plan process, this survey demonstrates tremendous support for dedicating some percentage of transportation spending to offer more choice, including public transportation and infrastructure for pedestrians and bicyclists. Lowering the bar to transportation choices will make Omaha a more vibrant and attractive place to live and allow it to remain at the top of so many national rankings of cities’ economic and social vitality.

During these oh-so-cold months in the midwest, I love to begin thinking about the first thing we’re going to plant once the ground thaws. As such, I find myself gravitating towards articles that lean towards food and gardening.

A recent commentary from our friends at GOOD asked the question, “Will urban gardens wilt post-recession?” Oh what an excellent question. Urban gardening is a hot trend these days, especially in cities where vacant lots dot the landscape. They’re revitalizing the landscape of many neighborhoods, providing a place for neighbors to come together, and of course producing locally-grown food that is far healthier and more sustainable than most of what can be found in the local grocery store.

But I can’t help but disagree with the rosy picture that the article’s author paints. Yes, urban gardens have a multitude of benefits, and I firmly believe that they unquestionably belong in our urban fabric. I’m not convinced, however, that the multi-acre urban gardens are providing us what we need, especially in Omaha, to achieve the kind of density that will allow us to live more sustainably.

If urban gardens are to be a major part of the land-use equation, they’re displacing several households that could be living on that land. The big question is what happens around those gardens? If we simply continue to build McMansions surrounded by vast swaths of private turf lawns, we’re just going to perpetuate the problem of decreased density. Walkability goes out the window, as does connectedness with neighbors. When we’re spread out, we drive more, talk with our neighbors less, and generally live a less-satisfying life.

Our work with Metropolitan Community College was, at least in part, focused on ascertaining the viability and long-term trajectory of urban gardens in Omaha. They’re absolutely going gang-busters right now, and one organization after the next is jumping on the bandwagon, thinking about how they can improve community health, create jobs, build more cohesive neighborhoods, and decrease poverty. There’s no reason to think that the trend will not or should not continue. BUT planners need to be sure not to sacrifice increased density. Knowing Omaha’s City Planning Department, I’m sure we’re in good hands.

Electrons are difficult to see, so talking about electricity can sometimes be confusing for people whose everyday job does not involve measuring kilowatts (kilo-whats?) and kilowatt-hours (did you fall asleep just reading that sentence?). But just about everyone uses electricity everyday. If you are a commercial or industrial customer, then it is really important to understand electricity demand.

Understanding that you pay for the electricity you use in a given period of time is pretty straightforward. Understanding demand is a little trickier. Demand charges are based on the fact that electricity generators and transmitters must match electricity production and delivery to the instantaneous demand for electricity. Thus, they need to have the capacity to deliver all of the electricity needed at the point in time when the total demand for electricity is highest (typically in the summer months due to air conditioner use). Utilities must maintain this capacity even at times when demand is not at its highest. The demand charge helps to pay for the infrastructure that isn’t being used all the time so it is available when needed during the peaks. Customers that have a greater contribution to that peak end up paying a higher demand. Typically, only commercial and industrial customers are large enough to individually affect the peak, which is why residential customers do not see demand charges.

Pretend for a minute that you bake pies and I buy and eat only your pies. Your oven can only bake one pie at a time, but you also have to have a pie ready for me whenever I want to eat one. As long as I eat pies at the same or slower rate than you can bake them, you don’t need another oven or any more pie-making equipment (e.g., pans, mixers, or ladles (are ladles used when making pies?)).

Anyway, if I start to eat pies faster than you can make them in your single oven, you will have to invest in a second oven and more pans and equipment because you must have a second pie ready when I finish the first one. I will eat pies faster for a while, but eventually I will slow down again and one oven is all you need to keep up. But now you have a second oven and extra equipment you aren’t using anymore. As your only pie consumer, you could start making me pay more for my pies now. After all, I caused you to need a second oven even though it is just sitting there. I was the reason you had to buy it, so it is reasonable for me to help pay for it.

The electric demand charge is like the extra cost of that second oven, except that electric utilities spread that cost among many customers. Utilities also figure out who is eating the most pies and causing most of the the need for extra ovens. Utilities charge those pie eaters even more than the rest of pie eaters.

Depending on how your company uses electricity, it might save as much energy from demand reduction as it could from energy efficiency improvements (energy efficiency is like eating fewer total pies, regardless of how fast you eat them). Although it is clear that the energy efficiency market has been attracting smart money, and that efficiency improvements can reduce demand, many companies fail to consider how strategic demand reductions can save money.

In Verdis’ own work OPS has made significant progress with energy efficiency improvements (lighting retrofit, building system improvements, behavior change). Thus, Verdis is starting to explore whether and how targeted demand reduction can help OPS save additional dollars. Although the main driver for demand reduction in many organizations is cost savings, there is an environmental benefit as well. The longer we can help keep that usage peak low, the longer we can delay construction of the next big utility plant. And until every next utility plant will be something other than coal- or natural gas-fired, we have an extra incentive to keep demand low.