Brosch : Because they speak the same two problems: an individual-environmental behaviour is often perceived as not very effective, at the same time you do not want to miss as a single on something, if you don’t think that the other pulling in the same direction. Both of these perceptions are not necessarily correct: The individual’s ecological footprint is already quite remarkable, when you look at how many liters of CO2, for example, a flight in the holiday is consumed or an SUV compared to a slightly less oversized vehicle. Here, each individual can achieve a great effect.

But it helps, of course, if you do not know that it is the only one that this is an important issue. At the Moment, the climate demonstrations are very present in the media, that this issue moved many people. Even on a smaller scale, one can show that the behavior of others, the so-called social norms, is an important factor for my own behavior. If you, for example, households on your current statement also shows how much energy you consume compared to their neighbors, which leads a high consumption of a rapid correction downwards.

The social perception of Smoking has pity, in fact, within a very short time from “cool” to “values to creatures without self-control” can be rotated, without that you know exactly why this change of image delivery is so radical. It contributed probably more factors, that the time was ripe: Increased health awareness, the younger generations do not necessarily provide the habits of the older, the desire on the part of the policy, and bans, and other. We hear from the so-called tipping point, the tipping point. Such a development would also be in the environmental field is desirable, for example, in the case of low-cost airlines.

there are a variety of strategies. For some, environmental protection is a value in itself, as the Benefit is given directly. The thought of future generations is of course also relevant, if for example, I have children, my environmentally-conscious behavior to their advantage. And then it can have a very direct Benefit. I’m saving electricity, I have more money available for other purposes. I have a Tesla in the yard, gets my Status at the neighbors.

Very important, because measurable goals and Feedback about whether the goals are achieved, are the only instruments to long-term changes in behaviour to carry out actually efficiently.

Nudging is brought to the people without regulations and without economic incentives , a change in behaviour – such as with warnings on cigarette packs?

That depends on the behavior of the area. Generally speaking, is not likely to prefer Nudging, because it restricts the freedom of individual choice. At the same time Nudging can lead, if it is well made, to very large changes in behaviour. It aims at automatic thought processes and works best for smaller decisions, which do not have a very high cost or profound consequences for the decision-makers. For example, in the case of green energy tariffs where the monthly costs are still relatively low. On the other hand, more fiscal and legal measures are in some areas, first of all, because in the case of major decisions, such as, for example, the purchase of a house, it is with Nudging harder and harder.

Nudging work?

The communication of social norms, so the comparison with others, is very effective. The so-called Default Option, so the default selection, can change but, if necessary, leads to large changes in behaviour. To give people direct Feedback about the consequences of their behaviour, is also very good, such as, for example, a Smart Meter, where I can see directly, how much less money I have to pay, if I have a couple of unnecessary lights off.

Of the Nudging perspective does not need to increase prices are actually very in order to effect changes in behaviour. The plastic bags at the supermarket checkout now cost only a few cents, you could afford to so. Nevertheless, the plastic bag consumption has dropped drastically, since you have to pay for it. In other behavior areas, I call again the low-cost airline, are the current pricing structures, but unrealistic, since they take into account the social damage that every flight does. Here, larger price changes are necessary.

Some ?

The other way would be to adapt the behavior actually. The goal of sustainable behaviour is not to live completely without electricity, and meat in a tree house, but ask, rather, how it is acceptable behaviour to the environment, to learn without limitations in the quality of life.

The point is, what is the meaning of lean back. A very dangerous and false Argument, for example: “I drive all year with the bike to work, since I can not afford the vacation time, a flight in the Caribbean”. It is alone to charge of the order of magnitude of the respective environmental effect not in order, they are so against each other.

When considering bills such as the one just mentioned. But of course you should not expect to always act perfectly friendly to the environment. It is our responsibility for the planet and for the next generations, that we embark on a path that reduces our consumption and our impact on the planet. The step-by-step need to be done, and sometimes we will stumble. This is normal.

Even if the environment is friendly behaviour, sometimes with restrictions, you know people who behave in an environmentally friendly, are happier and more satisfied with their lives. This is particularly the case if one defines the “happy life” rather through aspects such as usefulness than by Consumer spending.

What I can contribute as a Consumer, specifically for the protection of the environment?

This article has been of observer.ch. More exciting articles, see www.beobachter.ch