Gamifying Energy via "Reality Is Broken" by Jane McGonigal

I started reading Reality Is Broken at my desk today, flying through the first Chapter. Applying newly learned ideas to meaningful situations in real life is the highest level of comprehension, so I'm processing learnings from Reality here. 

McGonical posits that the undergoing a mass-exodus to virtual worlds (>50% of people are now gamers) because they better satisfy human needs then our present realities. To harness the massive power of games, we can create alternate realities around "games for good." 

I wonder if we could also use gamification elements to make our existing realities more rewarding. I.e., provide a better augmented rather than alternate reality.

What exactly is a game?

1. Defining elements of a game
1. Goal
2. Rules
3. Feedback system which tells users how they're doing compared to their goal 

Playing a game is a voluntary attempt to overcome unnecessary obstacles. 

Competition and winning are not defining elements of a game. Think Scrabble, Tetris, virtual reality games (Sims, World of Warcraft) if you STOP for any reason (win, lose, take a break), the fun is over. The engagement is over. 

Figuring out what your goals are can be part of the game (e.g., assessing reasonable potential energy savings based on lifestyle etc.). 

• The first "unnecessary obstacle" that challenges players and piques their interest are the challenges of not knowing what to do and not knowing how to play. 

Why on earth do unnecessary obstacles makes us happy....??

• They're hard work we choose for ourselves, and hard work we like makes us happy."The opposite of play isn't work, it's depression." 
• Depression: 
1. a pessimistic sense of inadequacy 
2. despondent lack of activity (Sound like attitudes towards Climate Action, anyone??) 
• Opposite of depression: 
1. an optimistic sense of our own capabilities
2. an invigorating rush of activity 

In the real world, it's often hard to see the direct results of hard work. Or, worse, work isn't hard or rewarding and we feel bored and useless. 

Games offer better hard work. Challenging, customizable missions and tasks, to do alone or with family and friends, whenever and wherever. Game designers provide gamers with vivid, real-time reports of progress they're making and a clear view of the impact they're making on the world around them. 

Applying Ch. 1 of "Reality Is Broken" to Gamifying Climate Action

The two pieces of information that resonated immediately were: 

1. The description of depression that sounds much like the feeling I have towards tackling all of climate change
2. The idea that sustainable behavior program designers can frame the multi-faceted, complicated goal of "being energy-efficient" as a game, "a series of customizable missions and tasks."  

So if the goal of sustainable behaviorists is to counteract the despondency and disempowerment that blocks individual attempts to "be energy efficient" or "fight climate change," games may just offer some very useful tools. 

Games also have the power to bring together a series of seemingly disparate challenges under the umbrella of a coherent, meaningful sense of progress and constant improvement. Does this mean we could turn the "problem" of the scattered nature of energy efficiency and carbon-reduction actions into an advantage of providing a suite of "missions" for individuals to voluntarily tackle and accomplish? 

Related -- a recent paper on the importance of self-efficacy as a predictor of pro-environmental behavior: Can I Make a Difference? The Role of General and Domain-specific Self-efficacy in Sustainable Consumption Decisions. Daniel Hanss & Gisela Böhm. 2012.

Jason Trager Bikes to BECC Campaign

Trager with BECC program manager Mia Yamauchi at
the 2011 event in DC (he flew, but purchased offsets)

Disappointed Armstrong fans can now turn to a new cycling hero. 100% sustainably-powered, organically grown man riding for charity all the way from his starting location in Berkeley (where else?!) to the Behavior, Energy and Climate Change Conference in Sacramento.

Trager, or simply "Rager" as he is known in certain circles, believes in putting his pedals where his principles are. He's the guy who walks up to you in a tweed jacket over tie-dye twirling his wildly twisted mustache to issue you an "eco-citation" for the disgusting offense to nature that is your disposable coffee cup.

Before labeling Trager as a preaching hippy, consider that he has also put in elbow grease as an active leader of the Graduate Assembly Sustainability Committee, served as the sustainability chair of the "co-ops," Berkeley's cooperative living association, slaves towards a PhD in mechanical engineering with a focus on energy efficiency and demand response management, traipses wildly across bridges and tunnels leading packs of rowdy cyclist in the monthly East Bay Bike Party, marshals millions to fund new sustainability fellowships and lives in unwavering lock-step with every principle he touts. In shoes from the free pile.

The Tragerian whirlwhind of eco-insanity evokes Alan Paton's image of someone who does what is right and speaks what is true not claiming courage or honesty, "but because is it the only way to end the conflict of [one's] deepest soul," because he is "no longer able to aspire to the highest with one part ... and to deny it with another," so he is turning all systems green and charging full speed ahead. I'm going to borrow from one of my favorite bloggers and use this opportune moment to apply the word "baddassitude" to the undertaking. 

And of course, the sustainable transportation statement isn't enough. Trager's supporters are rallying to donate to the Graduate Assembly Sustainability Award Fund in an attempt to raise $15 for every mile he rides. 

Weather concerns? Not an issue. When asked if he had plans in case of rain he said, "bike faster."

Root for the Rager Click to donate to Sustainability Fellowships

Or get all fancy and use this QR code:

Is carbon cutting a waste of time? Problems AND Solutions

“Is carbon cutting a waste of time? Figures show Britain's 'footprint' has increased by 20 per cent despite green taxes,” proclaims a recent article in the UK paper The Mail published an article. And it’s true. Emissions from all goods and services consumed in the UK continue to grow despite “green tariffs” and renewable energy projects.

The journalist dutifully covers both sides of the argument, clearly outlining this problem of net carbon increases.

I would like to outline a solution.

Or rather, a few different solutions as one size rarely fits all (and almost NEVER in the green realm).

How about we focus on how to do this right? How about we promote the consumption of goods produced in countries with strong environmental regulations, like the European Union and the United States?
We’ve all heard dreams about “carbon labeling,” but that sounds like another way to complicate the already-muddled green message. I offer this easy rule of thumb for consumers: choosing “Made in the USA” cuts carbon emissions of EVERYTHING YOU BUY by 40% compared to the same products made in developing countries with lax environmental & health rules [1]. Voila.

Plus it has the HUGE benefit of being VERY politically acceptable (unlike most other environmental messages). What politician could oppose the “Made in the USA Bonus Bill” offering a tax break for companies that source 80% of products from the US? That works for Democrats, Republicans, and rabid nationalists. And it’s SIMPLE.

How many times do we need to hear it? To loosely quote a saying attributed to Einstein and often applied to Apple, “genius is making complicated things simple.” Which of these is simpler? Which is motivating?

Vs.

Even fans of the scathingly anti-nationalist comedian Doug Stanhope must admit that the bold, patriotic statement of “Proudly Made in the USA” says “this is the right thing” far more clearly than complicated carbon labels.

For liberals who find slathering patriotism distasteful, there’s always the “buy local” benefits. For them the message goes something more like “buy local when you can, but always buy American.”

Also, I think reporters would do well to point out that if we want to stop sending jobs overseas, we ought to stop sending our money there. Us entitled consumers could use a teeny bit of tough love / reality check once in a while.

Every product has a “Made in…” label. We can all read, we’re smart people who are willing to do the right thing if we just know what that means. Following the “Made in…” label is a REALLY easy way to make sure your supporting jobs in your country. If you live in a developed nation with decent environmental regulations, you can be fairly confident that you’re helping to protect your air and climate, too. Cool.

This just one idea for a solution I came up with. Couldn’t reporters find plenty of officials with ideas about how to fix the problem to include in their articles? I think everyone would agree that “complete coverage” doesn’t just let each side vent in a bickering match, but also covers the views of those who would seek to solve the problem. I could really respect a journalist who did that consistently.

1. Weber, C. L. and H. S. Matthews. Environmental Science & Technology(2008) Quantifying the global and distributional aspects of American household carbon footprint.

Green is Good & Good is Green: Volunteerism & Sustainability

Kneeling in a driveway scraping paint drops off damp concrete may not be everyone's idea of "climate action." However, this describes my pose when I realized that promoting volunteerism may hold far more power to advance the sustainability paradigm than our current carbon checklists.

So, yes, I actually volunteered to end up in prone in a puddle doing paint scraping. Backstory -- I'd wanted to volunteer with Habitat for Humanity for a long time, and had finally signed up for a work day.

Haven't heard of Habitat? They build and finance homes for deserving, hardworking lower-income families looking to help build and own their own home. They leverage volunteer forces for almost ALL construction labor. I think the idea was to keep down costs, but it has also raised an amazing, cheerful and incredibly skilled and dedicated volunteer construction crew that welcomes new homeowners in to a community unified by purpose and pride in their work.

Now you might ask what this has to do with climate action--but I say, "everything!"

In a previous blog post, I outlined an idea of a low-carbon luxury lifestyle, where extra $$$ go to "experiences instead of expendables," as we said in our corny company holiday card this year.



And while hiring people for their skills is lower-carbon than buying "stuff" and provides local jobs, it does not speak to the idea at the heart of the cultural shift that is slowly spreading like a comforting sip of hot tea through the empowered climate action community: it's about something more than yourself.

Hiring a trainer and taking classes and soaking yourself in arts and ambiance are all well and good. But as researcher after TED talk after grandmother can tell you, the happiness return on doing something for yourself rarely compares to that of putting forth effort to accomplish something meaningful that positively and visibly impacts the lives of others.

Scoff at "selfish altruism" or societal approval if you will -- but honestly if someone devotes time and effort to doing something good and worthwhile and they feel happy, who begrudges them that reward? I'm pretty sure feeling good about yourself has zero carbon footprint.

And one of the greatest things about volunteering is what it isn't. For once you're not buying anything. You can vote with your time and intention and effort instead of just your dollars. Especially if you use transit, bike, carpool or walk to your volunteer destination, I'd say it's one of the greenest and most worthwhile things you can do with your weekend (aside from swing dance lessons, but that may be my own personal bias).

Plus the range of new and fun experiences you can add to your usual weekends are endless. So far I've been treated to a gala and dancing at a charity benefit, enjoyed amazing live jazz at a community festival, and found myself on an all-women volunteer construction crew listening to Celene Dion and Abba in between power tools and hammers in the skilled and capable hands of the ladies I'd like to dub the "Golden Girls of Construction." Now I just need to see elephants fly.



So if you're looking for new, interesting, meaningful, worthwhile, fun, green things to do I highly recommend volunteering.

Great resource -- volunteermatch.org - it's like a job listing site but it's ALL volunteer opps, mostly one-day things and so far my experiences have been awesome.

Three Web Apps That Can Actually Help You Reduce Your Footprint

1. Google Maps Transit Planner

Google probably intended to provide convenience more than carbon savings, but for anyone who actually drives, that’s typically the single biggest part of their carbon footprint (30-40%). Getting out of your car and onto transit (or bike) is often the single best thing you can do to reduce your footprint.

Features:
-Mobile site
-Links with mobile GPS
-Includes tons of transit agencies

Also, the directions on maps.google.com can give bike or walking directions, and you can highlight bike paths for the most cyclist-friendly routes. Go Googs.

2. Careplane Browser Plugin
Automatic carbon labelling for flights! This nifty browser plugin that integrates seamlessly with common travel booking sites like Kayak.com and displays the carbon footprint of the flight. Sometimes there is a big difference (20%+) in carbon footprint with prices that are about the same. This is one case where information can really help reduce carbon emissions.

3. CoolClimate Carbon Calculator
What kind of blogger would I be without a shameless plug? Of course I’m going to include our carbon footprint calculator on here. However, we do have things that set us apart from other calculators:

• Complete carbon footprints. Most calculators include:
• Electricity
• Gasoline
• Flights
• Some also have:
• Food
• We have all of the above, plus emissions from producing
• Goods
• Services.

We also have “smart defaults” based on your location, household size and income.

Plus, you can save your results, track your pledges and see how you compare to people like you. Over time, you can check off the results you finish to keep track of your savings.
Compares you to the typical person who lives like you do-- your city, same income and same number of people in the house:



And it’s the only carbon calculator that has been peer-reviewed. The paper, “Quanitfying Carbon Footprint Reduction Opportunities for U.S. Households” by Christopher M. Jones and Daniel Kammen was published in ES&T in March 2011, which is one of the world’s most respected academic journals on environmental issues. All data and calculations are published online as well, giving the calculator full transparency.

Footprint Reduction - Why Bother?

"Why bother?" Especially when it comes to a large problem like climate change with long-term effects laced with uncertainty that are difficult to predict or quantify and nearly impossible to internalize as just one human being and the feeling that nothing you do will ever make a measurable difference.

Like one lone dung beetle on an industrial cattle farm...you feel like this shit will never end.

Psychologists argue that humans have a limited "bucket of worry" which we fill up with a set number of things. I may care about the environment in times of money and health, but when economic trouble arise this worry suddenly pushes the environment out of my consciousness. I can't be bothered to care about the environment when I'm short on rent or my stock portfolio is threatened.

The "drop in the bucket" theory adds its depressing weight by saying that humans often don't bother taking action because they see their efforts as simply a "drop in the bucket" (or one dung beetle, if you will) of a problem so large that it makes no difference. The bucket will be fine without my drop so who cares.

I admit I see some value in these lines of thinking. I can see how, evolutionarily, the bucket of worry made sure you stopped caring about your claw necklace when food was low. Or how the drop in the bucket prevented you from spending precious group resources on a useless cause.

I'm not even arguing that the environment should fill your bucket of worry, or that you owe it to the world to be the dung beetle.

What I'm arguing is that these buckets don't even apply to environmental action.

You don't try to reduce your carbon footprint because you are worried about the environment. That would be like trying to clean up the BP oil spill with a kitchen mop. No--what you're worried about it your own personal impact. You're taking ownership of the emissions associated with the services and items you purchase. Just like your understand your spending in dollars you understand it in carbon. Instead of inaction based on the hopeless world-view of a problem, you act because of your own intelligent understanding of impacts tied to what you do.

I like to compare it to world harmony and politeness. In no way do we believe that we can ease our worries about strife and violence in the entire world by doing little things to be polite, like saying "thank you" and giving up our seats for elderly people. But that's not the point.

The point is that we try to own our actions, and the little things we do to be polite are worth it because they improve the immediate bubbles that are our lives. Of course no one's always polite, as you can see from the opening paragraph of this blog, but we can consider ourselves polite people as long as we do what we can.

This is essentially how we go through life. You don't have to believe you're working for world peace when you say "thank you" to your waiter. So how ridiculous is it to say that reducing your personal environmental impact isn't worthwhile just because it's not immediately affecting major global issues?

Honestly...if that's your test of validity, there's no bothering to do ANYTHING. I'm not getting out of bed today, because it's not going to solve problems of laziness in the world. Really now? Come on.

It's absurd that "why bother?" is even a legitimate question. The question I'm asking is "why on earth not?!" Just like minding your manners, managing your finances and generally respecting (reasonable) laws, keeping an eye on your footprint is just part of what you do.

NO ONE is perfect about their manners, money or minding every law [jaywalking..anyone?], but the point is we all try a good, decent amount. And I'd say about 80% of the time, 80% of people are doing a pretty decent job and we consider those people to be acceptable in society.

We don't all have to be heroes, it's just a matter of developing a new common sense. Sometimes you splurge on something expensive or sound like a angry trucker or eat a giant steak, but in general you can still call yourself a decent person who makes the effort. That in and of itself is worth a whole bunch of buckets because it's who you are.

Instead of calculating your impacts so that you can worry and feel like a bad person, I say that calculating your impacts gives you the opportunity to feel like a good person with a chance to make their own life-bubble better and more efficient. Of course large political and economic changes will be needed to solve the vast global environmental problems that we face, but what we each face on a daily basis is much more manageable. Beef or chicken? Car or walk? DVD or concert? "Thanks" or no thanks? That shit we can handle.

What does a low-carbon lifestyle look like?

A Vision for A Low-Carbon Luxury Lifestyle That Boosts the Local Economy

Starving students who calculate their carbon footprint get a nice dose of “smug” from their fantastically low footprints—60% to 70% better than average—but let’s be honest, as soon as we go from starving student to salaried employee, our consumption usually increases right up to that average level. Maybe even higher.

However, we are not only increasingly aware of the environmental consequences of “stuff,” many question the basic assumption that this stuff improves our quality of life in the first place. What if I theoretically decide to use my increased income to buy a giant screen TV? Yes, the giant screen is great for watching TV, but now I watch more and more TV, get less exercise, stay up late watching meaningless shows, feel more tired, so I exercise even less…and honestly now I’m questioning how much that really did for my overall life quality.

What if I had instead spent the $1,000 that the TV cost on going to one GREAT concert every month, and getting a $8/month Hulu Plus™ subscription for the shows I really like. Instead of passive TV-watching, I purposely choose my favorite shows and get the most out what I watch. I’m getting out and DOING fun things--dates or days with friends every few weeks. I’m out and about instead of being a couch potato.

Plus I make a bit of a dent in the unconscious increase in TV watching that might have happened just because the TV was there. For big sports games (or the grammies), I get my pals to go watch it on the big screen at the local bar and make it a fun, social group event (without the cleanup afterwards).

Instead of being the friend with the big TV, I become the friend who generates activities for my group, the center of the social activity hub. The person who gets people to DO fun things together instead of passively consuming together. Not only do I increase my quality of life, I increase the quality of life for all of my whole social circle, too (or my relationship with my significant other).

This also reduces my footprint because the one one-thousanth of the emissions from the concerts I attend are far less than manufacturing and operating a giant screen TV, even counting my Hulu-viewing every night on my relatively efficient laptop. As a general rule, producing services (like concerts or theatrical productions) are far less polluting per person than goods (like TV’s). By focusing on fun events and experiences instead of things, you can have a huge increase on your quality of life without a giant jump in your footprint.

There are lots of similar trade-offs for other goods. Purchasing digital music over physical CD’s has a lower footprint. Digital magazine subscriptions have a samilar benefit (and minimize clutter around the apartment or house). Going to lectures, plays, and other live learning or entertainment events boost quality of life without boosting your impact through the roof.

On the same very appealing vein, getting a professional massage each month generates far less impact than buying a mass-produced massage chair. Plus, you have the added benefit of directly paying someone who works in your local economy, rather than a string of mega-corporations on some international supply chain. This argument also goes for any service where you’re directly paying for the skill or knowledge of another human in your neighborhood being rather than subsidizing international industrial trade that gives a tiny percentage to the people doing the actual work.

Suddenly you have an argument for personal training services, personal cosmetic services (use your extra income to go for ones that use non-toxic products) and a great tutor for that language you keep saying you'll improve.

A great solution for the problem of “fashion meant to go out of fashion” is buying used or consignment and employing the services of a skilled local tailor to having clothing fitted. Not only do you spend far less money, you’re going around in beautifully tailored clothing fit especially to you. Look like a million pounds of carbon while feeling utterly smug about your low-cost, low-impact smarts.

It certainly takes more time, but for many people the satisfaction of knowing that you’re only spending $20 for a gorgeous pair of brand-name slacks and then maybe $30 for tailoring is worth it. And you look fantastic.

Since food is a major impact area, that’s another thing we want to consider. As income goes up, we tend to spend far more on food because we’re eating out more and buying higher-quality stuff. It's definitely possible to do that and maintain or even decrease your carbon footprint from food. With diet, it's less about how much you spend and more about what you spend it on. Namely, beef, dairy and seafood products tend to carry high inefficiencies in pollution produced per serving.

It’s possible to cut your food footprint nearly in half by selecting chicken and plant-based gourmet meals instead of beef. Of course, many people really enjoy eating red meat or seafood, so an idea there is saving you high-impact intake for one or two really high-end steak or seafood dinner places to patronize once a month. You drastically reduce beef consumption, but also drastically increase the utter culinary ecstasy for the times that you do eat beef. Baby back ribs: it’s what’s for dinner…once a month. My most sincere apologies to the vegetarians I piss off. This is a very carbon-centric view of diet.

Other lower-impact options include refurbished electronics, which nowadays through services like CEX (Consumer Electronics Exchange) come with robust warranties and fantastic selection.

If you earn an increase in income, the American dream (i.e. sense of entitlement) says you earned a right to more stuff. Shifting towards personal and professional services, digital goods & events can actually provide a luxurious, awesome lifestyle while minimizing CO2.