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.