679. Happy Spending and Joyful Climate Action with Elizabeth Dunn

Speaker A: Professors fm.

Speaker B: You're listening to the Unsiloed podcast with Greg LeBlanc. Produced by University FM. Unsiloed is a series of interdisciplinary conversations that inspire new ways of thinking about our world. So wherever you are, enjoy today's episode. And here's your host, Greg LeBlanc.

Speaker C: Welcome to Unsiloed. This is Greg LeBlanc, and I'm here today with Elizabeth Dunn, who is a professor of psychology at the University of British Columbia and also the director of their Happiness Lab, which sounds like a great place to work. That's all the work at the Happiness Lab and co author of a couple books. The most recent book is called Leave the Lights on How Joyful Decisions Can Save Our Species. And the previous book, which you co authored with Michael Norton, another guest on Unsiloed, is called Happy the Science of Smarter Spending. Welcome, Liz.

Speaker A: Oh, uh, thanks so much for having me.

Speaker C: Well, I think this latest book, it builds on your work in the previous book, and I think the previous book, the main thesis was that we're not really good hedonic forecasters. We're not really good at understanding what it is that makes us happy. And. And so our spending oftentimes gives us less bang for our buck than we could be getting. And so you use the tools of modern psychology and happiness studies to give people guidance on how to maybe spend their money differently. And this sequel or this subsequent book of yours, it says, yes, not only are we bad at understanding what makes us happy, we're also, if we're interested in certain, uh, things like saving the environment, lowering our carbon footprint, we're also not very good at understanding the impact of our actions on the environment. And maybe we need to invest a little bit more to get a bigger bang for our time and money buck in that direction. And I think the way you bring these two together is you say the mistakes that we're making in both of these areas, they're in many ways correlated. So there are going to be an overlapping set of situations where if we do things differently, we can not only increase our happiness, but also have a better impact on things like the environment. So is this sort of one application that you could start applying this to all sorts of other areas where, you know, we could maybe use some advice with respect to how we spend our time and how we spend our money?

Speaker A: Yeah, I mean, in general, I'm really interested in how people use scarce resources in order to optimize for happiness. So I've been interested in how people use their money, how they use their time, how they use Technology. And now, most recently, thinking about the fact that each of us wants to be minimizing our carbon footprint for the long term survival of our species. And so how do we make good decisions that both accomplish that goal and, and really maximize our happiness? So it's always about kind of optimizing for happiness while thinking about sort of the scarce resources that we're working with on this planet.

Speaker C: Yeah. I mean, there could be other objectives. Right. Like trying to make other people happy. We're probably not bringing it to that either. You know, we probably need some help with that.

Speaker A: Well, and luckily, it turns out that when we try to make other people happy, we actually end up making ourselves happy. And that's one of the things that people often overlook.

Speaker C: Yeah. When I was rereading this book on happy money, I realized that much of what you discussed back in 2013 in this book, I think it's penetrated into the popular culture. A lot of this stuff is now conventional wisdom. So, for instance, the very first point that you make is that people get more happiness by spending money on experiences rather than stuff. I think most of the people that I know would probably say, yeah, well, duh, like that's obvious. But it didn't always seem obvious. Right. I mean, this seems to be a finding that resonates with a lot of people.

Speaker A: Yeah. Not only that, but I think the very same people who say, of course buying experiences makes you happier than buying material things, if you actually got a hold of their bank accounts and looked at all the things that they're buying, they might consciously recognize the wisdom of this recommendation, but not necessarily be fully applying it in their own lives. And I think there's, uh, an important disconnect there where we can recognize a principle but not necessarily live by it.

Speaker C: Now, is that because we're more likely to make purchases of stuff without proper reflection. Right. So under stress, in other words, if people did actually reflect, they would maybe invest less in stuff.

Speaker A: Yeah. I mean, material things are so, by their definition, concrete and visible right in front of us. So I walked past a store. You know, this just happened to me. I walked past a store, I saw this beautiful color blue. I was like, oh, I really want that, that new color. And I try not to do this too much, and I can talk more about how I make these decisions, but I did actually buy this, like, new tank top in this beautiful blue color. And then I got to the gym, and one of the other people in the class was wearing exactly the same color, and she was like, yeah, I just got this Too. Right. And so we're being confronted with these temptations that are very powerful, even to the behavioral scientists that study them. And so even if we recognize that material things aren't necessarily a great route to happiness, it's just fantastic. Very easy to fall into the trap of spending money on them.

Speaker C: Yeah. But it's also hard sometimes to distinguish the two. Right. So oftentimes, things that might seem like stuff, for instance, food and beverage. Right. I mean, I love buying wine, I love buying meat. I love buying that stuff. That's just, I don't know, physical experiences. Right. They're just kind of waiting to be consumed. They're not things that I put on the shelf and stare at for a long period of time. They're things that ultimately convert into experience. And then there also seems like a lot of the people who buy stuff, it's almost like it's the buying that is their pleasure. And if they could buy it and then have it taken out of their bag and returned to the store without them knowing, they'd probably be just as happy.

Speaker A: Yeah, that's super interesting. And I think, you know, wine in particular is such an intriguing example because we can actually treat the very same bottle of wine as a material thing or as an experience. So, you know, if it's a fancy bottle of win you want to kind of have on your shelf and sort of look at it and just be glad that it's there and maybe show other people, then you're really thinking about it as a material thing. In contrast, if you do what I do and, like, buy the wine and immediately drink it, then it's for sure an experience. So it's something that is there and then gone. And so there's actually research showing that people get more pleasure out of the very same purchase if they're prompted to think about it in terms of the experiences it offers rather than really viewing it as a material thing.

Speaker C: Isn't that related to the buy now, consume later bullet point in your book? Right. You buy the wine, and then every day you walk by and you look at it, you're like, oh, man, that's going to be really, really good one day. Right.

Speaker A: That's a great point. So that. So maybe the optimal strategy is, you know, put it on your shelf, enjoy it like a material thing, and look forward to consuming it, but don't have it right away. So maybe my strategy of buying the bottle of wine and immediately drinking it is not optimal. And really what you should do is buy, like a week beforehand and, like, look forward to having it. I know there have in my life where I've tried to consume relatively little alcohol for health reasons. And then when I've done that, like I have a single glass of wine once a week. Oh, I really appreciate it. So we can really savor those experiences when we kind of cut back on them and even delay them.

Speaker C: Yeah, I mean, you talk about making things a treat and I totally understand this. And part of the reason why is because of hedonic adaptation.

Speaker A: Right.

Speaker C: You can get used to stuff. And you know, this is consistent with what economists call diminishing marginal returns. Is there a, uh, difference in the rate at which your marginal returns diminish when you're talking about stuff versus experience? Because it seems like people, when they, you know, when they have the same experience all the time, they also see some kind of decay. It's like, um, oh man, I gotta go to Santorini again. I went to Santorini last year, you know.

Speaker A: Yeah. Repeating pleasurable experiences does seem to chip away at the joy of them a little bit. There is some evidence though, that experiential purchases might be a little bit less susceptible to hedonic adaptation than material things. But hedonic adaptation is a very powerful force. It's almost like the gravity of happiness that is difficult to escape.

Speaker C: Mhm. We also talk about how when you look back on experiences, you tend to apply sort of a, you know, a rosy lensed view. Do you not do the same thing with stuff? Right. So I guess you might still have the stuff. But does the reflecting back on the purchase of some stuff, does that not look better in retrospect? Do you experience more regret when you're talking about stuff?

Speaker A: Yeah, the problem with material things is that they stick around and so we kind of see them not looking so great. Like if you imagine how your iPhone or whatever from a few years ago would look now, it's going to seem pretty unimpressive in comparison to what might be available at this point. And so that's the problem with material things. You know, similarly, that that blue shirt that I was so excited about buying recently is not going to look so appealing in a couple years. In contrast, I just took this incredible trip to Chicago and had some really magical experiences there. And I think I'm just going to continue to look back on them with so much fondness and maybe they'll even become more joyful in my mind over time precisely because they're no longer right in front of me.

Speaker C: Yeah, but you also kind of suppress the negative memories. Why do we do that? You would think that you would be. People talk about ptsd, right? People talk about how you're negatively scarred by negative experiences. But it seems like if there's some bit of positive bundled with that negative, you can do a pretty good job of minimizing the negative. How does that work?

Speaker A: That's right. When something really terrible happens, we tend to hang on to that negative memory. So it's not like we always get rid of these things. I got attacked by a shark once on a surfing trip to Hawaii, and I do not look back on this trip positively, but on other vacations, things go wrong here and there. So on my wonderful trip to Chicago last week, you know, I sat on the Runway for an hour in o' Hare on my way into Chicago. I was like, I hate this. This trip is terrible. But, uh, like, honestly, I haven't, until just this moment, I haven't given that another thought. And I've just been focused on all of the other really great experiences that I had there. And I think that's a beautiful thing about the human mind, is that we're capable of sort of holding onto some of those positive experiences. Experiences even when there were some negative bits that came into play, too.

Speaker C: Is that dispositional? I have a cousin who went to West Point, and I remember visiting him there, and he said, oh, this place is terrible. Like, don't come here. It's the worst. And of course, ever since, he's been talking about the best years of his life. Right. So is it dispositional or are there individual differences here? I guess, with respect to how we look back on things.

Speaker A: I mean, there are certainly massive individual differences in terms of overall happiness and in terms of personality variables like neuroticism, which of course can color the way that we look back on experiences. But that said, research suggests that it's a pretty fundamental human tendency to kind of remember some of the positive things, especially in something that as a whole, we're glad we did, or was something like a vacation where, okay, there were some bad parts, but, like, that was vacation. And overall, my sense is that was a good experience. And so the stories that I'm going to tell you are probably more about the positive bits and the, uh, ways in which that it connected me with people I care about are the pieces that are gonna stick out for me.

Speaker C: But isn't that cognitive dissonance in some way? I mean, couldn't we view this as self deception? Right. I mean, we value happiness, but don't we also value honesty with oneself and accuracy in our remembrances? And so forth.

Speaker A: I don't know if I would go so far as to call it self deception. Right. If you ask me, how was your trip to Chicago? There's a lot of ways that I could choose to describe it. I could and I can characterize it honestly and accurately in many, many different ways. So I'm not lying to myself. Like I'm not telling you that absolutely everything was perfect or that I had the best meal of my life, or I'm ah, not making up experiences. I'm just choosing to focus on real, genuine aspects of the experience that were extremely positive.

Speaker C: Mhm. Well, when you talk about short circuiting this hedonic adaptation, I mean, one way is to mix up your experiences, right? To ration your experiences to do things in small doses, give yourself breaks and so forth. But another is to, uh, maybe, I don't know, change your perspective and convince yourself to see the fresh and new and the same old, same old. Right. It seems like reorganizing your experience could be harder or it could be easier, right? Then changing your outlook and the way you psychologically interact with the world around you, I mean, which is easier.

Speaker A: I think when people have the ability to change the experience, that's usually their preference, right? So if I could have gotten that plane moving off of the Runway at o', Hare, that would have absolutely been my choice. Right? But when we're stuck with something, we tend to find ways to reconstrue it or downplay it or focus on other things.

Speaker C: I mean, I'm just thinking like every day I wake up and I look out the window, I see the, you know, the Golden Gate Bridge. And I'm like, oh man, this is great. Like, I hope I never get tired of this. And so far I haven't. And I walk around, I said, oh, this weather's great. And you talked about your car. I mean, every time I get in my car I'm like, oh, uh, this car's great. I actually have the same car I had in college. And I'm like, ah, this is, you know, uh, cool car, right? Is that something that you can learn? Is that something you can practice?

Speaker A: I think savoring is absolutely a skill that you can practice, right? You're choosing how to direct your attention. And we may be good at savoring some things and not others. So I think it's pretty amazing that you are still savoring this car that you had in college. I think that would be unusual and special and it's awesome that you can do that for many people. Though savoring a view, as you also mentioned, comes a lot more easily, in part because many views, especially something like a, uh, water view over the Golden Gate Bridge, changes all the time. So although it's technically the same stimulus, the same image, it really is shifting. And when things are changing, that makes them, um, much harder to adapt to, much more likely that we'll continue to appreciate them.

Speaker C: Yeah, and one of the points that you're making is that when you are in sort of an abundance mindset, it's actually you get less pleasure out of things than if you're in sort of a scarcity mindset. Now, you know, there are other economists that talk about all the downsides of a scarcity mindset. How do we distinguish between those two? I mean, what is this good scarcity mindset? How do we distinguish it from the bad scarcity mindset?

Speaker A: Yeah, I think scarcity is something that's generally bad, but that has a ribbon of goodness, if we use it correctly. And the ribbon of goodness comes into play with positive experiences, for example, that we have started to take for granted. So when something has become habitual, something we just assume we're going to always have, we tend to take it for granted. And you can think about this in terms of everything from lattes to marital partners. You know, something that we have every day just is easy to take for granted. And so creating a little bit of scarcity, you know, if your partner's away for a while and you don't get to see them, that can make it more special and enjoyable to get to see them. Similarly, if you get that daily latte, and it used to be something you really enjoy, but now you just take it for granted. My research suggests that taking a little break from that habitual purchase can help renew our capacity to enjoy it more.

Speaker C: Well, you've, you've also done some studies where you, I guess, you, you prime people with comparisons and get people to look at different alternatives. How does that work? Right. How does knowing that you're selecting from among a menu of things or you have been awarded something from a, a larger pool. How does comparing what you have with what you could have affect how you enjoy the stuff that you have for either physical objects or experiences?

Speaker A: Yeah, I would say in general, comparisons can be the death of happiness. So we might really enjoy something until we compare it to something better that we could have had. And again, this is a, uh, tendency that is possible with anything, but particularly likely with material things, because material things are inherently easy to compare. In fact, you see, those Comparison charts that when you're purchasing something like a new iPhone or whatever, comparing it with all of the things that different models offer, right? So unless you always have the very best thing that is better than anybody else has, you're going to be the victim of some negative comparisons, right? And this is one reason why experiences tend to provide more happiness than material things. Experiences, although they're possible to compare, tend just tend to be harder to compare. You know, my trip to Chicago last week was unique in so many ways, and I can't really compare it easily with my other friend's recent trip to New York. Like, we just had fundamentally different experiences. You know, I might still compare it to another friend that got to go to Europe this summer and think, well, that seems a little bit cooler. But, like, I got to have these amazing experiences in Chicago that I wouldn't trade, and now they're part of my life story.

Speaker C: Well, I wonder if we were to revisit these questions today, whether we might get slightly different answers, because I think, you know, when you wrote this book, this was before everyone was Instagramming all their experiences, right? Because one of the reasons why people are so interested in buying stuff is not because of the stuff, but because of the status signals that come from the stuff, right? Look, I've got a poor Porsche. Look, I've got a big diamond ring. Look, I've got a Fendi bag or whatever. And experiences were less visible. And yet now experiences are the new status symbols, right? Where you get a picture of yourself in front of the. Whatever, Instagramable place. Uh, do you think that that has taken some of the enjoyment out of experiences relative to where we were, say, 15 years ago?

Speaker A: It's a really interesting hypothesis. It sounds like it should be correct to me, but I haven't seen any direct evidence for it. And I will say, you know, we've replicated these effects pretty recently. So post Instagram, we're still seeing these effects. So maybe for people who are just choosing where they go and directing their whole experience around capturing this experience for Instagram, effectively turning their experiential purchase into a material one, maybe for these folks, it is chipping away at their enjoyment, but I think most of us end up getting absorbed in our vacations, concerts, special meals. Enough that even if we're snapping a picture of that delicious dinner and putting it on Instagram or, you know, sharing a quick video from our trip to the Eiffel Tower, it's not completely undermining the value of that experience.

Speaker C: Well, I also want to talk about how you can get happiness by spending money on others. Now, presumably there's different types of others. Right. There's the others in your immediate vicinity, your friends and your family, and then there's the others on the other side of the planet. Right. That you're benefiting in some charitable way. Maybe talk a bit about your experiments. Right. Your interventions. Because I think it must be. If it's just observational data, it's kind of hard to disentangle. We notice that people who are donated a lot of money to charity are happy. But I always thought that could. Just because happy people are, you know, they're sharing the wealth. Right. And the people who are miserable are like holding onto their stuff. So you're able to try to. I don't disentangle that correlation with some. Some interventions, maybe talk about them.

Speaker A: So I love running experiments for the. Exactly the reason that you mentioned. It's great to be able to change things and then see what happens rather than just relying on natural processes unfolding in the world. And so what we do in some of our studies is we actually give people money and we tell them how to spend it. So in our. One of our very first experiments on this topic, we went out on our beautiful campus at the University of British Columbia with basically fistfuls of cash, and we walked up to people and handed them either a five or a $20 bill, which we asked them to spend by the end of the. But we told some people chosen at random to spend this money on others, whereas we told some participants to spend this money on themselves. And then we called them back at the end of the day. And what we discovered was that students who had been assigned basically by the flip of a coin to spend this money on others ended up feeling happier that day compared to those assigned to spend it on themselves.

Speaker C: Yeah. And this scales up. Right. So you did it with larger amounts of money. I think in the more recent book, you talked about an experiment where these were. I mean, this was serious amounts of money that you gave to people.

Speaker A: Yeah. So one of the limitations of our earlier work is that we were always looking at, you know, pretty small amounts of money. And, uh, I just figured we were kind of stuck with this because of the nature of research grants. But then one day I got a call from Chris Anderson, who's ahead of ted, and he said, there's this wealthy couple in the TED community. They want to give away US$10,000 to each of 200 people in a bunch of countries. You know, is this something you would be Interested in studying. And I was like, oh, yeah, count me in. Now, in this study, the donors didn't want to restrict people too much in terms of how they could spend the money. So we, I would have loved to say spend all $10,000 on others to work with the donor's wishes. We basically let people spend the money in whatever way they wanted. And some people were assigned to receive $10,000. Some people got nothing. That was by the flip of a coin. But then we measured how people spent the money. So every time they made a purchase, we asked them, um, how it made them feel. And what we discovered was that even with these very large amounts of money being involved, which were truly life changing for many of the people in our study, we found that people got more happiness from purchases that were for others. And we also saw that the single type of expenditure that provided the greatest happiness was actually donations to charity. And this was pretty remarkable because we were, again, we were talking about very large amounts of money, really complicated, consequential financial choices.

Speaker C: You also talked about in the Starbucks experiment that you referred m to, people got more happiness when they were able to enjoy the gift with the receiver of the gift. Right. It's kind of like Christmas. You want to see the other person open up the gift.

Speaker A: Right.

Speaker C: When you donate to charity, I guess people do experience more satisfaction when they, I don't know, they get a little video testimonial from the recipient saying, hey, this is great and this is how it changed my life. To what extent do we need to, I don't know, either experience the gift with the recipient or observe their enjoyment of the gift.

Speaker A: Yeah. So in general, the more we have an opportunity to understand or even just vividly imagine how our generosity is making a difference, the bigger the happiness boost. And interestingly, you know, I think it's important to recognize this is probably part of the reason why it's easier to get joy from giving your niece a basketball and going out to the park to play with her and seeing how happy she is. I mean, it's just super easy. Easy to get joy from that. It can be a little harder to get joy from, you know, making a donation to an, uh, organization, a charitable organization on the other side of the world. But that doesn't mean it's impossible. It just means, for one thing, those organizations may need to be a little bit more creative in terms of how they offer people a real and vivid window into the ways that their dollars are making a difference.

Speaker C: And do people think of charitable giving as a thing or as an experience. And do they get differential happiness from buying a thing for a recipient versus buying an m experience for a recipient? I remember I used to always buy stuff for friends and family, and now I try to buy them experiences, you know, because I'm m thinking, well, what would I like to get? Like, I don't want to get any stuff. I want to get some cool experience.

Speaker A: Yeah. And I think particularly experiences that we can share with them directly. Going to a concert with them or taking them out to a special meal. I think those are really great. Or maybe they share a photo. Maybe they do share that little Instagram video with us of them enjoying the experience. In general, we think that combining our principles is a great strategy. So, for example, buying an experience for others is a nice combination of our principles.

Speaker C: And what about when we receive this stuff? Do we view, I don't know, gifts of stuff differently from stuffs we purchase ourselves? I have all this junk in my house that was given to me by people and by every time I give a talk, somebody gives me some little piece of swag which is completely and totally useless. And it just takes up space. But I'm hesitant to get rid of it because when I see it, I'm like, oh, that's when I gave that talk and Shanghai or whatever. And I would never ever go to Shanghai and buy like a little magnet or like some tourist thing. But when they give it to you, it somehow means something different, right?

Speaker A: Yeah. And there's an incredible paper by an economist called the Deadweight Loss of Christmas.

Speaker C: This is Joel Walfogel, right?

Speaker A: Yes. It's like the most depressing paper title. It really, like, sums up economics. Sorry, I shouldn't throw shade on economists.

Speaker C: Hey, I'm an honorary economist here.

Speaker A: But it is true that we tend to value the things that people. People give us at a lower financial value than what those people paid for it. And it's pretty dramatic. That said, I do think gifts can be very important in relationships. So I did like, uh, an early study that actually still gets cited, even though, you know, it was done a zillion years ago. It's really small, but we find that even receiving a small gift from a relationship partner can change the way that we view that relationship. So I think gifts are doing more than just offering us a material thing. Yeah.

Speaker C: But it seems like they can also experience some kind of hedonic adaptation. I remember if I give, like, let's suppose I make dinner for somebody every night for a long time, then they just sort of get used to it. And they just sort of expect it. And so when you give them dinner on night 15, they're just like, yeah, whatever. Yeah, of course. Right. And if you didn't give them like, what the hell's wrong with you? Where's my dinner? So do you need to also be aware when being generous about the hedonic adaptation of the recipient?

Speaker A: Yeah. And I think this is where, again, it's a great idea to combine our principles. So give to others, but make it a treat so it's something that you just do every single day for somebody, doesn't necessarily feel like a gift anymore.

Speaker C: And don't get someone flowers every day. Mix it up with chocolate.

Speaker A: Exactly, exactly. If you learn nothing else from this podcast, alternate between flowers and chocolate. But I also think sometimes very formulaic gifts like flowers on Valentine's Day may not be as emotionally evocative as something that's more surprising and a little bit more different and, uh, feels more thoughtful.

Speaker C: But the flowers on Valentine Day, I mean, that's kind of like the offensive alignment of gifts. It's like you don't get noticed for doing it, but you darn well get noticed for not doing it. Right.

Speaker A: Right. So maybe buy the flowers, but also do something that's sort of special and unexpected that you've never done before.

Speaker C: Mhm. Well, let's turn to the new book, because in the new book you're presuming that the readers of this book are very interested in reducing carbon footprint. Obviously not everybody is. But for people who are interested in this, you say that most of the people who are trying to motivate others and to motivate themselves will do so using, I don't know, fear language to be like, oh my gosh, the world is coming to an end and actually I got to do something. And using guilt. And you argue that this isn't terribly effective relative to a different approach. Why is that? I mean, one should think that, hey, if you scare the living daylights out of me, that should motivate me.

Speaker A: So I think fear is really effective at getting people's attention initially. And so I would consider kind of the 2010s as like the doom and gloom era of climate change, where we were really learning these pretty scary messages. You had Greta Thunberg speaking to the extreme dangers posed by climate change. And I do think that was important and valuable. It got people's attention a lot more. People are aware of climate change as a problem now, but the problem with negative emotions is they are exhausting over time. And we start to just want to tune them out. So I think people are, have kind of started to block out these messages and don't even want to talk about the topic of climate change because they associate it with all of this negativity, this feeling of kind of shame, fear, guilt, which are uh, not emotions that we want to, you know, keep on embracing. And the great news is that we don't have to. Climate change is scary and it is something that can make people very concerned. But recognizing this threat is actually a wonderful opportunity to change our lives in ways that can actually make us happier. And that's what I think has been missing from the conversation and that we're trying to sort of bring forward.

Speaker C: Yeah, I mean, it does seem like a lot of the people who are climate aware are, uh, kind of unpleasant to be around because they're always sort of wagging their fingers and saying, you shouldn't be doing this and you shouldn't be doing that. Right. Nobody wants to be around that.

Speaker A: That's right. And I would say, you know, when I first moved to Vancouver, I moved here with my boyfriend and he was a passionate advocate for climate change, which I totally respected, but it also made him pretty annoying to live with. So, you know, if I left the room without turning off the lights, he would shoot me a kind of withering look like, why do you hate the Earth? And since actually doing all of this research and learning a lot more about climate change, what I've learned is that I could actually leave all the lights on in my two bedroom condo for the rest of my life and the carbon emissions would be equivalent to eating 13 hamburgers. So not only was it unpleasant that he was kind of shaming me for these minor choices of, um, for not bothering to turn off the lights, but also it was just a misplaced concern. And so some of the things that people are kind of wagging their fingers about don't really matter. And there are all these other actions that really do matter that are quite impactful and can actually make us feel good. And in fact, we don't need to shame other people into doing them. Yeah.

Speaker C: What's surprising to me is there are a lot of people, there's a subset of people who are very vocal about climate change, but when it comes to actually understanding the relationship between behavior and carbon impact, they're somewhat fuzzy. And I guess the question is, well, why don't they do their homework? And so it seems like there is a big signaling component, Right. Where you can be trying to save the environment. You could want people to think you're trying to save the environment, and you could do both, and you could do neither. And so the signaling part seems at least partially orthogonal to the actual results. Orientation. Do we need to, I don't know, maybe work on that a little bit? I mean, we can leverage it, too. I mean, there are examples where you can leverage it, but there's other examples where it kind of dampens people's motivation to make an impact.

Speaker A: Yeah, I would like to see more math and less moralizing when it comes to climate change. Just really understanding where we as individuals have a genuine opportunity to make a difference and what things really don't matter and we can just kind of let them go. And, you know, I was inspired to write this book in part because my friend and colleague Zhang Xiao, who everyone calls Jay Z, she is known as the human carbon calculator among our friends, because she knows everything. Like, she really knows. She's done the math herself.

Speaker C: It's not exhausting for her, right?

Speaker A: No, she loves it. She loves it. Like, you can email her and ask her anything, and she's like, oh, let me tell you. And so I was just constantly asking her questions and learning so much from her. And I realized that people don't know this. You know, most people don't have a human carbon calculator as their, like, sidekick at work. And so I wanted to share some of what I'd learned about what matters and what doesn't in a more, like, rigorous way so that we can make good choices. Because, honestly, we don't have the bandwidth to make perfect choices every day, all the time, about everything. And so understanding where our effort is well placed and where we can let things go, I think is really helpful.

Speaker C: Well, I mean, I think one area where the overlap between the two areas is quite obvious is commuting. Right. So commuting seems to be something that people don't generally like, no matter where they live. Um, and particularly commuting by automobile, solo commuting. And that seems to be the dominant form of commuting here in the United States. And people, I think, underestimate how unpleasant it's going to be for them. And so they'll maybe buy a house that's farther away and they'll think, oh, as long as I have a nice car, everything's great. But studies seem to consistently show that this is not an activity people like.

Speaker A: That's right. Commuting ranks among the least enjoyable activities in many people's day. And that is particularly true for folks that are, you know, fighting traffic, driving and having really long commutes are terrible. So if we can change that aspect of our lives, like if we have the privilege and control over our lives, that we could move a little bit closer to work or even move somewhere so that we can change the, the nature of our commute. So I actually bike to work and I really enjoy my commute. My commute is, I wouldn't say the best part of my day, but it's up there. I love, you know, a great bike ride in the Vancouver summer is such a pleasure. Or if we can think about commuting with others, that's another great way to change some of the worst minutes of our day into some of the best.

Speaker C: Yeah, I bought the house. That was the closest house I could find to my office. So I'm literally across the street from the university. And yet people give me a hard time because I have a car that consumes a lot of carbon, which I never drive. I get all sorts of nasty looks from my neighbor. Like looking at my car, I'm like, yeah, but it's got dust on it for a reason. Like you should leave your parking space to somebody who actually uses the car. I'm like, wow, you should reward me for not using it.

Speaker A: Well, it sounds like you're getting pleasure from the car without actually driving it. So that's probably the best of both worlds. And I would say too, electric vehicles are a great investment if you drive reasonably frequently, but if you have an old car that you hardly ever drive, you're probably better off not replacing it.

Speaker C: Mhm. Well, this is related to, I guess, house purchase, Right? So one of the reasons why people commute is because they want to have a bigger house. And it seems like they overestimate the enjoyment they're going to derive from the bigger house, just like they underestimate the negative utility they're going to get from the long commute. So are those two choices related to one another?

Speaker A: Yeah, I mean, I think it's so common for people to sacrifice their time in order to have a bigger home. And by choosing that big house and that longer commute, they're ending up with a much bigger carbon footprint than living in a smaller place closer to work. And importantly, you know, I would love to see you calculate, like, how much time have you saved yourself by living so close to work? It must be incredible. And then the really interesting challenge that I would give to people is like, if this is something that you're considering doing, like, you have the capacity to move closer to where you work, think about that time windfall that you're getting, think about how much money it's worth. But then also think about what could you do with that time, you know, to live in a more joyful way?

Speaker C: Well, thinking about time value of money, it seems like it can sometimes backfire, right? I mean, I, I am very conscious of my time and I will say, hey, you know, that hour that I spent in the car cost me X dollars. And by being very conscious of it, I create a lot of time for myself, which I enjoy. But I think there are studies that show that people who think that way, they don't get as much satisfaction out of. So, like, if you're going spending time with your family and you're having a nice party, you know, people over to the house, you're like, oh, that was a $10,000 dinner, because my billable hours were clicking while I was hanging out with my friends.

Speaker A: That's right. You don't want to calculate the time value of money, of going to get ice cream with your kid or something like that. You know, like, that's when we want to let that kind of thing go. But where I think that kind of calculation is maybe underutilized is when it comes to some of those high carbon activities. So particularly things like commuting, really thinking about how much money we're saving could help us kind of tip the scales toward choosing that more carbon friendly and happier way of living.

Speaker C: Yeah, but you said that sometimes when people think in terms of time versus money, this will unlock more happiness. How does that work? How should we be thinking about those, that sort of transformation function?

Speaker A: Yeah, I mean, I think in general, what we see in our research is that people who prioritize time over money end up happier than people who prioritize money over time. So, for example, we followed students who are graduating from the University of British Columbia. We measured whether they tended to prioritize time or tended to prioritize money. And what we discovered was that students who reported prioritizing time at the end of their university career ended up happier one to two years after graduating. And that was because they chose to engage in more intrinsically enjoyable activities, like choosing a graduate school or a job that they found intrinsically enjoyable and motivating. And I would just say, um, on sort of the climate side of things, for many people who care about climate change, being able to take a job that enables them to contribute on this topic is something that can be really valuable. People can feel like, oh, that's out of reach for me. It's not Something I can do. But in fact, if we really think about what is going to be intrinsically motivating, if you're somebody who cares about climate change, then finding a job that enables you to tackle this issue can be really rewarding. Yeah.

Speaker C: But there does seem to be some hedonic value in the sacrifice that you're making. In other words, assuming that carbon offsets actually worked, I'm guessing that people would, I don't know, get more satisfaction from saying, I'm not going to drive, as opposed to, I'm going to drive and I'm just going to buy my carbon offsets. And I'm wondering if that's similar to why people work in soup kitchens. Right. The effective altruist would say, look, if you're a lawyer, don't work in a soup kitchen, pay somebody to work in a soup kitchen, but that person derives some direct satisfaction from being engaged in the soup kitchen. Right. So how should we think about this idea of outsourcing the climate, uh, consciousness or outsourcing the charitable activity?

Speaker A: Yeah, I don't think outsourcing our charitable activities or our climate conscious actions is necessarily the best strategy. I mean, for one thing, a lot of carbon offsets are a sham. There's exceptions. We talk about in our book about how to choose better carbon offsets, but in general that is not a great strategy. It's just not that effective. And I think people can feel good about actually making more climate friendly choices themselves, like changing the way they actually commute as opposed to buying offsets for two reasons. One is just sort of this warm glow experience of like, I know that I've done something positive, I'm acting in line with my values. That feels good. Now, that form of pleasure requires some, um, real focus. And then we have to think about, oh, notice the fact that we're doing something good that's in line with our values. So for me, for example, biking, I bike to work. When I stop and think about the environmentally friendliness of that action, I feel good about it. But actually, even as somebody who's written a book on climate change, I'm not always thinking about, oh, look at me, you know, I'm doing this thing that's so good for the planet, da, da, da. Uh, but I am getting this more continuous form of pleasure just from the fact that I'm outside, I'm getting some exercise, I'm not in traffic. And it's that form of pleasure that we are pushing the hardest on in our work because we think that it doesn't require you to stop and think about it all the time. It just sort of occurs because these experiences are inherently rewarding. I would say the same thing about, you know, carpooling with somebody that you like. You don't have to necessarily be stopping in to think all the time. Maybe it's the environmentally, uh, conscious side of you that motivated you to send that email and find out who would be interested in carpooling and arrange it, but it's just the sort of normal social human that gets the pleasure out of chatting with somebody that you like on the way to work. And we think that is potentially a more, more sustainable form of pleasure.

Speaker C: Well, I mean, are you worried that people like me would read this book and say, oh, wow, look, I didn't realize it, but all the things that I'm already doing for completely different reasons, like I eat the way I eat for reasons that have nothing to do with carbon, and I live the way I live for reasons have nothing to do with carbon. And now I've just found out that, oh my gosh, I am, um, I'm helping the environment. So that means I don't have to do anything, right? I don't do anything else. I just keep doing what I'm doing and I'm, I'm on the good side of things.

Speaker A: Well, I would say first off that I'm a happiness researcher. I'm delighted for people to feel great about their choices. If they're genuinely making choices, like not commuting and you know, maybe eating primarily plant based, like they should feel good about it. So I'm thrilled if they get it as a little bit of a pat on the back. But I'd be even more thrilled if they shared these behaviors with others, how much they enjoy these approaches. So if you have found a way to eat, say primarily plant based, or to cut back on beef and lamb, which are the biggest contributors that to climate change, then sharing that with others, sharing that and sharing that, you find it enjoyable. So I love your commuting approach and I think sharing that with say new faculty who are moving to your university and how it's made such a big difference for you I think is a wonderful way. Once you recognize that what you're doing isn't just good for you, it's good for the planet that can potentially motivate you to share it with others. And our behavior is just so much more contagious than most of us realize.

Speaker C: Yeah. In this book, of course, you have a theory of behavioral change and you talk about the infectiousness of behavior and so our actions affect the actions of others. Well, to the extent that they're visible, to the extent that others are aware of them. And of course, I love the research about the solar panels and the epidemiology of things like solar panels. And so I think that's sort of a way that signaling can be harnessed for good. Right?

Speaker A: Absolutely. And so what we've learned is that when one person takes a positive action, like installing solar panels, others around them are more likely to do it too. So these behaviors are contagious. And I think sometimes people get concerned that, like, my own individual actions don't matter. I'm just such a drop in the bucket. And what we don't realize is, yeah, we're the first drop, but other drops follow, and it's. It's not random. So the patterns of solar panel adoption look a lot like a virus spreading, but it's a great virus. It's a virus of clean energy that can spread through. We see similar things with electric vehicles and with food choices as well.

Speaker C: Well, are you worried that you might be reducing some people's happiness with this book? Because they might realize, oh, my gosh, I've been using plastic straws for the last month, and now you've just told me that I haven't really made an impact. Are, uh, you worried you're gonna upset some people?

Speaker A: Right. So we do kind of break down some myths. Like, for example, plastic straws really don't matter for climate change. So toting around your metal straw with you instead of using plastic straws isn't gonna matter. Even really popular things like, like reusable grocery bags, sure, they're great, use them if you want to, but it just doesn't matter that much for climate change. So I think, though, that this can be helpful because even those of us I am always kind of trying to tote around my reusable bags, but sometimes I forget them. And before doing the research for this book, I would feel like this pang of guilt and actually purchasing yet another just reusable grocery bag. And now I actually can let that go. So my hope is that we all have a lot of things that we feel like we should be doing that we feel guilty about. And so my hope is that we can actually enable people to let some of those things go and to refocus their bandwidth on more impactful actions.

Speaker C: Well, you talk about travel also, and I travel quite a bit. And a lot of people are worried about the impact of their travel, their tourism and so forth. And one thing you didn't mention is a lot of people are now worried about using their AI, right? They're like, oh my gosh, like, I'm going to spin up this image. Oh my gosh, what's that going to cost me in cars? Carbon. Should people feel bad about all of their global travel and they're flying first class and all that kind of stuff?

Speaker A: Well, first, let me just speak to the AI issue because we didn't talk about this in the book, but I think it is really important and it's actually a myth that AI, uh, use. That your own individual AI use is going to have a real impact in terms of climate change. So I was just at this climate change conference and one activist was explaining how she refused to share a flyer for an upcoming event held by her friend because her friend had clearly used AI in creating this flyer, this announcement. And so there is this strong assumption. But actually it turns out a typical AI search, like you or I would do only uses about the same amount of energy as running a microwave for one second. So you could microwave a burrito. If you microwave a burrito, that's about the same as doing like a hundred AI searches. So the individual impact of AI just isn't so great. It's just not that big. Of course we should demand transparency from big AI companies. Ask them, are you using clean energy to power your data centers? These are important questions to ask. But we should not feel guilty or shame other people for using AI, because this is just not one of those things that matters. It's like the modern version of leaving the lights on, basically.

Speaker C: Yeah. By the way, I love that. Remember, you made me recall Jimmy Carter's fireside speech. I, um, remember this when he was talking about how everybody needs to turn the heat down, and he was sitting in front of a blazing fire, which is cranking out tons and tons of tons of carbon. Although I think his concern at the time wasn't carbon, it was oil.

Speaker A: Yeah. Because of, uh, what was going on at the time. But also, I kind of. Jimmy Carter's put on a sweater message, I think, was the beginning of this notion that reducing our reliance on fossil fuels entails self sacrifice. And I think it really does not need to be that way. And that living a joyful, abundant life is very much, much compatible with prioritizing climate change. But let's talk about travel, because travel is, you know, that's where my two books feel like they would fight each other, because in Happy Money, we talk about the value of buying experiences. But of course, flights are one of the highest carbon activities. So and just to kind of put this in perspective, somebody who eats vegan all year, but then flies from New York to Thailand for the holiday will end up with the same annual carbon footprint as somebody who ate meat all year long, but just stayed home for the holidays. So that flight, those long haul flights really do matter in terms of carbon emissions. But the good news is shorter flights have a pretty low carbon impact. So a two or three hour flight isn't going to be nearly so bad. Also, if you're going to fly, just taking a non stop flight makes a difference. Nonstop flights tend to be a little bit more expensive, but I would argue this is a worthwhile indulgence both because taking a nonstop flight cuts back on our carbon emissions and of course gives us some of our time back. The worst hours of like anyone's trip are going to be that time dealing with a uh, flight delay that occurred because you had that one hour connection you didn't make and suddenly you're spending seven hours in some airport. So there are ways that we can kind of cut back on our emissions even if we're traveling. And you know, another piece of that is just thinking about flying with carry on luggage only. So that's one of the big changes that I've made in my life since learning more about climate change because it turns out FL with a typical checked bag is equivalent to bringing an extra six year old child along with you on the trip in terms of carbon emissions.

Speaker C: You also highlighted how you know you can make do with very little stuff. Right. When I travel I usually bring like a couple pairs of underwear, but a lot of books. And um, I know the books are weighing a lot, but you know, you don't need a lot. And you also highlight how you can enjoy your locality much more than you think you. I think Covid made a lot of people aware of what they had in their immediate vicinity. I certainly did a whole lot more exploration of my backyard almost right. Realized how much amazing stuff was right there within almost walking distance.

Speaker A: That's exactly right. And there's a lot of research showing that people underutilize these sort of backyard attractions that because they're always there, we actually don't take advantage of them. M and uh, it turns out that many people don't get around to visiting the attractions that draw other people to their region until they have guests from out of town come visit or until they themselves are about to move away. So there's really a, I think opportunity here to reap some low Carbon happiness. And I would suggest that cutting back on the time we spend actually traveling is the way to enhance the pleasure of tourism. Um, so there's some really cool research showing that people enjoy basically every tourist activity except the actual travel part. So if you can cut down on that travel part, stay a little bit closer to home and enjoy those attractions that are bringing other people to your region, it's sort of a win win for the planet and for your own happiness.

Speaker C: Well, last question on this. There are a lot of people that say they're not going to have children because they're worried about the impact on the environment. Now, I've interviewed some other folks on this and they don't find this credible. They think this is maybe some, I don't know, retroactive rationalization of something else that's going on. Maybe it's a generalized level of anxiety or something. Something. But is there any merit to that, that having children is going to have this big negative, uh, impact on the environment?

Speaker A: Yeah. So it was actually my co author, Zhaeng Zhao, her student, who published the seminal paper that became sort of the foundation for this idea that you shouldn't have children if you care about climate change. But that was never meant to be the message of that paper. It's sort of how it got taken. But in fact, we care about climate change. We want our species and other species to survive. Right.

Speaker C: And who's gonna enjoy it?

Speaker A: Yeah, right. And also, uh, you know, as a happiness researcher, I would say having children can be a very joyful and meaningful part of life. And so we wouldn't want people to sacrifice that, again, like giving up some of the fundamental aspects of life that at least some people find, you know, really desirable. I don't think we want to make that a requirement for tackling climate change. Now. Now, the other piece of good news here is that since that paper, that seminal paper was published, the carbon emissions associated with having children have actually gone down because of new advances in technology. That, you know, we're seeing the rise of EVs and solar panels and everything that make daily life less carbon intensive. I would also say if you want to have a big family, but you also care about climate change, a really great strategy is just to think about where you live. So many people choose to move when they are starting a family. And I would suggest that it's worth considering the clean energy in the place that you're considering living.

Speaker C: So move to British Columbia.

Speaker A: Move to British Columbia? Yeah. Come to Vancouver or one of the many other places, for example, Vermont has very clean energy. It's partly because they're getting it from us, from Canada. But just to make this very concrete, if you run an air conditioner in Vermont for a week in a typical living room, you're going to emit 8 pounds of carbon. So like the weight of a newborn body baby, in contrast, you run that same exact air conditioner for a week in Wyoming, which does not have clean energy, you're going to emit a thousand pounds of carbon. So like the weight of a full grown horse. So these decisions about where to live are highly consequential and they provide us with a lever for being able to live, you know, have all the air conditioning you want, have all the kids you want, just live in Vermont or live in another state, one of many other states that have clean energy.

Speaker C: Well, look, I mean, I'm an economist and so I think, think that people shouldn't have to think about this stuff at all. I think that it's cognitively demanding, it's difficult to get up to speed on this stuff. And even if all the things had labels on them, it would still be very confusing. And so the obvious solution, if you're really interested in this problem, would be carbon, uh, tax. But it seems like almost all of the guides to advise people on how to reduce carbon, they don't say the most obvious thing, which is, is go vote. Right. And I think you pointed out that voters and non voters have very different opinions about the environment. How do you explain that? What do you think's going on there?

Speaker A: That's right. And I mean, I think voting is one of the best things that we can do to tackle climate change. We devoted a lot of the last chapter of our book to these kinds of civic actions that can change the system. But one of the really interesting things is that the environmental movement doesn't seem to have, have a persuasion problem. It seems to have a turnout problem. So people who believe in climate change and really care about the environment and rate it as their number one most important issue, often don't vote. Which blows my mind, because if you care about climate change, honestly, probably the single best thing you can possibly do is vote. And so one thing we think about is how can we make voting more joyful? And there's actually evidence that holding place parties near polling places, for example, or just even holding a party for your friends on voting day can make a difference. So voting used to be a very social, boisterous, joyful activity. It's shifted to this more individual kind of action that we do on our own at whatever time of day is convenient for us. And so I would love to see voting become something more fun and more joyful.

Speaker C: Mhm. Yeah. I mean, when we think about some of the other big issues of our time, right. Very few of them were solved by voluntary action. We can get rid of slavery by having people change their consumption patterns, like don't wear cotton.

Speaker A: I do think consumption choices matter. They matter in part because they send a strong signal to businesses and to governments about what we care about. And I think sometimes there's a trap that people fall into of debating, you know, what matters more sort of system level change or individual level change. But the reality is that individual individuals make up systems and that they work in concert. So for example, you know, we need governments to create safe infrastructure for biking, to install separated bike lanes, as luckily has been done in Vancouver. But we also need people to get on their bikes and use those bike lanes or they're not going to keep getting funded. So it isn't an either or, it's uh, a yes.

Speaker C: And when it goes the other way. So the more people who use bikes, you know, the more accidents you get into, the more cars start complaining and then that leads to more people bike lanes.

Speaker A: Right, right. So the more people who are out and about and prioritizing it, the more it happens, the better it gets. So it really can be an upward spiral where these things work together.

Speaker C: Well, Liz, thanks so much for joining me. The latest book is called Leave the Lights How Joyful Decisions Can Save Our Species and of course, happy money. And again, I think running a happiness lab, I think every school ought to have a happiness lab.

Speaker A: I think so too. And I have to say, I love my job. I feel so lucky that I get to use the tools of and science to study this fundamental question of what matters for human happiness.

Speaker C: We'll talk again soon.

Speaker A: All right, thank you for having me.

Speaker B: Thank you for tuning in to the Unsiloed podcast produced by University fm. If you enjoyed today's episode, please give us a five star rating and review in your favorite listening app. To listen to our other episodes, please visit our website at www.unsilopodcast.com.