Jamie Brooks, U.S. campaign manager for Think Beyond the Pump discusses pending legislation in San Francisco, Berkeley and Santa Monica that would require gasoline pumps to post a 'climate risk' disclosure label showing hidden costs of fossil fuels.
TRANSCRIPT
Speaker 1:Nothing to the madness is next witness mean to method to the madness,
Speaker 2:a weekly public affairs program here on k a l x Berkeley featuring bay area innovators. I'm your host, Lisa Kiefer. And today I'm talking to Jamie Brooks, B u s based campaign manager for the think beyond the pump campaign. [00:00:30] Welcome to the program. Oh, thank you very much. First of all, what is beyond the pump?
Speaker 3:Well, beyond the pump were a, a campaign happening here in, uh, the bay area, uh, that is seeking legislation to require a climate change information label or if you want to call it a warning label, be posted on each gas pump. We have a drafted legislation here in San Francisco and we think San Francisco, we'll be the first city in the nation to vote this fall [00:01:00] where we don't have a hearing dates yet. Uh, but we're, we're anticipating that a San Francisco will be the first, uh, but Berkeley and Santa Monica and southern California also have legislation to require, uh, climate change. So they're all kind of waiting on San Francisco to move. Um, it's probably important to point out too that, um, there is a sister campaign happening in Canada. Uh, it's called our horizon that has already passed the legislation into [00:01:30] law and British Columbia. So a small city North Vancouver has passed into law, so we should see climate change, warning labels, information labels being posted.
Speaker 2:So who started this whole thing? Was it this horizons group in Kansas?
Speaker 3:So it was, we simultaneously came up with the idea on beknownst to each other. Our horizon, we just discovered each other about probably a six months into our campaign, about three years ago. And uh,
Speaker 2:wow. You've been at three years at [inaudible].
Speaker 3:Yeah, it takes a little bit if [00:02:00] you want to do legislation takes a long time, you have to be a little bit obsessive to, uh, to do something like this. And there's lots of legal,
Speaker 2:is it the same in Canada because Canada
Speaker 3:First Amendment laws are a little less constricting as American ones. Uh, so they have been able to pass it into law and British Columbia.
Speaker 2:Does that mean it's gonna follow suit across the provinces or is there a movement to do that?
Speaker 3:It'll be similar, um, to the United States. It'll pass and in [00:02:30] one city and then of the other cities within that province will take notice and it's happening kind of sporadically throughout Canada.
Speaker 2:Let's take a listen to Toronto based lawyer, Robert Shirkey.
Speaker 4:Our horizon is a national not for profit organization that is addressing the issue of climate change in a simple yet globally unprecedented way. And I left my job practicing law to do this because climate change is the greatest challenge of our, it is not [00:03:00] oil companies. It is not the tar sands, it, it's not pipelines just causing climate change. It's us, it's humanity. We all share responsibility for this issue. If we can shape market demand, if we can help people to connect the dots, I think that that's a way that we can transform and act on climate change. My organization is working to put climate change warning labels on gas pump nozzles similar to those we see on tobacco packages because it's [00:03:30] not until we're made to face the reality of what we're up against. It's not until we're made to feel responsible for this that we will then be able to move forward in meaningful ways.
Speaker 4:What this idea does is it takes those far away consequences be the extinction of species, drought and famine or ocean acidification and through the use of image and text brings it into the here and now. It helps to mitigate the effect of the current moment bias and takes a problem of no feedback and builds feedback. [00:04:00] The placement of the warning label on the gas pump nozzle takes a problem of diffuse origins and quite literally it locates responsibility right in the palm of your hand. If we burn fossil fuels, we contribute to climate change. Climate Change Causes Arise in sea level, that then necessitates the spending of billions of dollars to upgrade our coastal infrastructure. Economists know that those costs can and should be reflected in the price of the product that's [00:04:30] actually causing the harm. And internalizing that cost through something like a carbon tax, we can show the true price of this product to the marketplace.
Speaker 4:This idea, this market signal can contribute to an important cultural shift. This could be an important moral input that helps to transform markets. So we may worry about climate change, tar sands, pipelines and so on, but we never question the simple act of pumping gas. There is a complete disconnect. [00:05:00] What this does is it forces the question, if not this, then what? It disrupts the narrative and make space for a new story to be told. Businesses and governments will respond to this shift in demand. We just need to be made to want those alternatives. And this idea can be a nudge in that direction.
Speaker 3:Well, let's talk about what do the labels look like in Canada and what do they look like here? Is there a difference? Well, the Canadian versions, we haven't seen them, but they're [00:05:30] s they're short of falling. The lines of being friendly, showing ways people can reduce gas consumption and also kind of a dichotomous of message want. It's kind of friendly, but it's like gasoline contributes to climate change. Uh, so they're trying to go down this middle of the road. Are they visually graphically depicting that have climate? Some of the labels, if you look at our horizon have images of dead animals from drought [00:06:00] in Africa and so they are going, ah, we don't know for sure if they're going to go down this really graphic like the cigarette labels that you're seeing, um, with people with whole tracheotomies and stuff like that. Is there any scientific literature about the effectiveness of something that is a little scarier versus something that's a little nicer?
Speaker 3:Yeah, there is the, unfortunately it's, it's a little uncomfortability with this, but the research shows that tobacco labels that have graphic images are more effective [00:06:30] than just text labels only. I think the main way to look at the labels is not that they in and of themselves will change behavior in an instant, but more in how they change, how we perceive the normalization around our, in this case, using fossil fuel. And so that's their, Carmen can look at, will I even notice it? I mean, how are we going to notice that law? You may not notice the labels at first. You know, we're [00:07:00] making a few assumptions. The labels will be as visible as possible with all the competing advertising on a gas pump. So our proposal, I think if you want me to describe what are labels, they'll have a graphic image. W it's called, we're calling it, it's a little cartoon car bug with a, with a puff of CO2.
Speaker 3:So they graphically communicate a friendly image of a car. But the reality of the CO2 that comes out of our vehicles and t cloud is black, [00:07:30] which in this case it is, but the colors might change depending on what happens legally. And then what we're doing underneath in terms of texts and communication as we're communicating EPA statutes. So if you look up section two oh two A, this is specifically deals with emissions that come from transportation, from cars and trucks, uh, from the gasoline that we consume. Uh, it, it shows, you know, basically already existing [00:08:00] findings on the fact that petroleum-based transportation fuels contribute to climate change and therefore have an impact on human health and welfare. So we're not making anything up here. We're just disclosing the information of already existing statute. Uh, it's particularly in section two oh two a this is an interesting area because you and I both know that there's a real challenge in getting people to react to something that they can't see.
Speaker 3:Right. That's not immediate to them. [00:08:30] Exactly. Right. How can we make a paradigm shift that's, that's kind of the, the main focus of this campaign. So we're not really, as I said, we don't expect people to see the labels and then go, oh, I'm going to push my car to work. I won't start my engine. Although from a greenhouse gas perspective, that would be the best thing to do. We realized that's a ridiculous Nosha we're, we're primarily interested in how the labels will change perceptions, attitudes, [00:09:00] beliefs, the social context, the social license around using fossil fuel in our society and calling that into question over the longterm. So after someone views a label for the first time. So let's say you, let's say you don't see the labels, you're not a person that noticed them, but you run into your friend at work who does notice them and says, Hey, have you seen those silly labels on the gas pumps?
Speaker 3:They're talking about climate change. So [00:09:30] the first thing that that might do is that it'll elicit a conversation that wouldn't have happened. One of the functions around changing the social norms around using fossil fuel is to kind of stimulate a conversation about the problem of climate change. The problem of using petroleum based fuels, however inconvenient or how it may be even elicits the sense of incredulity. This is a reality. Um, and we're not having that conversation. So part [00:10:00] of the way to look at these labels is not that they will necessarily make us stop using our cars right now, but over the longterm as cigarette labels, did they change the social context in order that there was a policy response? It's sort of a timeline. If you think about the first labels came out in 1965 for cigarettes and before the labels there was a general scientific [00:10:30] consensus that smoking caused FCM on cancer and all these ill health effects.
Speaker 3:But socially, uh, smoking was normal. Uh, we smoked everywhere. And you know, I remember as a child, smoking was in the schools in elementary, the teachers would smoke in the teachers' lounge and the smoke would waft out into the halls. And now that would be, oh, that'd be EFL pot. That would be a major social football. But what happened with smoking labels is they went into effect in 1965 and that initial government [00:11:00] signal, that official focus on the health effects of smoking and the whole legal aspect of putting the labels on the, on the cigarette packs, that signal changed the way we perceive the risks of cigarette smoking. So no longer was it considered normal that we started calling into question. It's normalcy. It started being de-normalized. And so as a response, a few years later, uh, taxes went up on cigarettes. So in 1969, [00:11:30] cigarettes had a price increase in taxes.
Speaker 3:And if you remember in 1971, the Marlboro man went off television. It wasn't necessarily that the labels elicited a behavior change in a direct sense that it's arguable that the tax had a larger increase impact on behavior. That also, you know, losing the, the tobacco company's ability to advertise on, on television also had an impact on behavior. Really, we're addressing [00:12:00] a complex issue here with transportation alone. You're dealing with, you know, land use, you're dealing with technologies, you know, what's available technologically to us. We're dealing with behaviors, we're dealing with transportation, lifestyle. And there's a tendency to think of that. We're going to fix the problem of transportation emissions with a silver bullet. And some of our, our advisors, we have one dance Sperling at UC Davis. Uh, we say, you know, [00:12:30] we're going to have this terrific technology that's going to save us, right? And he kind of smiled at us and he said, future transportation, you know, a low carbon, very low carbon.
Speaker 3:The types that we need to really address the problem is going to be a mixture of things. It's not going to be a monoculture that we see today. It'd be quite different. You know, we'll have fuel cell vehicles, we'll have electric vehicles running on cleaner and cleaner and energy grid. Uh, but that won't be just it. Those, those technologies will always have limitations in comparison to [00:13:00] what we're currently used to. You know, transit systems will, will improve in the land use changes that will really require to get better transit systems in place will require a changes of social and political will that we have to change the social license around using fossil fuel and in order to achieve these objectives, these are big changes and will require a strong kind of political social response. Do you feel like the technology is there now? It's just the social will [00:13:30] that it and the political will that is lagging.
Speaker 3:I think that if you just roll out an electric car and give consumers an electric car, they don't view the use of fossil fuel as, as, uh, as a serious enough problem, as a serious enough risk that that technology stands out. One of the criticisms we get is, you know, people say, well, doesn't everybody know that fossil fuel contributes to climate change? And certainly that's a legitimate objection. This is good to even think [00:14:00] about. And when you're talking about criticisms and stuff like that, but about 50% of Americans think that climate change is due to the hole in the ozone layer, so and not due primarily to the burning of fossil fuel. And this is the central issue. I think it's important to point out that in the research we've done, um, regardless of whether we already understand that fossil fuel contributes to climate change, we are as a marketplace, as a consumers of [00:14:30] petroleum-based transportation fuels, that even if we understand that they contribute to climate change, we're discounting those risks. Convenience being one. Right? Exactly. We have a tendency to discount risk of future consequences and we tend to favor the shore. Our short term needs and fossil fuel fulfills our short term needs in exceptional, extraordinary ways.
Speaker 5:Right? This is the vote that happens in San Francisco. This what happens at [00:15:00] let's say San Francisco vote. Yes. Yeah. All the oil companies try to stop it. I mean, what has been the challenge against this?
Speaker 3:Okay, welcome. If the oil companies don't sue and we can implement them and test them, then we have a stronger case to take it to the state. We'll say, here we go, we've got this program. We know that, you know, California's largest source of emissions comes from transportation
Speaker 5:and this is how effective the labeling was in San Francisco. Right?
Speaker 3:Right. And we need to [00:15:30] create support for cap and trade legislation. Um, you know, we need to accelerate California's already in place, plans to electrify the transportation system. Here's our proposal. This is happening in Canada. If oil companies intervene, which is they're likely to intervene. If it goes to a statewide measure, they're going to say, this is usurping our free speech [inaudible] and they're going to force a ballot measure. Yes. [00:16:00] If San Francisco adopts it and then the other cities fall in line out. It's important to keep in mind that we've also been talking to city of Oakland as well and they're interested but they're going to sit and wait until they see what happens with the other cities. San Francisco is the most likely candidate to go out front on this. They have the resources, they have the experience to defend themselves and these kinds of very contentious legally precarious type of situations.
Speaker 3:The oil companies have already threatened. Berkeley Berkeley [00:16:30] was a ho out ahead of San Francisco. We were, you know, chasing Berkeley for for a couple of years and local politics pushed a, a cell phone warning label for cell radiation up ahead of ours and initiative got pushed into the back burner that the oil companies behind that you five, who knows the cell phone industry is just as uh, evil perhaps. They all come in. He's already had got wind of this a, [00:17:00] the western states petroleum association, um, got wind of this and basically threatened to sue that it would be a violation of their first amendment free speech. And you got into this whole issue of whether the, whether legally this is policy you're putting on oil company's personal properties and not factual information. Ray will argue that CO2 from the burning of fossil fuel is, is scientifically proven to [00:17:30] contribute to climate change. And there is no, uh, this isn't policy, this is factual information. Let's
Speaker 5:say the vote occurs, there's a yes vote. So this doesn't mean there's going to be labels for a while. Correct. There. So there'll be a lawsuit, right. And they'll drag that out probably. Yeah. It's likely
Speaker 3:for the more probable lawsuit that you must be thinking about it. Yeah, of course we are. Yeah. The cities will be largely in a position to defend themselves. [00:18:00] So it will be the oil companies versus the city of San Francisco. Yes. And any city that chooses to take it on. And it appears to be a tight rope for oil companies to, to walk in within the context of the investigation going on with ExxonMobil and whether ExxonMobil had already, you know, already existing science in many ways and ahead of the rest of the scientific community on the issue of climate change. And because [00:18:30] a, an oil companies, uh, staff is largely scientists. So it's interesting. It's kind of ironic. So whether the oil companies will ultimately sue and you know, drag out this issue, whether their product to be exposed to the fact that their product contributes to climate change, whether they're going to go down this road of defending themselves, uh, it's probably likely that it'll be the oil companies lobby groups that will do the dirty, dirty talking.
Speaker 3:And this could be a really exciting [00:19:00] opening, this lawsuit that to me will bring this to the fore and maybe educate people a little bit more outside of here even. Right. I think it would elevate the seriousness, the urgency which we as a species as a society are discounting. It doesn't matter if we understand the role of fossil fuel consumption, we are discounting the risks because we discount risks we can't see as a species, we [00:19:30] do well at responding to dangers that we can see and the consequences in front of us. And we're not so good at these at the physics that climate change presents us to. I was kinda hoping the labels would have like burning trees and yes. Well we would, we would love that and that would probably be get struck down in the courts as a first amendment violation. So the labels that we have currently have passed a couple of rounds of, of legal scrutiny.
Speaker 3:So the fact that we have that car bug [00:20:00] and the puff of CO2 is a really big deal. Yeah. But yeah, I think you raise a really, really, I think that the most exceptional aspect of this, as you know, we're, we're calling into question CO2. Does it qualify? Is it serious enough? Is Our consumption of fossil fuel, does it warrant a disclosure label? And are oil companies going to get up in front of the American people in front of the courts? And tell us that their product doesn't contribute to climate [00:20:30] change. So we're looking forward to this battle of course, or we are. So we're elevating the, the, you know, the specter of and the seriousness of this issue and we're calling into question the entire lack of even questioning, you know, using fossil fuel in a, within the context of this risk. So it's really, the labels really are about creating more congruency, you know, between the markets and what the science already knows.
Speaker 3:And we're trying to, to have markets [00:21:00] reflect the most efficient way, uh, using information, putting it at the pump, not on a billboard, not on a television ad, but right when we are consuming the stuff, uh, you know, the research shows that you, you know, you start with the individual, you psychologically penetrate that personal space in order for a consumer to have gas to better internalize the risk. That's in the social science term. When we begin to internalize [00:21:30] the risks from fossil fuels, we change that social context. Uh, the research shows on an individual psychological level. When people that are internalized risks from various things, they are more likely to take action. Um, they'll probably be more likely to support a carbon tax. Exactly. These labels really operate, they're just another way of communicating costs. Uh, they operate like a carbon tax. Exactly. It's the same analogy.
Speaker 3:They're more politically [00:22:00] expedient, you know, a carbon tax to get one that's, you know, high enough, uh, that will actually change behavior. Um, and this combination could be right. And the labels are really designed to be complimentary policy, uh, particularly here in California because we have cap and trade rules. We just had Jerry Brown signed an extension of the global warming Solutions Act to achieve our objectives and emissions in California. Transportation is the largest source [00:22:30] of emissions in California and all consumers, all of the U S it's the largest source. The correct emissions is a, it just a no, it just surpassed, uh, electricity generation. Just I think this year, wow. Because a lot of of, uh, coal, um, has been converted to natural gas and uh, you know, we are starting to make some dents in the electricity, uh, emissions trajectories. But now we have this 800 pound gorilla, which is our transportation choices and we are veering [00:23:00] more towards, you know, heavy usage of gasoline.
Speaker 3:Again in this country, unfortunately vehicle miles traveled have gone up, consumers are favoring bigger SUVs and we have electric vehicles. But like I said before, where we haven't changed the social context around fossil fuels, right? Economic issue in a lot of these areas. It's true and if you lived in Ohio or you know, or West Virginia and you're in, your economic system is based on coal than it's going to be a lot harder conversation. [00:23:30] I worry about the time it takes to push these things along. I think that it's important, you know when you discuss matters, you know these types of things is it, we are dealing with a really complicated thing. What we're is just, we're not coming up with a solution for climate change in general here with our strategy. We're just dealing with a component within a myriad of solutions just to deal with transportation emissions and particularly [00:24:00] the way we perceive socially the use of our continued consumption, our everyday consumption of fossil fuel.
Speaker 3:And not even beginning to, you know, deal with the other issues. This kind of a fantasy silver bullet, you know, that there's going to be something out there if we wait long enough, some technological solutions, you know, all we need is a carbon tax. It's, it's not, it's going to be a combination of things and just within the context of transportation fuels, we need to operate [00:24:30] on changing social norms around fossil fuels in order to facilitate a more comprehensive approach to dealing with transportation emissions just within that sector. So if you think about the little pieces of the Pie, you know, uh, electricity generation and agriculture, all of those will also need their own specific tools. You know, we're not arguing that carbon taxes are not important. They would have a broad application a and [00:25:00] efficient application on, in all of the sectors, but they're, they alone won't, won't take care of the problem.
Speaker 3:Lots of research we've done on carbon taxes is in the short and intermediate term. They have very little impact on consumption, uh, in the transportation sector in particular. So people will tend to cut elsewhere. What does make a difference in the transportation second, do you do we know that yet? We, I don't think we really know yet. I think it would be a governmental leadership, just a blanket policy kind of a top down, but [00:25:30] it needs a political on social consensus for that to occur. And so we have to create markets. Again, like I said, that our markets for these, you know, these solutions, uh, that are more congruent with a science. Are you working with any other groups? Yeah, we're working with the Sierra Club, uh, in the San Francisco Bay chapter is, uh, we, they are in support and going to help us out at San Francisco League of conservation voters.
Speaker 3:Yeah, those are our main environmental groups. [00:26:00] I think the issue that this label addresses, and it's important to point this out, if we all understand that there's a lot of climate denial being funded by oil companies and it's evil, unequivocally evil, but the emissions occur in the sector by the demand for the fuels. If you want oil companies to go away, you have to target demand the demand. The demand is us, it's us. We get people saying this is a guilt trip [00:26:30] or you know, people are not gonna, they're gonna ignore it because it's too negative. And it's, it's important to point out that it's an inappropriate intervention because it's targeting who chooses who, who determines the emissions. Um, and so it really matters when you switch from your guzzler, you know, your SUV to the most fuel efficient car you can buy when you, when it comes time to purchase a car or when your Carpool or when you take transit, et Cetera, [00:27:00] et cetera.
Speaker 3:However inconvenient these solutions may sound to you, these behavior changes are going to ultimately determine the emissions, um, and transportation. And so if you want the all companies to go away, you make them go on to the, you know, medicine business only and are making photo voltaic solar panels in the energy sector and gone and renewable, right? Do you want the tar sands and Canada to go away? You know, those tar sands come out [00:27:30] the tail pipes of, of our SUV. [inaudible] this is the reality. So the labels are inappropriate intervention. They, they are that interface between you and your demand for the fuel.
Speaker 5:Okay. Jamie, well, how do listeners who maybe have questions or w do you have a website they can go to to learn more about this and and also if they want to help you yeah. Campaign to get this passed in San Francisco.
Speaker 3:Yeah. Well we would love to have people write letters to the San Francisco Board of supervisors. [00:28:00] I, the best way to reach us is Twitter at beyond pump capital B and capital p s our, we operate our website. It's our horizon.org. We share the same website with the Canadian or the Canadian groups. So we're work together and that way. So you can look us up on that. And uh, yeah, the letters matter. Just, just say I'm in support of climate change warning labels on gas pumps. You can just write a general letter. The best thing to do is to write [00:28:30] letters, write to John Avalose, the supervisor who's our sponsor. Jeremy Pollack is this legislative aid and let him know that you're in support of this, this legislation, and to just keep beating the drum.
Speaker 5:Can people from outside of San Francisco should write letters, so, Yep. Okay. Absolutely. It all matters. Yes.
Speaker 3:Matters. I can't tell you, it sounds so cliche, but it matters when you, when you're a politician and you see a letter of support, it gives you a little warm [00:29:00] and fuzzy feeling. Okay. And that is that we want to keep that warm and fuzzy. This is good. This is, this is the right thing to do and that energy level and keep it flowing towards San Francisco. We have Seattle also considering the city of Seattle and Seattle. We'll be sending a letter to the board of supervisors as soon as we get dates and supports the Seattle probably latch on to this legislation and it goes on. I mean, we a Newton, uh, Massachusetts and Cambridge, [00:29:30] Massachusetts were in contact with, with counselors there and those cities who are also looking. So there's a lot of looking and cities are going to have to be brave and be willing to take on the potential for a lawsuit. Um, and some very experienced lawyers have told us this could be something that could be in the courts for years and years. So you can also change the tide. It could also change the tide and change the entire question of our society using fossil fuels and energy source. Jamie Brooks [00:30:00] beyond the pump. And yes, I wish you a lot of luck.
Speaker 2:Thanks again, Tricia. You've been listening to method to the madness, a weekly public affairs show on k a l x Berkeley featuring bay area innovators to an and again next week, Friday at noon.
Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.
