I attended the Cleantech Open Conference in San Jose, CA, yesterday and thoroughly enjoyed getting an early look at some promising cleantech innovation, including the heatless low-voltage lighting of TylerCo, the recyclable and compostable building materials of Stramit, and the energy optimization services of Amberix. What stood out even more than these technologies, though, was the discussion around behavior change. Dr. Kristina Johnson, Under Secretary for the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), discussed a number of new ways the DOE is helping to nudge along innovation, and she cited some impressive facts about the possible emissions reductions we could all achieve if we just eliminated one or two car trips each week. We’ve all heard statements like that from public officials before, and while they are no doubt true, I couldn’t help thinking about just how hard it can be to inspire genuine behavioral change – even when people are convinced that it’s a good thing to do. I wasn’t the only one with behavior change on my mind that day, as this conversation could be heard throughout the conference from the smart grid session to the transportation panel, but it’s something with which I have a personal history.

As a Peace Corps volunteer in Mali the last few years, I had the task of getting the residents of the village where I lived to use soap when they washed their hands. Simple, right? These were my friends, who’d come to know me through two years of living and working together  – I wasn’t just some crazy foreigner with oddball ideas. Given that my friends and neighbors already frequently rinsed their hands with water alone, getting them to add in the use of soap seemed easy, especially considering that the monetary savings (eliminating doctor visits and medication expenses to treat a child’s severe diarrhea from contaminated food and water, for example) far outweigh the minimal cost of soap. But as it turns out, ingrained habits are hard to change, even when the rationale for making that change is straightforward and convincing. My approach was to make sure that everyone I worked with understood the connections between germs, soap, and disease prevention, then to dive right into the cost benefits. My friends said “yeah, this sounds great, let’s wash our hands with soap!” Some of them did buy a bar of soap and used it to wash their hands before eating. But when that first bar ran out, or needed to be used for washing clothes, or was simply misplaced, most people didn’t make the effort to replace it. It was just easier to go back to their habits as usual.

So when I hear the suggestion to cut out one car trip each week, my thought process is this: excluding dedicated environmentalists (who probably long ago made such a change), most people might give it a try for a week or two. When their schedules get a little bit hectic, though, or tangible sacrifices have to be made in order to stick to the driving reduction, it is likely to fall to the wayside –maybe with the intent of returning to the practice once things “get back to normal,” but it’s a short and slippery slope back to old habits.

How, then, do we get people to make big, sustainable changes to their lives that will have big, sustainable impacts on the environment? How do we get consumers and businesses to make use of the commercially-available technology and services – like solar panels, building efficiency improvements, smart irrigation, or electric vehicles (powered by clean electrons, of course) – that will really make a difference?

One promising approach: make the benefits of such changes more immediate and tangible. A number of innovations showcased at the Cleantech Open Conference yesterday are being developed to do just that, but legislation can certainly augment these efforts. PACE, a ground-breaking piece of legislative innovation, has already led to a very quick increase in homeowners making efficiency improvements. It demonstrated the powerful impact legislation can have in driving positive behavior change. (Unfortunately, it has not been without setbacks, as another part of the federal government recently all but destroyed any hope of it continuing. Luckily, U.S. House Democrats, the State of California, and Congressman Steve Israel are among those fighting back.) There’s also the idea of a carbon tax, and Thursday’s lunch panelists spent a lot of time debating how effectively a carbon tax would drive people to reduce their emissions.

Another essential approach: education. Education is a valuable agent for facilitating change. Recycling was frequently cited during the Conference as an example of how widespread education efforts can lead to widespread, sustained behavior change across the American population. (Incidentally, I too turned to primary school education when my initial handwashing campaign in Mali failed with the village’s adults.) Children, it turns out, can put the right kind of pressure on their parents to make those day-to-day habit changes that regular Public Service Announcements can’t. Of course, education often involves legislation too.

So I guess the next question is: how do we get politicians to change their behavior (and their votes)?