Dr. Pete Lunn:

Yes and no, Deputy. I am going to stick up for our domestic production in this regard. There is quite an argument within behavioural science and behavioural economics about the power of nudging because many nudges, while they have statistically significant effects, have really small effects and we are talking about a very large degree of change here. You are not going to nudge people to solve climate change; you can make marginal differences through nudging. The primary things that will solve climate change are large system changes which include changes to prices, taxation, and regulations and for me, the bigger role of behavioural science actually is how people interface with those systems. How do they understand and accept them? Do they perceive them to be fair? How can we describe them in ways that improve their understanding because we are asking radical change of them to interface with systems they may resist? That is the more important role of behavioural science rather than nudging people to recycle a little better or to get a smart meter. Smart meters are actually a really good example of this. The Deputy is totally right about default effects and they are very powerful. If you make it the default that you get a smart meter and you have to opt out, more people will get smart meters. We know this in multiple walks of life. Actually, getting people to get a smart meter is not the thing that has climate impact. What really will have climate impact is do they understand the tariff that they are on and can they respond to the information that is fed to them - the feedback that Professor Walker referred to earlier. That is where the behavioural science impact really is because unless they actually interface with that smart meter in a sophisticated way that changes their energy use, having one makes no difference. Nudging them to get one is not the key.