Social Dilemma: People Driving Gasoline Cars Instead of Electric

Pages:

9

Academic Level:

University

Paper Type:

Argumentative Essay

Discipline:

Psychology

Paper detalis:

This course if environmental psychology

***This is for environmental psychology, please use environmental psychology sources. The goal of this paper is to solve the social dilemma so that people don't have to face the dilemma in the future.***

Document format: For this assignment I will expect APA style referencing, but aside from that, my main requirement is that the paper be clear and well-organized, whatever that means in the context of your particular topic.



Length: I encourage you to shoot for a length of around 8-10 double-spaced pages (not including title page or reference list). There will be no penalty for shorter or longer papers.


Topic:There are two options.

Option 1: Consider some situation that constitutes a social dilemma, that is, where several or many people, each looking out for their own self-interest, create circumstances that are less than optimal for all. Please describe this dilemma; in other words explain what the situation is, describe what people are doing, show that this is helpful to them as individuals, but also show that it is not good for all of them (and us) as a group, and explain the consequences of this situation. Given what you have learned in the course (though I certainly encourage you to use outside sources of information as well), explain how these people can escape from this social dilemma. What can be done, and how can enough people be induced to do it that it is actually effective? Please don’t forget the psychological part of this assignment; it is very important.

social dilemma meaning a situation someone is faced where they can make a choice that would benefit them but at the cost of the larger group. Needs to be a psychological method to escape the dilemma.

***, please use this dilemma: people driving gasoline cars instead of electric . Gasoline cars are cheaper and easier to come by etc****

---

Social Dilemma:  People Driving Gasoline Cars Instead of Electric

The environment has been deteriorating over the years, and the impacts of that deterioration are human beings and natural balance. Social and physical environments are fundamental parts of human beings. Yet, people seem to ignore the role of nature and its importance and continually engage in behavior that exploits and degrades it. Exploring the interaction between people and their natural environments is defined as environmental psychology. It is a mutual concept that describes how people and the environment influence each other. On one side, it is acknowledged in psychology and health subjects that the physical or natural environment influences how people behave, their experiences, and their well-being. On the other side, people also impact the environment and affect its nature and sustainability (Steg & Groot, 2019). The latter underlies the aspects of human-environmental pollution and exploitations that typify modern society. Understanding environmental psychology regarding people's influence and effects on the environment illustrates how people's way of thinking results in the persisting ecological pollution and degradation and offers insight on psychological targets to change human behavior in favor of environmental preservation. Exploring a social dilemma regarding the interaction between people and the environment provides a clearer illustration of the psychology behind human-environmental relationships and helps inform solutions. Therefore, this paper will explore the social dilemma of people driving gasoline cars instead of electric cars and the consequences of the actions on the environment to illustrate environmental psychology and ultimately advance ways that people can escape the social dilemma and how they can be motivated to opt for environmentally sustainable options.

Description of social dilemma

The invention of electric cars is one of the most advanced and environmentally friendly technological innovations of the modern era. With the environment deteriorating fast, there is an increasing push for greener options, and electric cars fit within the futurist environmentally conscious ideal. Electric cars efficiently use energy and have zero emissions during use on the environment reducing greenhouse gas emissions to the atmosphere by vehicles significantly. It is also postulated that even with sourcing electricity to charge the electric cars from fossil fuels, shifting to electric cars would still be positive for the environment (Milev, Hastings & Al-Habaibeh, 2021). Besides the environmental benefits, the electric automobile also offers secondary benefits such as reduced traffic congestion and road accidents since their systems are automated to manage and effectively navigate traffic (Gill et al., 2021). In contrast, gasoline cars burn fuel to activate the car's engine, and the burnt fuels have exhaust gasses released into the atmosphere and contribute to air pollution. The amount of gasses released into the atmosphere from a gasoline vehicle depends on the conditions and use of the car (Milev, Hastings & Al-Habaibeh, 2021). Nonetheless, with the increasing urbanization and self-drive, more cars are on the road, and gasoline cars contribute significantly to air and environmental pollution. The pollution is expected to increase with the increase in gasoline-driven vehicles. Alternatively, electric vehicles are eco-friendly in that they have zero environmental emissions and thus would reduce greenhouse gas emissions significantly and preserve natural resources used to extract gasoline.

Despite knowing the adverse effects of gasoline cars on the environment and providing electric cars as an eco-friendly alternative, people still prefer and use gasoline-fueled cars over electric cars. The concept of shifting to electric cars has received conflicting acceptance, with more people inclined towards and still using gasoline cars. Statistics indicate that 47% of US citizens agree with phasing out the manufacture of gasoline vehicles, while 51% are against the idea. Moreover, 39% of US citizens accounting for four in every ten adults, are likely to buy an electric car the next time they make a car purchase, while 46% state that they would not consider an electric car purchase. Currently, only 7% of US citizens drive an electric car. The sales of electric cars have been slow since their invention, with the younger generations being more open to electric car purchases than the older population (Spencer & Funk, 2021). The preference for gasoline cars is diverse, including gasoline vehicles being significantly cheaper than electric cars. Also, most Americans at 35% consider gasoline vehicles substantially more reliable than gasoline-powered vehicles. However, the perceptions of the driving experiences are expressed as the same by 62% of the citizens, while 13% regard electric cars as more fun to drive than 21% who consider gasoline cars as more fun (Spencer & Funk, 2021). Most people acknowledge the environmental friendliness of electric cars over gasoline vehicles but still prefer and drive gasoline-powered cars. Evidently, there is a greater preference and choice of driving gasoline cars over electric cars. The reasons are fundamentally individualistic, centered on personal economics and convenience, with little regard for the environment or the larger population.

The type of cars to use gasoline and electric depends on financial, technical, and infrastructural factors. The financial aspects regard the monetary costs of using care and include the cost of the care's purchase, operation, and maintenance costs over its lifetime. Technical attributes that define car choice include the driving range, car performance, warranty, availability of spares, and brand diversity of the cars. Infrastructural aspects regard to access to charging stations versus gasoline stations (Liao, Molin & van Wee, 2017). Across the factors determining car preference and use, electric cars for poorly compared to gasoline cars. Electric cars have high initial purchase costs and higher operations and maintenance costs due to limited production. On technical aspects, electric cars have limited driving range tied to the batter durability, affecting car performance. Charging stations for electric cars are also few, and the implementation of the infrastructure is complex compared to gasoline stations which are more and easy to implement. These factors explain the higher use of gasoline cars over electric cars today.

Psychologically, people are inclined to look out for themselves and operate within certainties instead of uncertainties, and such trends are evident in the slow adoption of electric cars. People react to innovation based on comparative certainty over the current state. When innovations are typified by uncertainties or higher costs than the present, people are likely to reject them for the comfortable and more convenient current options. People prefer to exist in the comfort of today than risk uncertain future ideas or give up control as would be required by embracing electric vehicles, especially driverless options (Viola, 2021). With electric cars, issues such as high costs, limitations of charging stations, and lack of secondhand and feared shirt battery life limited the adoption of electric vehicles. People are more concerned about being stuck in a blizzard with a flat battery than environmental pollution (Viola, 2021). People function and are driven by self-interest and only exhibit empathy for others to the extent that their interests are not involved. Research shows that people are generally empathetic when the rights of others are getting infringed upon as long as their interests are not involved (Jie et al., 2021). The concept of self-interest is underlined by psychological egoism, where people's motives and behaviors are driven by self-interest is significant in environmental behaviors. The use of gasoline cars is founded on the personal interest of individuals, people sighting reasons such as convenience, lower costs, familiarity, and comfort zone. Even when people can see the extent of damage pollution has on the environment, they still are motivated by the personal economic, and social benefits of using gasoline cars and electric vehicles. People know and understand the role of electric vehicles in environmental preservation, which is evident in the tendency to perceive themselves as more pro-environmental than in their behavior (Bergquist, 2020). Therefore, the psychological inclination for people to pursue self-interest underlies the preference for gasoline cars over electric cars despite knowing the environmental benefits of electric vehicles.

Consequences of the Use of Gasoline Cars over Electric Cars

            The use and preference for gasoline cars over electric cars benefit individuals but disadvantage the larger society based on the consequences to the environment. Electric cars are driven by environmental concerns to preserve the environment by reducing pollution. Gasoline-powered cars have significant adverse effects on the environment by polluting the air, risking human health, and increasing climate change. Gasoline contains pollination of the environment and drivers of climate change such as ozone, aerosols, and methane estimation of the contribution of climate pollutants on the global climate in 20 years indicates a 14.9% pollution from gasoline and its products. The ozone pollution by gasoline pollutants results in adverse health effects on others that significantly lead o premature deaths. Premature deaths from gasoline-related pollutants are approximated at 115000 per year, with a year of life loss by two years (Huang et al., 2020). The provisions indicate the costs for the general population as people pursue self-interest in using gasoline care over electric ones. While using gasoline cars financially and socially benefits individuals, the cumulative costs for the larger population are detrimental across health, climate, and environmental spheres.

Moreover, gasoline is entered for crude oil, a rapidly declining natural resource across the globe. Oil is limited, and oil reserves in the world are declining rapidly. Futuristic estimates on energy consumption internationally without stringent and efficiency changes; energy use will increase by 20-30% and above by 2040, led by fossil fuel use. The increase will be driven by an increase in population and economic advancement across the globe (Newell, Raimi, & Aldana, 2019). Increased fossil fuel consumption will increase carbon emissions, heightening environmental pollution. Issues such as air pollution and climate change will also intensify, typified by factors such as higher temperatures (Newell, Raimi, & Aldana, 2019). Notably, only a reduction in fossil fuel utilization will aid in the achievement of the recommended under 1.5 degrees increase in temperatures necessary to prevent global warming (Welsby et al., 2021). Also, Global oil reserves and natural resources are declining, further exploiting the environment and adversely affecting the ecosystem. The current and ongoing increases in oil prices indicate the depletion of oil resources (Newell, Raimi & Aldana, 2019). The use of electric vehicles reduces the use of petroleum and natural oil products, allowing more time before the oil resource is depleted. It also allows the use of oil in other transport sectors such as water and air that have to rely on oil products for fuel. There are also promotions that electric car batteries can be used as grid storage systems for extra electrical energy, thus resolving the demand and supply difference (Milev, Hastings & Al-Habaibeh, 2019). Higher use and preference for gasoline cars over electric cars thus have detrimental consequences for people, the environment, and natural resources.

Escaping the Social Dilemma

It is imperative to develop solutions to promote increased electric use of cars over gasoline cars for environmental conservation and sustenance. Firstly, public education and awareness are key ways to resolve the dilemma in favor of electric cars. People need to get inf0ormed and educated on the larger picture, including the impacts of gasoline use on health, climate change, and the environment and the impacts on future generations. It is possible that people do not fully comprehend the extent of pollution and environmental depletion resulting from the increasing use of gasoline and illustrating the data. Its relevance for current and future generations may prompt people to move from self-interest and prioritize collective interest (Steg, van den Berg, & de Groot, 2019). Also, awareness and promotion of knowledge on the benefits of shifting to electric cars should harness people's inclination to self-interest over collective interest. Interventions that highlight and promote personal benefits from electric cars will motivate people to shift to electric cars. Self-interest-centered composing shave proven effective in promoting action. In the case of electric cars, using personal benefits such as 50% saving on the energy bill, significantly less risk for accidents, and health benefits can prompt people to shift to electric cars (Vyer et al., 2018). Education and awareness thus should focus on highlighting the benefits of electric cars over gasoline cars framing the benefits at a personal level.

Another approach is to use policies to induce people to shift their preference to electric cars. When policy influences preference parameters in favor of electric cars, people are likely to turn to electric cars. For one, the purchase tax for electric cars can be reduced alongside the reduction in taxes for infrastructure supporting electrical car use, such as electricity for charging stations. Notably, tax reductions are more effective than price reductions in preferences (Liao, Mollin & van Wee, 2017). Policies can also reduce usage costs per year for using cars, or preferential policies in land use on high occupancy lanes can also enhance the shift to electric cars. More stringent policies would be cutting off gasoline-powered cars' production by increasing taxes for manufacturers and imports or raising taxes for gasoline products (Liao, Mollin & van Wee, 2018). Also, increasing investment in electric car supportive infrastructure such as charging stations and electricity subsidies can help people move to electric cars.

In conclusion, the higher preference and use of gasoline cars over electric cars illustrates the concept of environmental psychology in modern society. People prefer gasoline cars over electric cars despite the inherent benefits of electric cars in conserving and promoting the environment. The preference for gasoline cars is driven by self-interest inclinations that typify people who pursue self-interest over collective interest. People regard financial, technical, infrastructural, and social attributes over collective benefits when deciding what car to use. Gasoline cars are cheaper across financial attributes and have preferential technical and infrastructural attributes that make them attractive for people as they meet their personal needs of convenience, low cost, and control. The consequence of pursuing self-interest has adverse effects on the collective population, including health issues, global warming, adverse climate change such as higher temperatures, and increased depletion of natural resources, among others. Luckily, resolving the social dilemma in favor of the environment is possible through public education, emphasizing individual-level benefits, and implementing policies that promote a shift towards electric cars while making it more costly to use gasoline cars. Ultimately, there is a need to implement such interventions to protect the environment for future sustainability and longevity of natural resources for future generations.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

References

Bergquist, M. (2020). Most people think they are more pro-environmental than others: A demonstration of the better-than-average effect in perceived pro-environmental behavioral engagement. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 42(1), 50-61.

Gill, T. (2021). Ethical dilemmas are really important to potential adopters of autonomous vehicles. Ethics and information technology, 23(4), 657-673.

Huang, Y., Unger, N., Harper, K., & Heyes, C. (2020). Global Climate and Human Health Effects of the Gasoline and Diesel Vehicle Fleets. GeoHealth, 4(3), e2019GH000240. https://doi.org/10.1029/2019GH000240

Jie, J., Luo, P., Zhuang, M., Li, B., Pang, Y., Li, J., & Zheng, X. (2019). Self-interest induces counter-empathy at the late stage of empathic responses to others' economic payoffs. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, 372.

Liao, F., Molin, E., & van Wee, B. (2017). Consumer preferences for electric vehicles: a literature review. Transport Reviews, 37(3), 252-275.

Milev, G., Hastings, A., & Al-Habaibeh, A. (2021). The environmental and financial implications of expanding the use of electric cars-A Case study of Scotland. Energy and Built Environment, 2(2), 204-213.

Newell, R., Raimi, D., & Aldana, G. (2019). Global energy outlook 2019: the next generation of energy. Resources for the Future, 1, 8-19.

Spencer, A., & Funk, C., (2021). Electric vehicles get a mixed reception from American consumers. Pew Research. Retrieved from https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2021/06/03/electric-vehicles-get-mixed-reception-from-american-consumers/

Steg, L., van den Berg, A. E., & de Groot, J. I. (2019). Environmental psychology: History, scope, and methods. John Wiley & Sons Inc. Pg 1-11.\

Van de Vyer, J., Abrams, D., Hopthrow, T., Purewal, K., de Moura, G. R., & Meleady, R. (2018). Motivating the selfish to stop idling: Self-interest cues can improve environmentally relevant driver behavior. Transportation research part F: traffic psychology and behavior, 54, 79-85.

Van de Vyver, J., Abrams, D., Hopthrow, T., Purewal, K., de Moura, G. R., & Meleady, R. (2018). Motivating the selfish to stop idling: Self-interest cues can improve environmentally relevant driver behavior. Transportation research part F: traffic psychology and behavior, 54, 79-85.

Welsby, D., Price, J., Pye, S., & Ekins, P. (2021). Unextractable fossil fuels in a 1.5 C world. Nature, 597(7875), 230-234.