Arguments against individual climate action are posted at a never-ending pace. Here’s a 🧵from a behavioral scientist on why individual behavior change is in fact critical for tackling the climate crisis. #individualANDsystemchange
Let’s begin by disarming the most common argument against individual action: that the carbon footprint was created by the fossil fuel industry.
First, this is not entirely true. But even if true, the concept can still have scientific and practical value. For example, it’s been used to point out the incredible inequality in who contributes to causing climate change. @lucas_chancel@JKSteinbergernature.com/articles/s4189…
This is not to say that the fossil fuel industry doesn’t want to individualize the problem, which is certainly problematic (and their actions have been and continue to be criminal). The work of @NaomiOreskes, @GeoffreySupran, @BenFranta and others beautifully shows this.
However, this doesn’t mean that individual behavior changes are irrelevant or infeasible within the current system. The actions and support of individuals are critical for achieving, maintaining, and adapting to systemic changes. researchgate.net/publication/33…
In fact, IMO behavior change represents an under-utilized mitigation strategy. For example, when was the last time you heard policymakers encourage their constituents to limit flying or meat consumption or implemented policies to make this happen? 🤔
There are many reasons why people might dismiss individual actions. One reason is that it shifts attention away from one’s own (typically high) emissions, which alleviates feeling bad about it. This can be legitimate though when behavior change is too difficult or costly.
Another related reason reflects a constrained conceptualization of individual action. Too often individual behavior change is equated with what we do as consumers. But this unnecessarily constrains what people can do to help speed up climate mitigation.
We can act in many other roles, including as citizens, investors, participants in organizations, community members. @netflix created some science-based recommendations for how to get involved and which actions to prioritize across roles. @LeoDiCapriodontlookup.count-us-in.com/steps
While we may not have time or be able to take action(s) in all these roles, we can prioritize the actions that can deliver the greatest climate benefits, either personally or for other people/communities/organizations. Attention to actions' potential climate impact is key here!
For example, you can shift your investments to sustainable projects, promote climate initiatives at work or in your local community, or participate in social movements to demand political or organizational change. All these actions can help diffuse change at scale.
Consumer action is also often too easily dismissed. Reducing air travel, avoiding red meat, electrifying your home, and shifting to public transport certainly make a difference. Even with system change, this will all have to happen so why delay the change? iopscience.iop.org/article/10.108…
When discussing individual action, we have to also acknowledge the inequality in who has the greatest potential to make an impact. Generally, this potential increases with socioeconomic status as outlined in my work with @KA_Nicholas@efesce@tdietzvt nature.com/articles/s4156…
KEY TAKEAWAY: Achieving the transformative changes needed is an immense task that requires the support and engagement of individuals who will not only have to fundamentally change their activities/behavior but also support, accept, and adapt to transformative initiatives...
So how about we start acknowledging that both individual and systemic changes are pivotal and not mutually exclusive!🤞Time is short so let's applaud all efforts that help make real change happen! 🌍
I'm a huge fan of experience sampling, which we here use to build bridges between research on physical micro-environments/choice architecture and on self-control. We explored if selecting oneself into certain environments matters for the healthiness of out-of-home food choices.
FOCUS: We focus our analysis on out-of-home food choices, which includes all meal and snack purchases from retail or food service sector (e.g., cafeterias, take-away, and read-to-eat foods from supermarkets; henceforth, food outlets) intended for immediate consumption
Why do I like the guide? For one because it moves beyond the easy and simple behaviors with negligible climate benefits (e.g., recycling) and instead recommends high-impact behaviors that people can undertake via their different roles in life...
We find carbon labeling a promising mitigation initiative but perhaps not for the reasons you think. A long🧵... nature.com/articles/s4155…
BACKGROUND: We reviewed the literature on how carbon labeling systems can influence consumer and corporate behavior to reduce GHG emissions. We also refer to the literature on energy labeling, which is more developed.
What is carbon labeling? Carbon labeling summarizes data on the greenhouse gases (GHG) emitted from the production, distribution, and use (“carbon footprints”) of a good or service in a simple indicator presented at the point of purchase
There is inequality in who causes climate change, who experiences its consequences, and who can fix it. As we show in @NatureEnergyJn, people with high socioeconomic status disproportionately affect the success or failure of climate mitigation. A thread.
People with high SES not only have excessive carbon footprints through consumption, but they also have disproportionate power through their roles as investors, role models, participants in organizations, and citizens.
Through these five roles, they can help shape the choices available to themselves and others, providing options that either exacerbate or mitigate climate change. Currently, they are mostly used to exacerbate emissions, but this can and should change. #ClimateAction
Excited to share a new paper on the environmental impacts of clothing. With data from four countries, we show how impacts vary across the life cycle and between countries. We find strong country differences with U.S. consumers having the greatest impacts. sciencedirect.com/science/articl…
We also show that the largest share of associated environmental impacts is created during the production phase, except in the U.S. where it's the use phase due to more frequent washing and drying. Transport from factories to markets and disposal matter little overall (2/6)
One of our main contributions is to move beyond stylized assumptions of use-phase behavior and to show that washing and drying frequency can be important drivers of impacts, particularly in countries with carbon-intensive energy grids (3/6)