Analysis: our inertia in responding to the threat of climate change may be due to a tricky combination of economic and psychological reasons
By Tom McDermott and Denis O'Hora, University of Galway
Climate change is regularly cited as the greatest challenge of our times, an existential threat to life on this planet. So, why do we drag our feet and fail to reduce emissions in a meaningful way? Politicians have grown fond of referring to the climate "emergency", but few jump out of their seats to act when Greta Thunberg says we should act like our house is on fire.
According to insights from economics and psychology, our inertia in responding to this threat has to do with a number of reasons. It's a tricky combination of misaligned incentives, behavioural biases in how we perceive and value risks – particularly those that appear distant – and the more general challenge of changing established behaviours.
We need your consent to load this rte-player contentWe use rte-player to manage extra content that can set cookies on your device and collect data about your activity. Please review their details and accept them to load the content.Manage Preferences
From RTÉ Radio 1's Brendan O'Connor Show, interview with climate activist Greta Thunberg about The Climate Book
Proximity is important
A central challenge is that risks can seem remote in both time and space. Climate change is often perceived as a problem of future generations and people living in remote parts of the planet. Scientists increasingly warn of potential doomsday scenarios associated with unabated (or runaway) climate change. But doomsday scenarios can feel like science fiction. The prospect of an uninhabitable planet at some distant point in the future is simply insufficient to motivate a change in behaviour.
The direct causal link between our daily behaviour and longer term consequences can also be obscured by the time it takes for the consequence to occur. Energy use is immediately beneficial, but the cost of energy use is delayed until consumers receive the bill. When we must choose between options with short-term versus longer-term consequences, the longer term consequence is discounted. To further complicate this, the discounted values we put on these future consequences are inconsistent, (we can change our minds as the consequence approaches), and vary considerably across people (people can be more or less short-term focused).
We need your consent to load this rte-player contentWe use rte-player to manage extra content that can set cookies on your device and collect data about your activity. Please review their details and accept them to load the content.Manage Preferences
From RTÉ Archives, RTÉ News report on heavy flooding in Blackpool in Cork in 2002
Discounting effects are stronger when we make a series of small choices rather than one big one. Consider how easily we might pay for a daily cup of coffee at work ("it's only €2"), but this behaviour will cost us approximately €400 a year. We would not easily part with €400, but we think little of €2 a day. In climate terms, our daily choices and actions as individuals make tiny marginal differences to the amount of greenhouse gas emissions being released into the atmosphere, but these collectively add up.
Changing behaviour is hard
We know that changing behaviour is hard. We all remember the new year's resolutions that lost momentum, such as the neglected exercise class or diet plan. While many of us value the environment and feel a duty to change, there are other incentives that do not align with this behaviour. We still struggle to break habits even when a change confers substantial personal benefits.
Carbon taxes are one policy tool that governments can use to try and realign incentives and induce changes in behaviour by creating a price signal. A widely applied carbon tax levels the playing field by pricing according to true social costs – such that "greener" products and services compete with more greenhouse-gas intensive ones.
We need your consent to load this rte-player contentWe use rte-player to manage extra content that can set cookies on your device and collect data about your activity. Please review their details and accept them to load the content.Manage Preferences
From RTÉ Radio 1's This Week, RTÉ Environment Correspondent George Lee and Met Eireann climatologist Keith Lambkin on COP27
But carbon taxes alone are not necessarily a silver bullet. For one thing, the burden of carbon taxes typically falls disproportionately on those on lower incomes. It is also worth remembering that incentivisation only works if an individual is able to do whatever is required to obtain the incentive. New behaviours also depend on our skills (organisational, cognitive) and our resources (time). Even if we were paid to go to the gym, would we manage to get our gym clothes washed in time?
There are causes for optimism
Scientists are increasingly able to demonstrate the role of global warming in fuelling extreme weather events, from storms and floods to heatwaves and wildfires. These scientific advances are a cause for optimism as the proximity of these local events means they have a greater potential to impact on our behaviour.
More than ever, we understand the source of the problem and the likely consequences of inaction. We also have the scientific knowledge and means to do something about it. Advances in implementation science and the understanding of human decision making help us figure out how to support pro-environmental behaviour change and develop more effective communication about climate risks.
The reality of climate change is here and now and affecting our everyday lives.
For our individual choices to combine at a scale sufficient to reduce global warming, we will need to develop communities that support and enhance sustainable ways of living. Our new research project integrates scientific risk assessments, with social science and behavioural analyses of costs, impacts and individual/community response. We are working to produce new evidence on climate risks, their potential impacts, and how they are valued and perceived.
The reality of climate change is here and now and affecting our everyday lives. We need to work together across disciplines to support the creation of more climate resilient communities in Ireland. The risks are literally on our doorstep, but as we’ve argued, awareness is only the first step. Action demands that risks be characterised, quantified, and communicated appropriately – and that people be facilitated to act.
This is an edited version of a piece that first appeared on the University of Galway’s Cois Coiribe
Both authors are part of Climate Resilient Places, a new research project based at the University of Galway, funded under the EPA Research Programme 2021-2030. The EPA Research Programme is a Government of Ireland initiative funded by the Department of the Environment, Climate and Communications.
Dr Tom McDermott is a Lecturer in the Economics of Climate Change and Development, and programme director of the MSc Global Environmental Economics at the J.E. Cairnes School of Business and Economics at the University of Galway. Dr Denis O'Hora is an Experimental Psychologist & Behavioural Scientist, and programme director of the MSc Consumer Psychology at the School of Psychology at the University of Galway. He is a former Irish Research Council awardee.
The views expressed here are those of the author and do not represent or reflect the views of RTÉ
