Forcing lifestyle changes could weaken support for climate action, study finds

Mandates targeting lifestyle choices, such as urban car bans, can provoke strong resistance, even among people who already try to live sustainably, new study warns

Climate policies that push people to change how they live, such as eating less meat, banning cars from city centres or cutting air travel, may weaken public support for climate action, according to a new study.

Research published in Nature Sustainability suggests that some policies aimed at changing personal behaviour can backfire if people feel they are being forced to comply. Instead of strengthening environmental commitment, such measures may erode people’s underlying “green” values and reduce support for other climate policies.

“Policies don’t just spur a target behaviour,” said Katrin Schmelz, a behavioural economist and psychologist at the Technical University of Denmark and lead author of the study. “They can change people’s underlying values, leading to unintended negative effects.”

The researchers surveyed more than 3,000 people in Germany, using a sample designed to reflect the country’s demographics. Participants were asked about a range of climate policies, with questions about Covid-19 restrictions included for comparison.

The findings show that mandates targeting lifestyle choices, such as urban car bans, can provoke strong resistance, even among people who already try to live sustainably. In some cases, respondents reacted more negatively to climate rules than to pandemic restrictions.

The study describes this response as a “crowding-out effect”, where resentment towards being controlled overrides people’s existing motivation to make environmentally friendly choices, such as cycling, using public transport or reducing energy use at home.

“These crowding-out effects are big enough that policymakers should worry,” said Sam Bowles, an economist at the Santa Fe Institute and co-author of the paper.

A woman eating a vegan salad bowl (Getty Images)

One of the study’s more striking findings was that opposition to climate mandates was stronger than opposition to the Covid-19 rules. The researchers recorded a 52 per cent greater negative response to climate policies, despite the intense backlash many governments faced during the pandemic.

“We saw incredible hostility in the US and other countries towards controls during the Covid-19 pandemic,” Mr Bowles said. “It looks like the climate case could be much worse.”

Why lifestyle change matters

Lifestyle change frequently comes up in climate discussions because everyday habits, such as how people travel and what they eat, contribute significantly to planet-warming greenhouse gas emissions.

Meat consumption is a major part of that. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) estimates that meat and dairy production accounts for about 14-15 per cent of global emissions, largely due to methane from cattle and the land required to produce animal feed.

Transport is another major driver. It produces around a quarter of global energy-related carbon dioxide emissions, with private cars responsible for the largest share, while a relatively small number of frequent flyers are responsible for a large proportion of aviation emissions.

The authors say this does not mean governments should abandon efforts to reduce emissions through changes in consumption and travel. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has said lifestyle changes could cut global emissions by up to 70 per cent by 2050.

The study argues that how policies are designed matters. Resistance was lower when people believed a policy would actually reduce emissions, did not intrude on privacy, and did not feel like a direct restriction on personal freedom.

In Germany, for example, respondents were less opposed to limits on short-haul flights than to car bans. The researchers suggest this may be because rail travel offers a realistic alternative, something that may not be true in countries such as the US.

“People are more open to policies that they think are effective,” said Dr Schmelz. “They also respond more positively if they don’t feel that a policy restricts their freedom.”

The research is already feeding into discussions among policymakers and academics on how to design climate measures that build support rather than resistance.

“The science and technology to provide a low-carbon way of life is nearly solved,” Mr Bowles said. “What’s lagging behind is a social and behavioural science of effective and politically viable climate policies.”