Domestic policies designed to change citizens' behavior can encounter unexpectedly strong negative resistance. This applies even to people who consciously and voluntarily strive to adhere to sustainable principles of life.
This is evidenced by a study published in the journal Nature Sustainability. Its results were analyzed by Euronews.
If all the inhabitants of the planet change their lifestyle, this will help reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 70% by 2050, but there is a strong psychological barrier on this path. If governments or institutions are too insistent in forcing people to eat less meat, drive cars, or fly planes, i.e., to give up their usual way of life, it could undermine their environmental convictions.
The reverse effect of climate policy
Climate regulations that are good in theory but imperfect in practice can alienate citizens. Even people with a "green" mindset can become less conscious, which corresponds to the crowding-out effect. Researchers came to this conclusion after surveying more than 3,000 German residents.
People may be very economical in their energy consumption and use bicycles instead of cars, but when the state imposes further restrictions on them, it causes outrage.
More intense than with COVID-19
During the pandemic, public sentiment was highly protest-oriented: thousands of people took to the streets, refused to wear masks, and declined to attend mass events. In the case of climate change, resistance is significantly higher.
Climate restrictions cause 52% more negativity than COVID-19 restrictions, according to the results of the analysis. The authors note the incredible hostility that is observed around the world, especially in the US.
"The science and technology for a low-carbon lifestyle are almost settled, but what is lagging behind is the social and behavioral science of effective and politically viable climate policy," said study co-author and economist Sam Bowles.
How can we reduce rejection?
There is still some room for optimism. The researchers found several subjective beliefs that contribute to public acceptance of environmental restrictions. This happens when people are confident that:
- eco-policy has a tangible effect;
- the changes do not affect their freedom of choice;
- institutions do not intrude into their private lives.
An important factor is also the availability of alternatives, making the abandonment of entrenched environmentally unfriendly practices less painful.
“In Germany, there is less resistance to restrictions on short-haul flights compared to other policies. Perhaps this is because the European rail network provides a viable alternative, which, for example, may not be available in the United States,” noted economist and psychologist Katrin Schmelz, the lead author of the study.
Earlier, EcoPolitic reported that at COP30, climate disinformation was included in the agenda for the first time. A number of countries joined the Global Initiative on Information Integrity.
