Households hold the keys to our low-carbon future

Research by Professor Benjamin Sovacool and colleagues from across Europe has looked at the contributions households could make to emissions reduction, and argues that there is untapped policy potential for steering individuals’ behaviour.

A study of choice

The recent wave of climate protests and media coverage shows that even one individual – a Swedish teenager called Greta Thunberg – can shape international dialogue when it comes to tackling climate change. Households are responsible for 72% of global greenhouse gas emissions, through their consumption behaviour. Cumulatively, these lifestyle choices – such as those around travel and diet – have the power to significantly mitigate climate change.

However, while such lifestyle choices remain voluntary (i.e. are not required by law), the actions of well-meaning individuals would only get us halfway towards achieving the 1.5°C Paris Agreement target for emissions reduction.

In four European cities (in France, Germany, Norway and Sweden), this study investigated households’ preferences for making 65 different lifestyle choices, when informed of their carbon and financial costs or savings.

Which household decisions have the greatest effect?

It’s hardly surprising that choices around mobility (particularly air travel) topped the study’s list, followed by those concerning food (dominated by red meat and dairy products). The study also looked at housing (in which heating was found to be the most influential component).

Moderate or flexible alterations were significantly more popular than radical lifestyle change; for example, while about a third of participants voluntarily chose to eat more vegetarian food, only one out of 25 chose to become a vegetarian. And while a third of participants chose to buy a low emissions car, only one in 20 would give up ownership of a private vehicle altogether.

Variations in household type, and other demographic categories, were also found to influence decisions (and decision-making power); homeowners, for example, had greater control over a broader range of contributing choices than tenants. Similarly, a household’s carbon footprint was found to fluctuate with key life events or stages – such as moving house, having children, illness or retirement – indicating a number of strategic “windows” of opportunity in which significant choices are made.

What’s stopping us making low-carbon choices?

“Society as a whole – and this includes researchers, policymakers, planners as well as the media – still obsess over technology,” says Benjamin, “but we have to tackle lifestyles.”

“Our study underscores the contradictions we all have in balancing climate change with other priorities. We want to fight climate change, but stick to eating meat and driving our cars. There are certain changes we can make voluntarily but beyond that we need policy to step in.”

Perversely, changes with the greatest mitigation potential were the least popular among participants, as they required the most significant lifestyle changes. While the research found public support for policy initiatives around more sustainable production of food, the research found significant resistance to initiatives that restrict personal mobility and transport options. Participants attached a range of values to travel, from interpersonal (e.g. maintaining relationships with family) to educational or professional (e.g. studying a semester abroad).

While individuals interviewed were generally found to accept their responsibility to make changes, many were only ready to do so if other societal players – such as businesses and governments – are also held accountable and made to take action.

How can policy stimulate behaviour change?

Ironically, or perhaps even tragically, the research found that the areas where greatest lifestyle changes were required – and the largest carbon footprints produced, such as aviation and diet – had thus far received the least policy attention. To date, policymakers have predominantly focused on supply-side agendas such as energy production. However, the findings of this study indicate that these must be supplemented with demand-side policies, targeting household consumption and behavioural decisions.

These new insights into households’ ability and willingness to change, and the extent to which such choices might be mobilised by regulation, could prove pivotal to effective policymaking. In addition to traditional areas of focus (such as household technology, heat and electricity provision), the researchers argue that policy should place heavier emphasis on emissions from air and road travel, as well as meat consumption. In order to take full advantage of the opportunities offered by life’s biggest decision-making “windows”, policies should also target key intermediaries involved in influencing these choices – such as estate agents and retirement planners – to incentivise the promotion of low-carbon options.

For example, policies incentivising car dealerships to encourage purchases of electric or low-emission vehicles could be key in influencing a household’s emissions trajectory.

While changing mobility behaviours may be, for many, the hardest (albeit the most important) choice, an intelligent mix of improved infrastructure, incentives and regulation could begin to drive progress.