We're sorry but this page doesn't work properly without JavaScript enabled. Please enable it to continue.
Feedback

Limiting climate change: what's most worth doing?

00:00

Formal Metadata

Title
Limiting climate change: what's most worth doing?
Title of Series
Number of Parts
19
Author
License
CC Attribution 3.0 Unported:
You are free to use, adapt and copy, distribute and transmit the work or content in adapted or unchanged form for any legal purpose as long as the work is attributed to the author in the manner specified by the author or licensor.
Identifiers
Publisher
Release Date
Language

Content Metadata

Subject Area
Genre
Abstract
Wynes and Nicholas (2017 Environ. Res. Lett. 12 074024) claim that some of the most important actions individuals can take to mitigate climate change have been overlooked, particularly in educational messages for adolescents, and estimate the potential impact of some of these, including having fewer children and living car free. These estimates raise questions that deserve serious analysis, but they are based only on the technical potential of the actions and do not consider the plasticity of the behaviors and the feasibility of policies to support them. The actions identified as having the greatest potential are lifestyle changes that accrue benefits over a lifetime or longer, so are not realistic alternatives to actions that can be enacted immediately. But presenting lifestyle choices and the relative impacts of different actions as discussion starters for adolescents could be promising, especially if the discussions highlight issues of behavioral plasticity, policy plasticity, and time scale. Research has identified design principles for interventions to achieve the strongest emissions reductions at time scales up to the decadal. Design principles for achieving longer-lasting changes deserve careful analytic attention, as well as a stronger focus in adolescent textbooks and messages to the general population. Both adolescents and researchers would do well to think carefully about what could promote the generational changes needed to reach a climate change target such as 'well below 2 °C'.
Electric power distributionVideoComputer animation
Membrane potentialClimateImpact eventStem (ship)Pickup truckAugustus, Count Palatine of SulzbachElectric power distributionTramSeptember (1987 film)Mail (armour)PhotodissoziationComputer animation
Climate changeClimateMeeting/Interview
Juli FernándezClimateIonComputer animation
ClimateIonTuesdayClimateClimate changeComputer animation
Plant (control theory)Cartridge (firearms)Reaction (physics)Diagram
Computer animation
Meeting/Interview
LightGreenhouse gasScale (map)Emissionsvermögen
Effects unit
Elektrische IsolierungImpact eventMeeting/Interview
Railroad carHeat
Control panel (engineering)
ClimateMail (armour)MaterialCardinal directionEffects unitComputer animation
Emission nebulaRefractive indexImpact eventEmissionsvermögenEmission nebulaMeeting/Interview
ClimateCocktail party effectClimate changeMeeting/Interview
Impact eventClimateMeeting/Interview
TemperatureGlobal warmingComputer animation
TemperatureGlobal warmingTypesettingClimate changeClimate
TemperatureAlcohol proofMeeting/Interview
Transcript: English(auto-generated)
Hi, I'm Kim Walski, Research Associate and Assistant Professor at Harris Public Policy. If you're someone who cares about climate change, you may have seen in the news a recent study that tried to identify the most impactful actions that individuals can take to limit
climate change. It provocatively suggested that people should consider having one less child and living a car-free life. If your gut reaction was that these behaviors don't seem practical, then you've hit at the heart of a commentary piece my colleague Paul Stern and I wrote about the original study. The study isn't definitive, but it is important and provocative.
There are two main things missing from it. One of them is that it doesn't consider how achievable these actions are. It looks only at how much difference they would make if they were all done by everybody. It assumes that they're done universally and completely.
If this information is given to high schoolers, they're going to look at them as non-starters and decide that there isn't anything that they can do that would make a big difference. The second thing that the study doesn't take into account are time scales. The things that first come to mind about saving energy and reducing carbon emissions are things that can happen immediately like turning off lights in unused rooms and
recycling. Those are the kinds of things that are mentioned very frequently in high school textbooks, but most of them have very small effects. There are other actions that can have a much more significant impact over the course of say a decade. These tend to be one-time actions such as adding insulation to your home, upgrading the heating and cooling equipment, buying a fuel-efficient car, or perhaps considering
solar panels for your home. The kinds of changes that Wines and Nicholas advocate might have even larger effects, but much less is known about how to achieve them. They mostly involve changes in lifestyle, and it won't be easy to make those changes. We think this is probably unrealistic for most people, and when you consider the small
proportion of the population that's even willing to attempt that, suddenly it seems like the emissions reductions that are possible from that action are much smaller. And that's the approach we recommend. We need to consider not only the maximum emissions possible from a behavior, but also the proportion of people who will adopt it and the feasibility of designing policies
and interventions to target that behavior. And when you multiply those three things, you get a different index of impact, one that we call reasonably achievable emissions reductions. While we may have a different perspective on how to identify the most impactful behaviors
that a person can take, we do applaud Wines and Nicholas for drawing attention to the importance of adolescence in addressing climate change. They are early enough in their lives that they can have a long and lasting impact on the future climate, whether through their personal lifestyle choices or their future careers. And if we can encourage high school curriculum and textbooks to incorporate better messages
about the types of actions that are needed to address climate change, as well as their feasibility, we might begin to encourage the discussions that are needed to move our society in the right direction and avoid a temperature change of two degrees.