Lifestyle changes need to change to address climate change, but government reluctance to help is holding us back

Without changes to people’s behavior and lifestyles, it’ll not be possible for the UK to achieve net zero emissions by 2050. But the Government is not creating the conditions to enable this, and even recognizing its importance in reducing emissions and meeting climate targets. Its laissez-faire approach of simply “following the consumer’s choice,” it claims recent reportthere is no probability of constructing the vital urgent changes.

The House of Lords inquiry assessed the role of social behavior in achieving climate and environmental targets. The report draws on evidence from leading experts in behavioral science and social change, in addition to submissions from a big selection of organizations including Tesco, Natural England and Cycling UK.

Criticism directed on the government included accusations that it puts an excessive amount of faith in unproven climate repair technologies and is reluctant to inform the general public in regards to the scale of social changes vital to create a low-emission society. The various remits of the varied government departments tasked with helping society change polluting behavior have been characterised as “confusing” and “inadequate” to the duty. In some cases, government actions have pushed people away from low-carbon selections, resembling offering e.g tax cut on domestic flights just before the 2021 UN climate summit in Glasgow.

The report, perhaps most uncomfortable for a government that has made economic growth its top priority, highlights the need to absolutely curb lots of the common activities which can be causing the climate crisis. This includes people buying fewer things which have a major environmental impact, resembling long-haul flights, beef, and resource-intensive products resembling fashion clothing and electronics.

Low-emission lifestyle

Government sensitivity to alleged interference in people’s lives or restrictions on personal freedoms is at the center of much climate policy inertia. Boris Johnson’s government quickly backed down earlier report on the opportunity of incentivizing low-carbon behavior change, which it itself had commissioned, fearing that its recommendations, which included additional charges for frequent flyers and high-carbon food, may very well be interpreted as imposing consumer behavior.

The reality is more complex. Lack of monetary resources to insulate an energy-inefficient house leaves you with little alternative. There is also little freedom to cycle on dangerous roads without dedicated cycle lanes or having to pay rather more to travel by train compared to by plane.

That’s why the House of Lords report urges the government to use tax, regulation and infrastructure to level the playing field a more ecological lifestyleespecially when it comes to travel, heating, weight loss program and the products we buy. One of the few examples of the government’s assertive approach to changing behavior and lifestyle cited within the report is the introduction of a ban on the sale of recent petrol and diesel cars by 2030 – which clearly limits residents’ selections, but currently seems to acceleration popularization of electrical vehicles.

For measures to promote sustainable lifestyles, it will be good to learn from successes and failures in other areas, resembling smoking, obesity and the country’s response to the pandemic. Health experts stressed within the report that efforts to reduce smoking within the UK were successful precisely because they involved a variety of policy interventions, including raising taxes on tobacco products, laws restricting smoking in public spaces and curbing promoting, in addition to fastidiously coordinated and timely efforts to engage with the general public about these changes. The UK’s success in reducing smoking rates wouldn’t come through voluntary measures alone.

The importance of honesty

The government’s advisers, the Climate Change Commission, found that around a 3rd of all emissions reductions needed by 2035 would require decisions by individuals and households. However, the varieties of actions needed vary greatly depending on an individual’s situation. For this reason, it is essential to be honest not only about what needs to change, but also about who needs to change essentially the most.

People shall be more willing to make changes in the event that they feel it the foundations are applied fairly. The report bluntly assesses what this implies, noting that “upper-income households, which tend to have larger carbon footprints, must take correspondingly greater steps to reduce their emissions.”

Emissions are highly depending on income: across Europe, the richest 10% of individuals have roughly 20 tons of CO₂ per yrcompared to half the quantity for middle-income earners. And it is not just size that matters: people in the highest 1% have a carbon footprint traveling alone by plane this exceeds the full footprint of middle-income residents. The lack of government intervention, which leads to the rapid exhaustion of the remaining carbon budget, risks further widening social inequalities, especially as the results of climate change intensify.

While the government drags its feet, the situation is clear society’s appetite for change. Our research found that 70% of individuals within the UK understand that the best way we live needs to change drastically. The report shows encouraging examples of change already being made by businesses, civil society and native authorities, resembling community faith groups reducing their waste or city councils improving cycling infrastructure.

This goodwill and enthusiasm should be encouraged. This means governments are sending clear signals to the remaining of society, for instance setting a date to ban gas boilers or subsidizing energy efficiency improvements in homes. We also need a national conversation on how to achieve net zero. A coherent public engagement strategy wouldn’t only inform people in regards to the changes required, but also engage them in the method. For example, residents’ assemblies, representative groups of individuals gathered to discuss specific issues, can create a shared vision of the longer term.

Simply waiting for people to make low-carbon selections in a world that doesn’t support such selections and where people feel no stake within the changes which can be going down is unfair and irresponsible.