Irish people 'unaware' of how daily behaviours affect climate change

Irish people are willing to change their actions to tackle climate change but often lack the means to do so, according to a new study.

The ESRI research showed that while many people here have tried to reduce their carbon footprint, there are misunderstandings around the impact of actions they are taking, with a fifth of people who travel by car unaware that driving is a source of carbon emissions.

The research also shows many people have changed, and want to change, their behaviours, but cost is one of the biggest barriers to that change.

It has prompted calls from the ESRI for policy makers to increase the supply and reliability of accessible public transport, particularly outside Dublin, to provide better information on the link between the types of food we eat and greenhouse gas emissions, and for subsidies for climate-friendly options to “encourage and facilitate behaviour change”.

The EPA-funded research saw some 1,200 adults complete online diaries about their day and list the actions they thought mattered most for their carbon footprint. The findings also show:

• Just 4% mentioned their diet as an everyday behaviour that contributes to their carbon footprint;
• References to food were more likely to be about where it came from or how it was packaged than whether meals contain foods linked to high emissions, such as red meat;
• Almost half did not list home energy use, and those who did were more likely to mention cooking than heating water or using white appliances, both of which produce higher carbon emissions.

The research found that many people have tried to reduce their carbon footprint, with 40% reducing emissions from transport, mainly by driving less often.

Shane Timmons of the ESRI’s behavioural research unit said: ‘Knowing which actions make the biggest difference is a big problem, particularly when it comes to food.’

Shane Timmons of the ESRI’s behavioural research unit said: ‘Knowing which actions make the biggest difference is a big problem, particularly when it comes to food.’

Another 25% said they would like to reduce their transport emissions but can’t, mostly because they don’t have access to public transport. However, 30% saw no need to change their transport behaviour.

A quarter of respondents said they had changed what they eat to reduce their carbon footprint, while 27% said they would like to but can’t — mostly citing cost and not knowing what to eat as the biggest difficulties.

However, the largest group (47%) did not see a need to change what they eat.

“Most people recognise the need to reduce their own carbon footprint and many have already made changes to their daily life,” said Shane Timmons of the ESRI’s behavioural research unit.

“But knowing which actions make the biggest difference is a big problem, particularly when it comes to food,” he said.

More guidance about how to make affordable, nutritious meals that limit foods with high emissions might help.

“Continued improvements in public transport, like those set in the Climate Action Plan, would also mean that many people who are already willing to change how they travel could do so.”

Eimear Cotter, the director of the EPA’s Office of Evidence and Assessment, said the research provides valuable insights to help inform the design of both effective climate policies and public information campaigns.

Meanwhile, hundreds of the world’s leading climate scientists have said they expect global temperatures to rise by at least 2.5C and possibly 3C above pre-industrial levels this century, the Guardian reports. The internationally agreed target is 1.5%.

Many of the scientists from the authoritative Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) envisage future famines, conflicts, and mass migration, driven by heatwaves, wildfires, floods, and storms of an intensity and frequency far beyond those that have already struck.

Numerous experts said they had been left feeling hopeless, infuriated, and scared by the failure of governments to act despite the clear scientific evidence provided

but are continuing to fight for action on climate change.

“I think we are headed for major societal disruption within the next five years,” said Gretta Pecl, at the University of Tasmania.

“[Authorities] will be overwhelmed by extreme event after extreme event, food production will be disrupted. I could not feel greater despair over the future.” But many said the climate fight must continue, however high global temperature rose, because every fraction of a degree avoided would reduce human suffering.

The IPCC’s reports are the gold standard assessments of climate change, approved by all governments and produced by experts in physical and social sciences.

Would you like a lunchtime summary of content highlights on the Irish Examiner website? Delivered straight to your inbox at 1pm each day.