Causal thinking and support for climate change policies: International survey findings

Bostrom, Ann; O’Connor, Robert E.; Böhm, Gisela; Hanss, Daniel; Bodi, Otto; Ekström, Frida; Halder, Pradipta; Jeschke, Sven; Mack, Birgit; Qu, Mei; Rosentrater, Lynn; Sandve, Anethe; Sælensminde, Ingrid

doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2011.09.012

Cited by 143 publications

(119 citation statements)

References 40 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

114

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Because nature is also severely threatened by non-climate related anthropogenic stressors (Rockström et al, 2009), nature protection and climate protection may be seen as separate activities that can go hand in hand or conflict with each other. For non-experts, however, that becomes much too complicated (Bostrom et al, 2012;Read et al, 1994;Reynolds et al, 2010). …”

Section: Nature and Climate Changementioning

confidence: 99%

“…Some indications of public perceptions can be extracted from surveys in several 9 European countries and the USA (Bostrom et al, 2012;European Commission, 2010;Read et al, 1994;Reynolds et al, 2010). The results do not indicate that people feel that agriculture is to blame for climate change (European Commission, 2010, p. 57).…”

Section: Meat Eating and Climate Changementioning

confidence: 99%

“…Some surveys in the USA also indicate that many participants expected serious consequences of climate change for agriculture but that they did not perceive agriculture as one of the major causes (Bostrom et al, 2012;Read et al, 1994;Reynolds et al, 2010). In a multinational study among business students "livestock production" was perceived as a much less important cause of climate change than "people driving their cars" (Bostrom et al, 2012).…”

Section: Meat Eating and Climate Changementioning

confidence: 99%

“…A lack of urgency to address climate change is a general problem, as many psychologists who have tried to characterize the public's response have noted (Gifford, 2011;Reynolds et al, 2010;Weber & Stern, 2011;Whitmarsh, 2009). In addition, "livestock production" may be perceived as a much less important cause of climate change than "people driving their cars" (Bostrom et al, 2012).…”

Section: Motivational Explanationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Climate change and meat eating: An inconvenient couple?

Boer

Schösler

Boersema

2013

Journal of Environmental Psychology

159

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper addresses the relationship between meat eating and climate change focusing on motivational explanations of environmentally-relevant consumer behavior. Based on a sample of 1,083 Dutch consumers, it examines their responses to the idea that they can make a big difference to nature and climate protection by choosing one or more meals without meat every week. This idea can be seen as a new opportunity to help mitigation, but also as a counterproductive message that might trigger negative responses among consumers who are skeptical about climate change. As hypothesized, the meat-free meal idea was received more positively by consumers who valued care for nature and more negatively by those who did not value it. Also as hypothesized, the meat-free meal idea was received more negatively by consumers who were skeptical about the seriousness of climate change. The idea was not received more positively by those who did take it seriously. The results support the notion that the meat-free meal idea may serve as a counterproductive message. From the perspective of motivation, it is preferable not to isolate the meat-climate issue but to develop an approach that combines multiple values regarding food choices, including health and nature-related values. Highlights Presents consumers' view on the links between agriculture and climate change. Consumers were asked about meat eating, valuing nature and climate change. Valuing care for nature was associated with being low on meat consumption. Skepticism about climate change was not conducive to a change in meat eating. It might be better to combine the meat-free meal idea with multiple values. 3Climate change and meat eating: An inconvenient couple?

show abstract

Section: Nature and Climate Changementioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Meat Eating and Climate Changementioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Meat Eating and Climate Changementioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Motivational Explanationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Climate change and meat eating: An inconvenient couple?

Boer

Schösler

Boersema

2013

Journal of Environmental Psychology

159

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Furthermore, it is also worth noting that actors often refrain from informing themselves at all because they fear uncomfortable or negative components of this information, and tend to try to avoid this type of information (Cerulo, 2006;Norgaard, 2006). In a similar manner, actions with possible negative consequences are often avoided, even if the total potential benefits of an action would exceed its total potential costs (Bostrom et al, 2012).…”

Section: Insufficient Informationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Energy-Using Durables â€“ Why Consumers Refrain from Economically Optimal Choices

Schubert

Stadelmann

2015

Front. Energy Res.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Sustainable development requires increasing the energy efficiency, decreasing the growth rates of energy demand, and decreasing the CO 2 emissions. In many countries, households' energy consumption is responsible for a considerable share of total energy demand and CO 2 emissions. Energy-using durables are essential in this context. Aiming at sustainability, private households should buy more energy-efficient durables and use them in a more efficient way. In principle, it might even be economically optimal to buy the more energy-efficient products, since they result in lower total costs over their lifetimethus resulting in a positive net present value (NPV). However, when observing private households' purchase decisions, they often do not correspond to the economic optimum, resulting in an "energy-efficiency gap." This paper investigates into the reasons for the persistence of such a gap between energy-efficient products that would be economically optimal -but from which consumers refrain -and less energy-efficient products that consumers actually own or buy although they entail larger life-cycle costs. Factors, which seem to deter private households from purchasing energy-efficient products with positive NPVs, are, for example, insufficient information, limited attention, or inertia. We will show how these and other factors hinder private households from identifying and realizing their economically optimal choices and how such barriers can be overcome. We will present how properly designed energy labels could help to overcome the information-related causes of inefficiently low energy-efficiency investments and provide some additional policy recommendations that could help reaching the aforementioned goal of a reduction of households' energy demand and CO 2 emissions in an adequate way.

show abstract

Risks to critical environmental resources and public wellbeing from climate change in the eyes of public opinion in Kuwait

Elmi

2017

Env Prog and Sustain Energy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Climate change and its impacts have become an increasingly imperative topic of discussion in recent years. The perception of climate change as an environmental problem and public health hazard can significantly affect public behavior in terms of acceptance of the government's actions for mitigation and progress of various forms of adaptation strategies. The study reported herein would be the first of its kind in the Arabian Gulf region that seeks to examine people's opinions on a host of environmental issues in relation to human activities and potential solutions to these issues. The findings from this public survey indicate that about 80% of respondents believe human actions have already caused global environmental changes and the current path to economic development may not be sustainable. Respondents showed great concerns for future generations’ well‐being if environmental deterioration continues unabated. While this study is an important first step, only a few aspects of the impacts of climate change are included in the survey. There is a need for future studies to provide more information to quantify perceptions of climate risks to society, analyze the benefits of climate action, and enhance adaptive capacity. © 2017 American Institute of Chemical Engineers Environ Prog, 37: 232–239, 2018

show abstract

Causal thinking and support for climate change policies: International survey findings

Cited by 143 publications

References 40 publications

Climate change and meat eating: An inconvenient couple?

Climate change and meat eating: An inconvenient couple?

Energy-Using Durables â€“ Why Consumers Refrain from Economically Optimal Choices

Risks to critical environmental resources and public wellbeing from climate change in the eyes of public opinion in Kuwait

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About