杏吧原创

IN PREVIOUS columns I have covered the environmental impacts of my cat and my car. I鈥檝e been spending a lot of time with both recently, ferrying the increasingly decrepit old thing (the cat) to and from the vet鈥檚. The traffic is invariably terrible, with what should be a 10-minute drive taking three times that. The bus is quicker, but feels risky. I don鈥檛 want him to catch covid-19.

My memory may be clouded by the blissfully car-free streets of lockdowns, but I鈥檓 pretty sure the traffic in my part of London is worse than ever. Even though the UK appears to have almost vaccinated itself back to normal, it seems many people are still reluctant to use public transport. Or maybe we have fallen victim to what behavioural scientists call 鈥渉abit discontinuity鈥� 鈥� a fancy name for behavioural changes that become ingrained during disruptive life events such as moving house or living through a pandemic. When cases were high, using a private car was much more appealing than public transport. Now, perhaps, we do it by default.

If so, we are in trouble. Behavioural change has long been regarded as an essential tool for solving the climate crisis, and . The personal sacrifices that are required are well-rehearsed: eat mostly plants, stop flying, consume less, recycle (and cycle) more and, of course, drive less.

The pandemic restrictions have presented a once-in-a-generation opportunity to shift our collective behaviour in this direction. The hope was that we would see the quieter streets, shorter commutes, cleaner air and lower levels of consumption, and like what we saw. We would also notice that major lifestyle changes are not only possible, but sometimes attractive, setting the scene for a move to a sustainable post-pandemic society.

Of course, the coronavirus is still with us and enduring changes may yet happen. But the heavy traffic says not. In well-vaccinated countries, many businesses are now contemplating a return to office working. Foreign holidays are back in the diary. We risk not just a return to business as usual, but a further ratcheting up of our planet-trashing lifestyles.

According to some behavioural scientists and psychologists, the problem is that their discipline hasn鈥檛 been ambitious enough on climate issues. There is too much focus on individual consumer choices and not enough on wider economic and structural ones. In a , a team from the Centre for Climate Change and Social Transformations (CAST), which is based at Cardiff University, UK, argues that, as a result, our models of behavioural change have 鈥渓imited utility鈥� in securing meaningful change.

As just one example, consider the aforementioned habit discontinuity. Psychologists know that the best time to break old, bad habits and establish new, good ones is during times of disruption, but efforts to leverage the pandemic mostly fail to take this into account. Unfortunately, the window of opportunity is closing. The best time to consolidate new habits is within three months of the upheaval.

Some even argue that a focus on individual behavioural change is dancing to the tune of the fossil fuel industry. In another , science historians Naomi Oreskes and Geoffrey Supran analysed 180 climate change-related documents produced by oil giant ExxonMobil, including internal memos, peer-reviewed research and paid-for advertorials on the topic from 1972 to 2014. The pair found that these consistently emphasised that individual action is the answer to the problem.

鈥淲e risk not just a return to business-as-usual, but a ratcheting up of planet-trashing lifestyles鈥�

Despite the company鈥檚 protests, the pair say the messaging was deliberately honed to appeal to the 鈥渞ugged individualism and self-reliance that pervade US culture and ideology鈥� 鈥� while shifting the blame for climate change away from fossil fuel producers and on to consumers. There would have been every reason to think this would do the job, as it had already been used successfully by the tobacco industry. It worked.

That isn鈥檛 to say that individual actions have no role in mitigating climate change. But person power needs to be kept in perspective. According to the International Energy Agency鈥檚 , more than half of the changes required will be delivered by consumer behaviour. But most of these are big, costly choices such as buying an electric vehicle or retrofitting homes with energy-efficient technologies. Easier adjustments, such as giving up beef and flying, will deliver an important but modest 4 per cent.

As the CAST team concludes, 鈥渁ddressing climate change requires profound behaviour change鈥�. The cat needs picking up from the vet, and I am taking the car. My conscience will be clear, but my heart will be heavy as I sit in traffic and watch our once-in-a-generation chance slip away.