logo
Which choices contribute most to climate change? Most people miss the mark, one study found

Which choices contribute most to climate change? Most people miss the mark, one study found

Independenta day ago
It turns out many Americans aren't great at identifying which personal decisions contribute most to climate change.
A study recently published by the National Academy of Sciences found that when asked to rank actions, such as swapping a car that uses gasoline for an electric one, carpooling or reducing food waste, participants weren't very accurate when assessing how much those actions contributed to climate change, which is caused mostly by the release of greenhouse gases that happen when fuels like gasoline, oil and coal are burned.
" People over-assign impact to actually pretty low-impact actions such as recycling, and underestimate the actual carbon impact of behaviors much more carbon intensive, like flying or eating meat," said Madalina Vlasceanu, report co-author and professor of environmental social sciences at Stanford University.
The top three individual actions that help the climate, including avoiding plane flights, choosing not to get a dog and using renewable electricity, were also the three that participants underestimated the most. Meanwhile, the lowest-impact actions were changing to more efficient appliances and swapping out light bulbs, recycling, and using less energy on washing clothes. Those were three of the top four overestimated actions in the report.
There are many reasons people get it wrong
Vlasceanu said marketing focuses more on recycling and using energy-efficient light bulbs than on why flights or dog adoption are relatively bad for the climate, so participants were more likely to give those actions more weight.
How the human brain is wired also plays a role.
'You can see the bottle being recycled. That's visible. Whereas carbon emissions, that's invisible to the human eye. So that's why we don't associate emissions with flying,' said Jiaying Zhao, who teaches psychology and sustainability at the University of British Columbia.
Zhao added it's easier to bring actions to mind that we do more often. ' Recycling is an almost daily action, whereas flying is less frequent. It's less discussed,' she said. 'As a result, people give a higher psychological weight to recycling.'
Of course, there is also a lot of misleading information. For example, some companies tout the recycling they do while not telling the public about pollution that comes from their overall operations.
'There has been a lot of deliberate confusion out there to support policies that are really out of date," said Brenda Ekwurzel, a climate scientist with the Union of Concerned Scientists, a nonprofit.
Why dogs have a big climate impact
Dogs are big meat eaters, and meat is a significant contributor to climate change. That is because many of the farm animals, which will become food, release methane, a greenhouse gas that contributes to climate change. Beef is especially impactful, in part because around the world cattle are often raised on land that was illegally deforested. Since trees absorb carbon dioxide, the most abundant greenhouse gas, cutting them to then raise cattle is a double whammy.
'People just don't associate pets with carbon emissions. That link is not clear in people's minds,' Zhao said.
Not all pets are the same, however. Zhao owns a dog and three rabbits.
'I can adopt 100 bunnies that will not be close to the emissions of a dog, because my dog is a carnivore,' she said.
The owner of a meat-eating pet can lower their impact by looking for food made from sources other than beef. Zhao, for example, tries to minimize her dog's carbon footprint by feeding her less carbon-intensive protein sources, including seafood and turkey.
Pollution from air travel
Planes emit a lot of carbon dioxide and nitrogen oxides, also greenhouse gases. Additionally, planes emit contrails, or vapor trails that prevent planet-warming gases from escaping into space. A round-trip economy-class flight on a 737 from New York to Los Angeles produces more than 1,300 pounds of emissions per passenger, according to the International Civil Aviation Organization, a United Nations agency.
Skipping that single flight saves about as much carbon as swearing off eating all types of meat a year, or living without a car for more than three months, according to U.N. estimates.
Other decisions, both impactful and minor
Switching to energy that comes from renewable sources, such as solar and wind, has a large positive impact because such sources don't emit greenhouse gases. Some of the biggest climate decisions individuals can make include how they heat and cool their homes and the types of transportation they use. Switching to renewable energy minimizes the impact of both.
Recycling is effective at reducing waste headed for landfill, but its climate impact is relatively small because transporting, processing and repurposing recyclables typically relies on fossil fuels. Plus, less than 10% of plastics actually get recycled, according to the Environmental Protection Agency.
Other decisions with overestimated impact, including washing clothes in cold water and switching to more efficient light bulbs, are relatively less important. That is because those appliances have a relatively small impact compared to other things, such plane flights and dogs, so improving on them, while beneficial, has a much more limited influence.
Experts say the best way to combat the human tendency to miscalculate climate-related decisions is with more readily available information. Zhao said that people are already more accurate in their estimations than they would have been 10 or 20 years ago because it's easier to learn.
The study backs up that hypothesis. After participants finished ranking actions, the researchers corrected their mistakes, and they changed which actions they said they'd take to help the planet.
'People do learn from these interventions,' Vlasceanu said. 'After learning, they are more willing to commit to actually more impactful actions.'
___
The Associated Press' climate and environmental coverage receives financial support from multiple private foundations. AP is solely responsible for all content. Find AP's standards for working with philanthropies, a list of supporters and funded coverage areas at AP.org.
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Lilly signs $1.3 billion deal with Superluminal to discover obesity medicines using AI
Lilly signs $1.3 billion deal with Superluminal to discover obesity medicines using AI

Reuters

time37 minutes ago

  • Reuters

Lilly signs $1.3 billion deal with Superluminal to discover obesity medicines using AI

Aug 14 (Reuters) - Eli Lilly (LLY.N), opens new tab has signed a deal worth $1.3 billion with privately held Superluminal Medicines to discover and develop small-molecule drugs through AI to treat obesity and other cardiometabolic diseases. Lilly currently dominates the obesity treatment market, which is estimated to be worth $150 billion by the next decade, and is trying to strengthen its foothold in the space through the development of next-generation drugs, acquisitions and partnerships. The deal gives Lilly access to Superluminal's proprietary artificial-intelligence-driven platform to rapidly discover potential drug candidates targeting G-protein-coupled receptors (GPCR) - a class of proteins that can influence a range of physiological processes including metabolism, cell growth and immune responses - the drug developer said on Thursday. In a similar move, Danish rival Novo Nordisk ( opens new tab struck a $2.2 billion deal with U.S. biotech Septerna in May to develop oral small-molecule medicines targeting GPCRs for obesity and other cardiometabolic diseases. Lilly has been capitalizing on the overwhelming popularity of the GLP-1 class of medicines, which includes its blockbuster drug Zepbound as well as Novo's Wegovy. It is also developing a keenly watched oral GLP-1 drug, orforglipron, which has failed to meet investors' lofty expectations. The drugmaker teamed up with Hong Kong-listed biotech Laekna ( opens new tab last year to develop an experimental obesity drug that aims to help patients lose weight while preserving muscle. Lilly will receive exclusive rights to develop and commercialize drug candidates discovered using Superluminal's platform, the drug developer said. As part of the deal, Superluminal is eligible to receive upfront and milestone payments, an equity investment as well as tiered royalties on net sales, the company said. Boston-based startup Superluminal is developing a wholly owned lead candidate targeting a protein called melanocortin 4 receptor to treat certain rare, genetic forms of obesity and is expected to begin human trials next year. The lead candidate is not part of the deal with Lilly. Superluminal is backed by investors including RA Capital Management, Insight Partners and NVentures, NVIDIA's venture capital arm.

Florida Republican tells Joe Rogan that DC has proof of things ‘not created by mankind'
Florida Republican tells Joe Rogan that DC has proof of things ‘not created by mankind'

The Independent

timean hour ago

  • The Independent

Florida Republican tells Joe Rogan that DC has proof of things ‘not created by mankind'

Florida Republican Rep. Anna Paulina Luna claimed on the Joe Rogan Experience that Congress possesses evidence of "interdimensional beings" capable of operating across time. Luna asserted her claims are based on credible witness testimony and photographic evidence, indicating the existence of phenomena not created by humanity. She, alongside Rep. James Comer, formally requested briefings from government officials regarding unidentified anomalous phenomena (UAP) records. The congresswoman leads a task force within the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, focused on declassifying federal secrets related to UAPs. Luna criticised the intelligence community for withholding information, suggesting the US has reverse-engineered non-human technology, amidst ongoing congressional investigations into UAPs.

Trump's space order risks environmental disaster while rewarding Musk and Bezos, experts say
Trump's space order risks environmental disaster while rewarding Musk and Bezos, experts say

The Guardian

timean hour ago

  • The Guardian

Trump's space order risks environmental disaster while rewarding Musk and Bezos, experts say

A draft executive order from Donald Trump that aims to largely exempt space launches from environmental review is viewed as a gift to commercial space industry players such as Elon Musk, Jeff Bezos and others who have long targeted the regulations. But its central components may be illegal and the US president 'is trying to do an end run around' on the law, said Jared Margolis, an attorney with the Center for Biological Diversity, which has litigated environmental issues around launches. If successfully implemented, the launches could create an environmental disaster, advocates say. Rocket launches create a massive amount of pollution that can contaminate local waterways and air with high levels of mercury, Pfas, particulate matter, and other highly toxic substances. The vibration, sound waves, heat and explosions damage habitat and kill wildlife, some of which are protected by the Endangered Species Act. The executive order directs the US transportation department to 'use all available authorities to eliminate or expedite' environmental reviews. Among the few protections during space launches is the National Environmental Policy Act (Nepa) review that considers a wide range of impacts on the environment and human health, and the Coastal Zone Management Act, a federal law that allows states to decide how coastlines are used. The order targets both, and suggests the agency could attempt to circumvent the Endangered Species Act. 'The order is directing the transportation department to do whatever they can to avoid Nepa, but it doesn't mean that's possible, or that they have the authority to do so,' Margolis said. The executive order comes at a time when commercial space activity is spiking. Musk's SpaceX, the largest space company, did 96 launches in 2023, and is targeting 180 this year. That number is expected to continue growing, while other players, like Bezos's Blue Horizon, are quickly increasing launch rates. The US federal government's environmental oversight of the launches has always been weak, public health advocates say. The Trump administration quickly hobbled several of the few regulatory mechanisms that existed, and recently gutted funding for research into stratospheric pollution largely caused by Musk's SpaceX. 'We're accelerating the number of launches and blinding ourselves to the follow up effects that they have on the environment – that spells disaster,' said a space industry employee who does work around Nepa issues, but requested anonymity to talk about the order without retribution. Space companies must obtain a launch permit from the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), which does a Nepa review as part of the process. The reviews are the framework by which federal agencies should assess a project's environmental or human health risks. They take into consideration air pollution, endangered species harms, water pollution, wildfire risk, noise pollution and potential human health risks, among other issues. The FAA has faced criticism from space companies for taking too long to review launch permits – about five months – while environmental groups have lambasted the agency for not using Nepa reviews to require more protections at launch sites. The executive order in part directs the department to classify the launches as 'categorical exclusions', which is the legal term for minor changes to a site that do not require a Nepa environmental review. Among other categorical exclusions are landscaping or lighting alterations. Legal experts who reviewed the order questioned the legality of the claim that a rocket launch has similar environmental impacts as landscaping changes. The plan 'fits with their overall desire to eliminate environmental considerations and reviews,' said Dan Farber, an environmental law attorney with the University of California, Berkeley. 'Clearly what Trump wants to do is bulldoze through all this procedural stuff,' Farber added. However, there is a more legally plausible route. The Commercial Space Launch Act does include a provision that allows the transportation secretary to attempt to exempt requirements of environmental law if it is determined that the law is not necessary to protect the 'public health and the safety of property', Margolis said. That would be accomplished through a legal rulemaking process. But the provision is in conflict with Nepa, which applies to any federal action that has significant environmental impact, Margolis said. 'We would argue that review is necessary to protect public health and safety, and Nepa applies,' he added. The Nepa reviews provide a valuable legal avenue for challenges to the worst abuses, and Margolis said the order seems to be a response to arguments he made in which the Center for Biological Diversity sued several federal agencies and SpaceX over launches from the Boca Chica, Texas launch site on the Gulf of Mexico. The site sits next to a sensitive habitat for protected species, like the Kemp's ridley sea turtle, which is on the brink of extinction. SpaceX has launched the largest rockets ever made from the site, and several of those exploded, raining down particulate matter, metal and concrete across the region. The debris caused brush fires and covered homes six miles away in dust. Soundwaves from launches have been known to kill birds and other animals, and SpaceX has been cited by state environmental regulators in Texas for spitting wastewater highly contaminated with mercury into adjacent waters. Still, the FAA has done little to mitigate the damage to the environment, and claimed the issues did not warrant an in depth review. Margolis said SpaceX, with the FAA's blessing, had turned the ecologically sensitive area into a 'sacrifice zone', and the litigation is ongoing. The order also seems designed to aid Musk in his fight with California state regulators who have so far stopped SpaceX from expanding the number of launches along the coastline, in part using their authority under the Coastal Zone Management Act. Trump's order would give federal authorities more power to intervene, and restrict state agencies' decision-making powers. Margolis said this part of the order is also illegal because Trump is again attempting to change the law by decree. 'It's a talking point to show he's supporting industry, but at the end of the day it's not something that can happen the way he says it can happen,' Margolis said.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store