
Which choices contribute most to climate change? Most people miss the mark, one study found
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'There has been a lot of deliberate confusion out there to support policies that are really out of date," said Brenda Ekwurzel, a climate scientist with the Union of Concerned Scientists, a nonprofit.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.'
___
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Newsweek
9 hours ago
- Newsweek
Anna Paulina Luna Tells Joe Rogan About Her UFO Experience in Air Force
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. During an interview with Joe Rogan on his eponymous Joe Rogan Experience podcast on Wednesday, U.S. Representative Anna Paulina Luna recounted her experience with an unidentified flying object (UFO) while serving in the Air Force. Newsweek reached out to Luna's office for comment via email. Why It Matters Luna, a Florida Republican, has been among lawmakers calling for greater transparency from the federal government, including on UFO investigations. Questions about UFOs have captivated the American public for decades. While many people may associate UFOs with aliens, the government has generally focused on whether the objects are from U.S. adversaries and pose national security risks in its investigations. The government has never confirmed the existence of extraterrestrial life, but theories about the possibility of life outside the planet endure. A YouGov poll from September 2024 found that a majority of Americans—53 percent—believe aliens definitely or probably exist. That poll surveyed 1,135 adults from September 17 to September 20, 2024, and had a margin of error of plus or minus 3.9 percentage points. What To Know On the podcast, Luna, 36, told Rogan that during her time at Portland Air National Guard—where she worked as an airfield manager—she encountered an unidentified anomalous phenomenon (UAP). In efforts to describe a broader range of unexplained sightings, the U.S. government shifted to the term UAP in lieu of UFO, as the latter refers specifically to flying objects. Luna said an airspace incursion occurred one day while she was working. But when she asked a pilot for more information, she said they told her they were not allowed to talk about it, she told Rogan. "No one really wanted to address it, and so from what I gathered, that had likely been a UAP," she said. "So that kind of was my perspective." She said she did not look at it with a "crazy lens of perspective" because she believes "you never know if we're the only ones out there, essentially." U.S. Representative Anna Paulina Luna attends a House Oversight Subcommittee hearing on April 1 in Washington, D.C. U.S. Representative Anna Paulina Luna attends a House Oversight Subcommittee hearing on April 1 in Washington, asked why she did not assume it could have been another country's military craft, but Luna said the way the pilot discussed it made her believe otherwise. "He didn't want to, from what I gather, get taken off flight status, and he was like, 'I really can't discuss it. We couldn't identify it, essentially.' And it had outperformed them," Luna said. The Florida Republican leads a House Oversight Committee on "disclosure," which focuses on government transparency on matters from UFOs to the assassination of President John F. Kennedy. She said the task force was formed after pilots at Eglin Air Force Base came forward to accuse the Air Force of covering up instances of UAP incidents. The panel's investigations have indicated there is technology out there that "would rival what we know currently with physics" and that the U.S. does not have "the ability to reproduce" it. What People Are Saying Luna also said on the podcast: "Based on the photos that I've seen, I'm very confident that there's things out there that have not been created by mankind." The Department of Defense All-Domain Anomaly Resolution Office (AARO) wrote in a June 2024 report: "It is important to underscore that, to date, AARO has discovered no evidence of extraterrestrial beings, activity, or technology." What Happens Next Luna's task force will continue exploring questions about UAPs and other mysteries that have fueled concerns over government transparency.


Politico
13 hours ago
- Politico
NIAID acting director's view of ‘risky research'
THE LAB Dr. Jeffery Taubenberger, acting director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, says conducting so-called gain-of-function research shouldn't be dismissed. He discussed the controversial topic with his boss, NIH Director Jay Bhattacharya, on the latter's 'Director's Desk' podcast this week. What is it? Gain-of-function involves genetically altering pathogens to make them deadlier or more transmissible to better study them. But the research is a lightning rod issue for President Donald Trump and many Republicans in Congress who believe the Covid-19 pandemic was caused by a lab leak stemming from gain-of-function research in Wuhan, China, where the virus first emerged. That thinking puts them at odds with most of the scientific community who believe the virus most likely spilled over from animals into humans. In May, Trump signed an executive order banning all 'present and all future' federal funding for gain-of-function research in countries like China,which Trump said has insufficient research oversight. He also ordered the National Institutes of Health to review and possibly halt experiments the administration believes could endanger Americans' lives. In Congress, Sen. Rand Paul's (R-Ky.) Risky Research Review Act, which hasn't yet been taken up by the full Senate, would create a panel to review funding for gain-of-function research. Not black and white: During the podcast, Bhattacharya asked Taubenberger how the institute should approach gain-of-function research. 'It's not a simple black-and-white issue,' replied Taubenberger, a senior investigator in virology who's a leading expert on the 1918 flu pandemic and sequenced the virus that caused it. He's also co-leading the effort to develop a universal flu vaccine, backed with $500 million from the Trump administration. 'Very reasonable, very well-informed people could fall on opposite sides of the line, wherever you draw the line,' he said. 'Having a wide variety of people with different levels of expertise — not just logic expertise, but safety, national security, all sorts of other questions — having them weigh in on this is really important.' Regardless of where people fall, gain-of-function work shouldn't be shut down, he said. 'Work on nasty bugs that have the potential to kill people, for which we want to develop better therapeutics, diagnostics, prognostics, treatments and preventatives, needs to happen. That's important for global health. It's important for U.S. health,' Taubenberger said. But that research has to be done very carefully, with oversight and should be evaluated on a risk-benefit basis, he warned. While the pandemic turbocharged the issue, the controversy over gain-of-function predates Covid-19. The government paused funding for the research roughly a decade ago, Taubenberger pointed out, while they put stronger oversight mechanisms in place. 'I favor this kind of work being done, where possible, in U.S. government labs, by U.S. government scientists, monitored by U.S. government safety officials and regulators — with openness and transparency.' What didn't come up in conversation: The implementation of Trump's executive order hasn't gone as smoothly as the podcast discussion might have suggested. A July post on the NIH's X account implied that staff at the NIAID had acted inappropriately by omitting certain grants while compiling a list of potentially dangerous gain-of-function research experiments in compliance with the order. Contacted by POLITICO at the time, an official at HHS described the behavior as 'malicious compliance' and said the administration wouldn't tolerate it. NIH Principal Deputy Director Matt Memoli, according to The Washington Post, overrode staff by classifying tuberculosis studies NIH reviewers deemed safe as potentially dangerous gain-of-function research. WELCOME TO FUTURE PULSE Former Texas Gov. Rick Perry and former Sen. Kyrsten Sinema (I-Ariz.) described undergoing mental health treatment with the psychedelic drug ibogaine to the New York Times. Share any thoughts, news, tips and feedback with Ruth Reader at rreader@ or Erin Schumaker at eschumaker@ Want to share a tip securely? Message us on Signal: RuthReader.02 or ErinSchumaker.01. TECH MAZE Under Gov. Gavin Newsom, California has moved faster than other states to regulate artificial intelligence, including signing a bill last year barring health insurers in the state from using AI to deny claims. Now, a prominent AI company is urging the Democratic governor to consider a less rigid regulatory approach. In a letter to Newsom, obtained by our POLITICO colleagues at California Decoded, OpenAI suggests that California should consider AI companies that sign onto national and international AI agreements as compliant with state AI rules. The letter, dated Monday, from OpenAI's Chief Global Affairs Officer Chris Lehane, comes as Sacramento continues to debate key AI legislation, including Democratic state Sen. Scott Wiener's bill SB 53, which would require large AI developers to publish safety and security protocols on their websites. Lehane recommended that 'California take the lead in harmonizing state-based AI regulation with emerging global standards' when it comes to the technology, dubbing it the California Approach. World view: OpenAI and other developers have already signed, or plan to sign, onto the EU's AI code of practice and have committed to conducting national security-related assessments of their programs. Lehane said that 'we encourage the state to consider frontier model developers compliant with its state requirements when they sign onto a parallel regulatory framework like the [European Union's] CoP or enter into a safety-oriented agreement with a relevant US federal government agency.' Newsom spokesperson Tara Gallegos said, 'We have received the letter. We don't typically comment on pending legislation.' Worth noting: The EU code is a voluntary way for companies to comply with the bloc's AI Act and is nonbinding in the U.S., which has no equivalent. Commitments to work with federal regulators don't necessarily cover all the areas, like deepfakes or chatbots, where Sacramento wants to regulate AI. But the letter offers Newsom something of an off-ramp, after he vetoed Wiener's broader AI safety bill last year that would have required programs to complete prerelease safety testing. Last week, Newsom spoke with cautious positivity about Wiener's effort this year, saying it was in the spirit of an expert report on AI regulation he commissioned. But SB 53 — which would establish whistleblower protections for AI workers and require companies to publish their own internal safety testing — still faces opposition from the tech industry. Lehane's letter puts an industry-sponsored solution on the governor's desk. He framed the simplified California Approach as a way to give 'democratic AI' an edge in the race with Chinese-built programs by removing unnecessary regulation, a key priority for the Trump administration. 'Imagine how hard it would have been during the Space Race had California's aerospace and technology industries been encumbered by regulations that impeded rapid innovation,' Lehane wrote.


New York Times
13 hours ago
- New York Times
How Scientists Are Using Drones to Study Sperm Whales
In the waters off Dominica in the Caribbean, a drone descends from the sky toward a sperm whale. Instead of dropping a tag from above, this drone will press against the whale's back to attach a specialized sensor. The tag's suction cups will stick to the whale's skin, allowing the device to record audio of these marine mammals communicating. The technique, which researchers call tap-and-go, is described in a new study published in the journal PLOS One on Wednesday. The findings demonstrate that the approach is a possible way to gather vital scientific data while minimizing the disturbance to whales. 'This is definitely the future,' said Jeremy Goldbogen, a marine biologist at Stanford University who was not involved with the research. 'It's really exciting to see these new innovations,' he said. Scientists have long used a traditional tagging method that involves standing on a boat's prow and using a 20-foot pole to attach the tag to the whale. But the boat's noisiness and proximity to the whales can cause them stress. The method also takes a lot of time and coordination, said Daniel Vogt, a research engineer at Harvard and the lead author of the study. 'We always wanted to improve this method,' he said of traditional tagging. Drones, in comparison, allow scientists to reach the whale from a distance, and more quickly. 'We want to reduce the disturbance to the animal while improving the quality of the data that we collect,' Mr. Vogt said. In recent years, drone technology has changed the way scientists study whales. Drones offer more than eyes in the sky: They can identify and measure individual whales, compare their behavior at the sea surface and even collect biological samples. By flying through the clouds of vapor, or 'blow,' that whales emit when they surface to breathe, drones can gather information about the whale's genetics, hormones and microbiomes. Want all of The Times? Subscribe.