快猫短视频

Politicians will have to consider making people eat less meat and fly less, because individuals won鈥檛 voluntarily change their lifestyles enough to deliver their fair share of carbon emissions cuts.

That is the message from a four-year study of more than 300 European households on their attitudes and carbon footprints.

The study found that people were willing to make lifestyle changes to reduce emissions, but voluntary cuts would deliver only half of the 50 per cent emissions reductions that households worldwide will need to make by 2030 to hit the world鈥檚 1.5掳C climate target.

For example, when it comes to transport, people chose incremental actions with a relatively small impact on their carbon footprint, such as driving more efficiently, rather than stopping driving or reducing long-distance flights. Only 4 per cent of households would voluntarily give up their car.

Too much meat

Food and transport together accounted for more than 60 per cent of the participants鈥� emissions, bigger than energy use and other consumption such as shopping. The results suggest more strict government policy is needed to deal with cars, planes and meat-eating.

鈥淲e have scores of policies on heat and electricity, and to an extent transport. We have hardly anything on diet or aviation,鈥� says Benjamin Sovacool at the University of Sussex, UK, one of the paper鈥檚 authors.

People are more resistant to changes on transport because it is so closely tied to personal values, the paper suggests. One German interviewee explained he wanted to study or work abroad because it would look good on his CV. 鈥淚t sounds better than saying: Oh well, yes, this guy is organic, he is climate-friendly, he decided to stay at home and not pollute the air,鈥� he said.

鈥淲e are entering territory that is very much taboo,鈥� says Sovacool. 鈥淭he things we may have to force or nudge people to do are more intertwined with identity. They are stickier, harder to change.鈥�

People were more willing to voluntarily change what they eat, according to the research, which saw households in France, Germany, Norway and Sweden take part in a series of hours-long interviews and games, and have their carbon footprints mapped. Eating less fish and meat and more locally produced foods were among the most popular actions, although in some cases the latter can result in a net increase in emissions.

The most surprising thing for Sovacool was that where people lived had little bearing. 鈥淚 thought there would be significant differences by geography, between countries.鈥� But it emerged there was hardly any difference from location, although the French households鈥� share of emissions from food was slightly higher because of their high red-meat consumption.

Ultimately, however, people aren鈥檛 willing to change their lives enough without being forced to by the government. The authors stop short of advocating for specific measures, such as a meat tax, which some research has recommended.

While the four countries examined might seem relatively green-minded, the conclusions could apply to any rich country, the authors say.

Adam Corner of the聽 Climate Outreach group in Oxford, UK, said the research was useful because it shines a light on which household behaviours have the most impact, and the fact people are reluctant to make changes that reduce emissions the most.

Sovacool says we must all recognise we have a dual role to play in climate change. 鈥淭oo often we are seen as the cause of the problem, or part of the solution. The truth is we are both.鈥�