Encouraging people to eat less meat, give up their cars, or refrain from flying may seem obvious in climate work. But new research warns that such regulatory measures can have the opposite effect—even among those who want to and already try to live eco-friendly lives.
Researchers claim that changing lifestyle habits can play a decisive role in the climate transition. According to the UN’s climate panel, emissions could decrease sharply by 2050 if people change how they travel, eat, and consume energy. However, the panel has not escaped criticism.
Now, a recent scientific study indicates that political measures targeting individuals’ everyday choices risk creating unwanted side effects. Instead of strengthening environmental engagement, these policies may, in some cases, weaken it.
When Goodwill Is Met with Resistance
The study is based on an extensive survey involving over 3,000 participants in Germany. The researchers analyzed attitudes toward climate policy measures and compared them with reactions to restrictions during the corona pandemic.
The results show that even people who are positive about and already trying to lead sustainable lives can react negatively when policy is perceived as coercive. This phenomenon is often called a “crowding-out effect,” where the feeling of being controlled overrides one’s own motivation.
READ ALSO: Criticism of Climate Reporting: Focus on Emissions Increase – But Sweden May Have Net CO2 Uptake
An individual who cycles to work, uses public transportation, and saves energy at home can nonetheless have strong negative reactions when, for example, car bans are introduced in city centers.
Climate Measures Trigger Stronger Anger than Pandemic Regulations
One particularly striking conclusion from the study is that resistance to climate-related mandates was considerably higher than to restrictions during the pandemic. The researchers observed over 50 percent stronger negative reactions to climate measures—even though pandemic regulations also sparked widespread protests worldwide.
The research group considers this a warning sign. The technical knowledge for a fossil-free society largely already exists, but understanding how to design socially accepted and politically sustainable climate measures lags behind.
Design Determines Whether Policy Is Accepted
Despite the critical results, there are also bright spots. Resistance was much lower when people felt that measures were genuinely effective, did not unnecessarily restrict freedom of choice, and were not perceived as privacy-infringing.
One example is the restriction of short-haul flights in Germany, which faces less resistance than many other climate measures. A possible explanation is that there are viable alternatives in the form of a well-developed rail network.
Climate Transition Requires More Than Bans
The researchers behind the study emphasize that climate policy isn’t just about technology and targets—but also about how the changes are communicated and implemented. If people feel steamrolled, even ambitious climate strategies risk losing popular support.
But symbolic, poor, and overly invasive climate policies are such, no matter how they are packaged. If they are communicated in an alarmist or misleading way, or in a manner that reveals the message has been tailored due to underestimating ordinary people as a bit foolish, it risks backfiring in the long run and creating public distrust toward every green policy proposal.
The conclusion is clear: for climate policy to succeed in the long term, it must not only reduce emissions but also strengthen—rather than undermine—people’s willingness to contribute to the transition.