Why are Quebecers delaying drastically reducing their greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, despite repeated warnings from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and experts on the climate emergency? ? Let’s be frank: we, the individuals, are the main contributors to these GHGs, much more than companies or the government. From an economic point of view, at least three reasons explain this behavioral inertia.
Posted at 10:00 a.m.
First, the climate emergency is only one element among many influencing our individual choices. When a person considers the purchase of a vehicle, a trip, or any other action emitting a lot of GHGs, he compares his appreciation of the advantages (features, earned income, pleasure, etc.) with the costs (price, time, GHGs emitted, etc.), then goes ahead when the former surpass the latter. For example, the average Quebecer knows that his SUV harms the environment, but also that his vehicle performs well in winter and significantly reduces the costs related to potholes – much more immediate than those of GHGs. Until product prices include the full costs of GHGs emitted, few people will make real efforts to minimize their emissions.
Second, our cognitive biases and deficiencies make it difficult to appreciate the lasting impact of our day-to-day behaviors.
The average human clearly prefers the short term to the distant future, of which he has a vague and uncertain perception. Barring extremely rare exceptions, it is practically impossible for him to understand the overall impact (therefore, the long-term damage) of his small daily actions. One solution among others: a label on each good indicating the GHGs emitted to produce it and generated by its use.
Finally, our life is governed by habits and constraints that are difficult to change overnight. For example, anyone using a conventional automobile should transition to a carbon-neutral mode of transport as soon as possible, otherwise minimize their trips and offset their emissions with carbon credits. How quickly can these major shifts realistically be made, especially without massive inducement from the state? Moreover, “net zero” technological options remain limited or completely non-existent for several fields of human activity.
To reduce GHG emissions, there are two main and realistic ways: to reduce energy consumption per dollar of economic output and, above all, to eliminate the net GHG emitted per unit of energy consumed.
As far as individuals are concerned, the logical approach consists in favoring (strongly) the adoption of clean technologies, both through positive incentives for them and negative ones for those emitting a lot of GHGs. While the government must be in charge of tax measures and other initiatives put in place for these purposes, businesses must also help encourage the adoption of behaviors and technologies leading to a carbon-neutral economy.
However, a second approach is also required, more subtle, but nevertheless fundamental: to minimize the obstacles to the adoption of these clean technologies. An example: in the early 1900s, electric vehicles already existed in the United States. However, two decades later they had all but disappeared due to a lack of charging infrastructure.1. Without considerable investment to improve the supply of charging stations, many will remain reluctant to part with their gasoline engine. Given the urgency of transitioning our economies and our lives to “net zero” mode, let’s not let history sadly repeat itself.
1. The role of energy infrastructure in shaping early adoption of electric and gasoline carsJ. Taalbi and H. Nielsen, NatureEnergy, 6, 2021, p. 970–976