Why, despite the climate crisis, only a few are willing to give up meat and cars

Have you reduced your meat consumption due to the climate crisis?
Dr. Robert Tobias: I have adjusted my meat consumption somewhat and mainly eat so-called waste meat – minced meat or offal. Because I like it so much and also because I regret that it is processed as animal feed. However, the possibility of completely renouncing it was never an option. I have to admit that one of the reasons I eat meat is to spark discussion.

Can you explain that?
It bothers me that the debate on climate-friendly measures focuses on meat consumption and driving. There are several other behavioral changes that will also help – and are easier for many people to implement.

That brings us to the topic. We know that we have to adjust our behavior – in whatever form. Why is the implementation easier for some than for others?
Behind the question lies the fundamental question of what determines human behavior. Why do we behave the way we behave? When answering these questions, we often make it too easy for ourselves. When a person behaves in a way that is harmful to the environment, we automatically assume that the environment is not important to him.

It certainly looks like that…
But it is a misconception and a drastic oversimplification. A person who prefers Swiss products is not automatically an xenophobia either. There are very different reasons and aspects for behavior. The environmental aspect can be important to a person, but because other aspects add up, the environmentally unfriendly behavior turns out to be the best choice.

What are these aspects?
On the one hand there is instrumental aspects – fairly conscious rational considerations of the advantages and disadvantages of a particular action.
Often, however, other factors determine the behavior. This includes the symbolic aspects: With a certain behavior you want to show others and yourself who you are, who you want to be, what you like and what you don’t like. These symbolic aspects have already been explored in relation to cars. The reason many people own a car is often not for practical use, but to be able to show who they are, eg that they are rich, have wealth, is strong.

That explains the impractical cars in the inner city.
Not only that: many cyclists not only ride for fun, but also to show that they are environmentally conscious. Behavior as sign, as image maintenance. But there is another, often underestimated group of influencing factors.

And these are?
The third group of influencing factors are feelings. How pleasant or unpleasant is a certain behaviour? You should know that we humans have to regulate our feelings. We learn that as children. We should try to stay emotionally positive. To achieve this, we exhibit certain behaviors. The classic example is candy after a bad day. Or we watch a movie to relax, because we know we will feel better afterwards. This is how we relieve stress. These behaviors are necessary and we acquire them over the years. It is therefore very difficult for us to change them later. If you order people to do this, you deprive them of a means of regulating their emotions. This is perceived as a threat and they defend themselves against it.

To return to the classic examples: can driving or eating meat be such regulatory acts?
Yes. For many people it is. Many people can regulate their emotions, especially with their diet.

These people will find it very difficult to adjust their actions?
When it comes to nutrition, the group with which you can achieve little or nothing is probably large. This is evidenced by the fact that meat consumption in Switzerland has not really fallen in recent years – even though meat substitute products are booming. It seems like they are just consumed on top.

While driving?
I think there’s more potential there. On the one hand, many trips, for example for commuting, are not so pleasant, and on the other hand, a more efficient use of cars – for example, to travel. B. don’t just drive – not only does it help the environment, but you can also save money and possibly time.

How else do we regulate our emotional balance?
Self-reward, comfort, relaxation, distraction, social exchange – the range of strategies to achieve more positive emotions is wide. Our emotions are weighed down by negative influences every day and with our behavior we try to put ourselves in a positive mood again.

And all in all, can these regulatory measures lead to the paradoxical situation that we act in an environmentally harmful way, while we actually want to protect the climate?
Yes. If we need behaviors that pollute the environment to have positive emotions, preventing depression takes precedence over environmental protection. It can then be difficult to understand why people do not regulate their emotions differently, especially if you use different strategies yourself. So it happens that the person who relieves his stress by cycling cannot understand why the other person adjusts his car to it – and vice versa.

What about outside “help”? Can impassioned drivers be “turned back” by demonstrators trapped and blocking them?
We humans are capable of changing our behaviour. But this is a tedious process that can hardly take place under the pressure of daily stress – especially when the alternatives increase the pressure. That’s why I don’t think anyone who likes to drive can be guided by a blockage. On the contrary. I believe sympathies are lost this way.
Another thing to keep in mind in this context is that if you are successful, there may be imitators, because it can be assumed that there will be basic social acceptance to enforce your will in this way.

The demonstrators feel morally superior, believe it is for a good cause.
I also like the protesters’ goals, but they don’t justify the means. In evaluating the means, one should consider whether one still considers them good if they are used for ends one rejects. In the US, for example, I saw pro-life protesters using blockades in the same way, in this case in front of abortion clinics. Women who wanted an abortion first had to face raging protesters. If I am against such a thing, I cannot approve that measure just because my opinion is now represented.

What good are aggressive educational measures, such as pictures of smokers’ lungs on cigarette packs? Can you imagine such a thing in climate protection? Removed animal stickers from meat products?
Although warnings on cigarette packs seem to increase attempts to quit, these attempts tend to fail. The problem is that other factors come into play, such as habits, norms or advantages and disadvantages compared to alternatives. Simply applying pressure is useless. That is why I do not see any possibilities in connection with climate protection.

What about the much-quoted vegan who always rubs everyone’s face without asking if they’re vegan? Does that work to convince?
That’s more likely – but it depends a lot on how you do something like that. In short, people are strongly influenced by their social environment. But the moment they feel pressured or the other person is trying to dominate them, resistance quickly arises – and resistance. When it comes to nutrition, this moves very quickly. So one has to proceed with caution. It is more successful in other areas. I am thinking of saving electricity or recycling. These themes are less emotional and the symbolic value is smaller. With climate change, where so many behaviors come into play, trying to enforce a behavior is actually a waste of energy. One should not neglect the idea of ​​effectiveness. Why not concentrate our efforts where people are more willing to change?

That sounds a bit sobering – driving and eating meat are big items on the Swiss carbon bill.
When emotions, or what the actions symbolize, get in the way of behavior change, it becomes extremely difficult to achieve. There it makes much more sense to look for other areas. Instead of giving up the car, you can use it more efficiently or make fewer miles; instead of going vegan, you can drink only tap water or exercise less to eat less. There are many options, as most of the actions have a significant impact on the environment.
We cannot ensure that everyone behaves in all areas in a way that has a minimal impact on the environment. Happy. Because we don’t want to live like that, and having that power would bring an unbearable responsibility.
However, we will not be able to solve the problems of the climate crisis or the loss of biodiversity by restricting individual trade alone. It takes more.

You mention institutional measures. Do businesses need laws?
Company law is a powerful tool. If only because the implementation rate is very high compared to measures to change individual behavior and because there is room for companies to come up with new products. But I’m not an economist, I’m just making an estimate.

Is humanity flexible enough from a behavioral psychological point of view to still achieve the climate goals?
Humanity is capable of solving the problems. But we have to get rid of the idea that it’s just individual behavior. We have to keep reminding ourselves that behavior is influenced by various factors – and they are not always obvious to us. Measures are also needed at the structural level – and: We need to reduce population, especially in the countries that have a high impact. Personally, I find the campaigns that we should have more children problematic. On the contrary, a reduction in the size of the population is necessary.
If you can do without meat: great, great! It should be tried and promoted. Only reducing the portions helps. The pleasure does not increase with the amount. But I recommend thinking more diversely. There is more than meat and cars. If we move away from wanting to change very specific behaviors in everyone, and instead have each person across their range of actions changing behaviors that they can change with relative ease, then I believe we can do it with climate.
The only thing I’m skeptical about is the time factor. Human mills turn too slowly for the 1.5 degree target. But we’ll find the rank before it gets really bad.