New study: Underestimation of personal carbon footprint negatively affects climate policy

Most people are aware of the vast difference in the average carbon footprint between the Global North and South. Major disparities also exist within countries – even in Denmark, which is usually considered to be a relatively egalitarian society. In Denmark one person from the wealthiest percentage of the population emits about as much CO2 per year as more than 15 people from the least wealthy half of the population combined. 

New research nonetheless indicates that we greatly underestimate carbon footprint inequality between various income segments.

In a study just published in the scientific journal Nature Climate change researchers examined people’s perceptions of personal carbon footprint inequality across four countries: Denmark, India, Nigeria and the US. CBS Assistant Professor Kristian Steensen Nielsen is one of the authors of the study, which concludes that people generally underestimate within-country inequality in personal carbon footprints. This misperception has implications for their support of climate policies, while greater awareness of the inequality can lead to increased support for more ambitious climate policies.

The more the inequality is underestimated, the less support for climate action

The study is based on an online survey with 4,003 participants from three different income segments in four countries. Half of the participants had an income above the top 10% within the country, while the other half had an income below the top 10%. Participants were asked to estimate their own and the other two groups’ average carbon footprint, and also to state their attitude toward various climate actions.

The results showed that most participants overestimated the CO2 emissions of the bottom 50% and underestimated the emissions of the top 10% and 1%. In addition the study showed that the more participants underestimated the carbon footprint inequality, the less they supported climate action. 

”Underestimating how significant the difference in our CO2 emissions is, indicates a serious problem. It leads to a distorted view of climate justice and weakens support for climate action, says Nielsen.

The researchers also found that the more well-off the participants were, the more they perceived carbon footprint inequality among the income segments as fair. 

Furthermore, the study concluded that the high-income group was more supportive of subsidy schemes but less likely to support policies that regulate behaviour, which is a trend that reflects a broader perspective.

Many people accept the status quo and do not question the existing discourse

Kristian Steensen Nielsen, researcher

According to Nielsen the political climate initiatives that are being implemented are a reflection of the influence that comes with wealth.

“The wealthier part of Denmark has a disproportionately big influence on politics, organisations and media narratives. This influence makes it possible to control the climate action narrative and which solutions are prioritised. For regular people, who are not experts in climate change, it is difficult to see through and oppose these narratives due to the complex nature of the issue, the numbers involved and the amount of proposed solutions. Consequently, many people accept the status quo and do not question the existing discourse.”

According to Nielsen this highlights the importance of understanding misinterpretations of carbon emission inequality to be able to implement effective climate policies and promote climate justice. 

The broadest shoulders should bear the heavier burden

Climate change is a global problem but there are significant differences in who causes it – therefore not everyone should bear equal responsibility for contributing to the solutions. Our lifestyle has a major impact on our personal carbon footprint, explains Nielsen: 

“Two people with the same amount of wealth, say ten million Danish kroner, can of course live two fundamentally different lives. Some spend their money flying around the world and living in a big house while others live in a smaller, energy efficient house and don’t frequently travel by plane. In theory there could be major differences in the CO2 footprints for people with the same level of wealth. In general however, we see that wealth has a big influence on the size of the individual CO2 footprint.”

This is why Nielsen believes that those with the broadest shoulders should take on the most responsibility for contributing to the climate change mitigation. He highlights targeted policy initiatives that can address those who emit the most:

“If you really want to reduce society’s carbon footprint and some people emit significantly more than others, then there’s greater potential in reducing their emissions,” clarifies Nielsen, who also points out the importance of having a discussion about the inequality in CO2 emission, stating:

“While a greater awareness of inequality won’t necessarily lead to immediate policy changes, it represents an opportunity. Initially, it’s important that we discuss whether the distribution of our carbon emissions is fair and what policy actions we should take.”

Policy initiatives don’t hit the mark

In Denmark technological development is often seen as a way to mitigate the climate change. Unfortunately, this approach is not necessarily fair to everyone. Energy efficiency initiatives primarily benefit those who can afford to adapt, explains Nielsen. This creates a situation in which the wealthy can reduce their carbon footprint without changing their lifestyle, for instance through government subsidy schemes for installing solar panels or buying electric cars. However, as Nielsen points out, it is mainly society’s most affluent who benefit from these initiatives, causing an imbalance in the collective effort to combat climate change. 

Nielsen expresses what the problem with price-based initiatives is: “There’s a bias because people with high incomes find it easier to adapt to price-based policies because they do not affect them to the same extent,” adding that:

“If you take away the only holiday that a family takes, it will affect their wellbeing more than if someone gives up their 28th flight of the year. Similarly, it’s generally easier to change behaviour if you are more financially comfortable. You can pay to energy optimise your home or you can switch to a plant-based diet and outsource the process.”

It’s time to redefine what constitutes the good life    

The question is how we can push the agenda to get people to reduce their personal carbon footprint.

Nielsen proposes introducing climate taxes that have a recycling effect. This would mean returning revenue from CO2 emissions back to the people.

Overall it is important to focus on the areas with the greatest potential for improvement. We need to establish a framework that makes climate friendly behaviour more accessible and attractive than habits that produce excessive carbon emissions. Examples can be seen in a Copenhagen neighbourhood called Nordhavn, where the infrastructure is designed to promote cycling instead of traveling by car.

Changes are also happening in the food sector. According to Nielsen local authorities, including the City of Copenhagen, are working to increase the availability of vegetarian meals in public canteens and schools. This exposes people to healthier dietary choices, which can lead to behavioural changes in the long run. Getting everyone on board requires initiatives in both the physical and social environment.

Regarding long-distance transport we are facing some major challenges. While aviation fuel is tax-free, the European rail network has not been sufficiently invested in, which skews the competition in the transport sector. Rectifying this requires significant investments by European state actors.

The ideal of the good life in our society is inherently CO2 intensive

Kristian Steensen Nielsen, researcher

More generally Nielsen points out that our perception of the good life is often characterised by a materialistic lifestyle that glorifies the wealthiest among us.

“It can be anything from a famous musician, a politician or an influencer who lives a highly materialistic and thus CO2-intensive life. Many see being able to afford to travel and buy expensive things as a status symbol and as something worth aspiring to. The ideal of the good life in our society is inherently CO2 intensive, which is why, in reality, it’s perhaps necessary to redefine what constitutes the good life.”

Read the full article in Nature Climate Change to learn more. 

Contakt: 

Student Assistant Anders Nørland: an.slk@cbs.dk 

Assistant Professor Kristian Steensen Nielsen: ksn.msc@cbs.dk