How to bridge the gap between what we say and what we do on climate change

It seemed like a good idea: a network of streets with reduced traffic, linked up to allow more children to cycle to school safely. It would reduce air pollution and help tackle child obesity simultaneously. Yet when the Ballsbridge to Terenure “quietway” was presented to a meeting of residents in the affluent suburb of Rathgar, all hell broke loose. One local announced that he had brought “his constitutional lawyer” and that the removal of on-street parking – which was not part of the proposal in any case – was a breach of his rights under Bunreacht na hÉireann.

The death of the quietway proposal in 2017 points to a problem that those involved in environmental policy know all too well: the gap between people’s acceptance of the need to change to more sustainable lifestyles and their reluctance to take any action to do so. The behavioural scientists who study this issue call it the “say-do gap”. In Ireland, this gap is vast.

The Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) “Climate Change in the Irish Mind” study has found a huge majority of Irish people (95pc) accept climate change is happening and support government action to tackle it (79pc).

Indeed, looking at some of the research on attitudes to climate change, you might be lulled into thinking we lived in a paradise of EV-driving vegetarians. But look a little closer and it becomes clear that, when it comes to the environment, we talk like Scandinavians, but we act (and vote) more like Americans.

This week’s ESRI report on the difficulties in getting people to change their modes of transport and diet is another example. Half of adults refuse to change their driving or eating habits to reduce the emissions they produce.

So how can we bridge the say-do gap?

A good first step is to increase people’s climate literacy. The EPA survey found only 5pc of people could differentiate between climate change and other environmental issues such as ozone depletion and acid rain.

The ESRI report noted that Irish people were not aware of the climate impact of their diet: only 4pc of those surveyed knew that a diet high in meat and dairy contributes to climate change. And 20pc of us are unaware of the environmental impact of driving.

Unlike the US, UK and Australia, Ireland has not become polarised on the issue of climate change – yet. There is worrying evidence that the far right is beginning to undermine the public consensus on the need for climate action.

A report by the Institute for Strategic Dialogue found conspiracy theorists on social media are moving on from lockdowns, vaccines and immigration and are beginning to target climate policies.

We see increased division, resistance and rancour over relatively minor emissions-reduction and environmental initiatives, from the bottle return scheme to the Sandymount cycle lane to Dublin’s traffic plan.

There is a communications space around these issues, in which they are debated and contested. The Government needs to occupy this space and fill it with good information. If it doesn’t, it will be ceded to others whose motives are to delay climate action and continue business as usual.

Increasing the public’s knowledge of climate science has an important side benefit: it ‘inoculates’ people against misinformation campaigns and conspiracy theories (such as the one that portrays 15-minute cities as a dystopian hellscape of restricted movement).

A greater understanding of where our emissions come from would help people make better choices. For instance, the ESRI report finds Irish people do not have a good knowledge of the emissions caused by home energy use.

We need to rethink how we are communicating about climate change and environmental policies. Too often, they are portrayed in terms of sacrifice and penalties, of having to “give up” something or having to deprive ourselves of something or pay more for it.

We need to talk more about what awaits us once we have reduced our emissions: a fairer, cleaner, more sustainable and biodiverse country. We need to focus on the benefits that come with climate action, such as better air quality, better public health and vastly improved energy and transport systems.

We need to have an honest conversation about the Friesian in the room – agriculture. The ESRI notes that there has been no government information campaign about the carbon impact of different dietary choices, and the Climate Action Plan contains no measures to persuade people to reduce their meat and dairy intake.

That’s because such a conversation, and such an information campaign, would be politically difficult, given the power of the agriculture lobby. Remember what happened to Leo Varadkar when he had the gall to say he was considering reducing his meat consumption on health grounds?

The Department of Environment, Climate and Communications recently began a “Year of Engagement” on climate change, with the tagline “Climate actions work”. This aims to showcase some of the local projects happening all over the country and to give people the information they need to navigate their way to that better Ireland. It can’t come soon enough.

Dr Dave Robbins is co-director of the DCU Centre for Climate and Society (dcu.ie/climate)