Atmospheric carbon is a major source of environmental destruction by means of climate change. Behaviors that generate especially high levels of carbon (high-carbon behaviors) include driving gasoline-fueled cars, flying in airplanes, and eating meat. In contrast, low-carbon behaviors involve alternatives such as taking trains or adopting plant-based diets. Politicians often address technological solutions to climate change rather than asking businesses or constituents to change their behaviors. Yet, climate change scientists urge the need for behavioral changes now, as opposed to waiting for future technologies to save our planet.

The authors of this study suggest that politicians who talk about fighting climate change can build credibility with constituents by demonstrating low-carbon behaviors. Credibility refers to the perception of qualities such as commitment, trustworthiness, and honesty. At the same time, prior research has identified a form of backlash called “do-gooder derogation,” in which people feel threatened by overtly moral behavior that makes them feel judged for their own lifestyles. Noting that politicians rarely show off low-carbon behavior, the researchers set out to interview Members of Parliament (MPs) in the U.K. to better understand their apparent hesitancy.

All 650 sitting U.K. MPs were emailed an invitation to be interviewed. Of these, 24 responded and 19 went through with the interview process. The final sample had a total of 16 males and three females from the following parties:

• Five Conservative
• 10 Labour
• One Liberal Democrat
• One Plaid Cymru
• Two Democratic Unionist Party

The interviews were conducted between August and October 2019, a period which included Brexit negotiations and Boris Johnson entering the role of Prime Minister. While certainly not a representative sample, a relatively broad range of opinions were captured through the interviews, though the authors caution that some MPs may not have been fully candid since complete anonymity couldn’t be guaranteed.

Politicians Reluctant To Lead By Example

Most of the interviewed MPs broadly supported societal action on climate change. Two were “skeptical” and one didn’t believe that humans cause climate change.

While most MPs said they believed in leading by example, and two-thirds said they consciously tried to reduce their carbon footprint, only two said they publicized their low-carbon behaviors to set an example for others.

Most MPs were more focused on not appearing hypocritical — not being caught displaying overtly high-carbon behaviors — than they were on setting an example of their overtly low-carbon behaviors. The two skeptical MPs were especially vocal about disliking hypocritical behavior from climate advocates.

MPs worried that signaling low-carbon behaviors would be viewed with suspicion, inviting unwanted scrutiny and misrepresentation of their efforts. For example, several MPs feared that by attracting attention to their low-carbon behaviors, media outlets would try to catch them slipping up. Two MPs referenced media backlash against Prince Harry for flying in a private jet despite being a vocal climate advocate.

MPs also worried about making voters feel lectured about their own relatively infrequent high-carbon behaviors, such as flying once a year for a vacation. The authors point out that these MPs only seemed to consider how their low-carbon behavior might appear privileged to low-income voters, ignoring their potential to influence high-income voters who do fly more frequently.

Several MPs expressed preference for technological solutions that didn’t ask for major sacrifices from voters or businesses, neither of whom they wanted to alienate. These MPs explicitly contrasted their views on low-carbon behavior with what they saw as “extreme” or “radical” stances, such as nobody ever flying on an airplane again.

Takeaways

The views expressed in the interviews didn’t neatly fall along party lines. Most MPs appeared to view low-carbon behaviors as ways to passively maintain credibility rather than actively build it. They didn’t want to go too far outside of social norms or disrupt the status quo. These MPs wished to avoid accusations of “virtue signaling.” They saw their role as pushing for change through policies and regulations rather than setting a personal example.

The authors point out that, despite the MPs’ fear of backlash from constituents, public polls routinely find that climate change is one of voters’ top concerns. Thus, MPs may be overestimating potential backlash from constituents, or perhaps they’re responding more to potential backlash from colleagues and media than from their constituents.

By operating under the assumption that low-carbon behaviors will be perceived as privileged and self-serving, self-censoring politicians and ordinary citizens may inadvertently reinforce stigma against low-carbon behaviors and keep these behaviors from becoming normalized. Advocates who wish to promote animal-free diets as a form of low-carbon behavior can instead choose to lead by example in their own spheres of influence. By being visible and open about their beliefs and behaviors without veering into judgmental or self-serving territory, advocates can break the stigma of animal-free diets as “weird” or out of reach.

Furthermore, citizens can contact their government representatives to make clear their desire to see them lead by example with low-carbon behaviors. Advocacy groups can shift the conversation away from the problems associated with asking too much of low-income people and towards the need to ask much more of wealthy individuals and corporations. Finally, both creators and consumers of media can shift media culture towards promoting solutions rather than shaming climate-conscious individuals for every moment of perceived hypocrisy. Ultimately, both individual behavioral changes and systemic reforms are necessary pieces for solving the puzzle of climate change.