Forget Climate Change Actions if we don’t think incentives

Global climate change dialogues currently rest within a polarised ideological divide, with environmentalists acting for the collective good and climate change sceptics, often free-market conservatives, prioritising individual interests. With emphasis on collective negative repercussions from environmental inaction, conventional models and discourses on environmental dilemmas often suggest trade-offs between individual and collective benefits in solving environmental problems. This notion implies that for cooperation to emerge in such matters, actors/stakeholders must sacrifice individual benefits for collective environmental improvements.

While the Paris Agreement has 196 Parties adopting to limit global warming to less than 2 degrees Celsius, emissions have continued to rise globally by 1.4% per year on average since 2010 (UNEP 2020).

The global North expects the global South to cooperate on climate change actions but under-emphasises the negative financial impacts this may have on the South’s development.

‘A billion people in sub-Saharan Africa (excluding South Africa) were responsible for only 1% of global emissions. Any model expecting them to focus on “zero emissions” immediately is naïve and discriminatory’ (Tongia 2021).

The motivation of the South, which historically pollutes less, may not lie in the perceived collective benefits of a clean global environment. Yet, if the right personalised gains are taken into account (presumably financial incentives), scepticism might prevail, but climate actions will be taken nonetheless.

Instead of environmentalists simply criticising climate change sceptics (e.g. the case of the USA’s government withdrawal from the Paris Agreement in 2017), identifying specific individual interests and providing appropriate incentives to stimulate cooperation is the way to go.

First, understand the contextual conditions for cooperation. Next, determine and provide the right incentives that can leverage cooperation, even among climate change sceptics.

Much of climate advocacy relies on loss framing, the idea that we must act to avoid catastrophe. While this can be persuasive for some, it often leads to fatigue or outright denial. By contrast, gain framing focuses on what can be achieved through climate action: lower energy costs, improved air quality, better transport, and more jobs in clean industries. Research shows that gain framing is more effective when it comes to issues that require behavioural change and broad cooperation. People are more likely to support environmental action when they see a clear, personal benefit. This is especially true in local government, where support from voters and stakeholders can make or break a policy.

Think of Energy-saving bulbs. People buy them not because they want to save the planet but because it saves them the cost of electricity. Everybody wants to save money. The argument on environment and climate change has been overly politicised and seeks to elicit or appeal to the morality of individuals pushing philosophies, as opposed to the benefits that come with climate-conscious behaviour.

This blog is based on research by Dr. Victor Osei Kwadwo. Read full article from https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/00207233.2024.2410608#d1e4164