These changes are real and so significant that it is no wonder that some of the lawmakers Westlake interviewed said they were more interested in reducing emissions through technological advances than through behavioral change. But emissions from food, aviation, households, etc. have proven more stubborn, and these are areas where behavioral change can play a bigger role.
Westlake asked council members how they felt about encouraging low-carbon behavior. Two said they thought it would be seen as “virtue signaling,” while others worried they’d be seen as environmental extremists when asked about reducing emissions. “I think we try to set an example of sorts, but we don’t want to be too sanctimonious,” one said.
I think that anonymous lawmaker expressed what many of us intuitively feel: we compare our behavior to those around us, to public figures, and feel criticized when our behavior doesn’t match up. If my neighbors have solar panels installed and I don’t, they’re sure to assume I don’t care much about the environment. When faced with these thorny moral questions, it’s easier for lawmakers, or leaders of any kind, to preach what we can do to reduce emissions without requiring a moral reckoning about our actions.
But this misses the point: our decisions about climate change and our individual actions. do There’s a moral component. I’m not saying someone is a bad person because they take an extra flight each year, but their moral obligations to other people, and to future generations, should at least be part of the decision-making calculus. Westlake says this serves an important purpose: instead of chastising people for going on holiday, it draws attention to those whose lifestyles are actually having very high carbon impacts.
I think about this dynamic a lot when it comes to food, and especially beef alternatives. Beef has a disproportionately large carbon footprint compared to most other foods. Many people hope that if they can make plant-based burgers cheap and tasty, they can get meat eaters to switch en masse to plant-based alternatives. When you attend alternative protein conferences, no one talks about the ethics of meat-eating. But I suspect that’s a big motivator for many of the attendees. They think that argument won’t convince anyone to proselytize to, say, a pea protein burger.
Maybe they’re right. But I think ignoring the moral components of climate decisions significantly limits the overall scope of addressing the climate issue. Morality should not be all or even a significant part of decision-making, nor should we expect people to be morally consistent. Morality is not the whole climate issue, but it’s not strictly a footnote either.
“We need to normalize the decision-making process of, ‘Do I take that flight?’” Westlake says. “That doesn’t mean stopping anything, but it means making decisions that take into account the climate impact.” And that’s part of why leaders really matter, in Westlake’s view. It matters that Taylor Swift endorses Kamala Harris, it matters that Taylor Swift takes short flights on a private jet. If we accept that we should all think about our actions in terms of climate change, it follows that some people should be much more careful than others.
And this has to do with lawmakers being cautious about encouraging behavioral change. One lawmaker Westlake spoke to was reluctant to cut back on air travel, saying it would be unfair to prevent his family from taking an annual trip abroad. When behavioral change is covered in the press, it is often couched in absolute terms: stop eating meat, stop flying, stop driving. But ignoring behavioral change altogether misses the point of focusing on wealthy outliers who Westlake calls “discriminatory liability.” Rather than balking at the prospect of behavioral change, perhaps those in charge should focus on their fellow leaders.
