Este articulo también está disponible en español.
In 1968, Stanford Research Institute scientists Elmer Robinson and R.C. Robbins produced a landmark study for the trade association American Petroleum Institute, which represents the nation’s oil and natural gas industry. The rising levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere would result in rising temperatures at the Earth’s surface, they warned, and in turn that could lead to melting ice caps and rising seas and cause serious environmental impacts. “There seems to be no doubt that the potential damage to our environment could be severe,” they concluded.
Their findings were buried, however — dismissed and later denied for the sake of profit. Meanwhile, CO2 levels have continued to grow exponentially. Misinformation — climate denial — took hold even as the impacts of all that CO2 superseded the climate scientists’ 1960s predictions.
But what would have happened over the past 50 years if the American Petroleum Institute and Big Oil had behaved differently? What if the industry had chosen responsibility over greed and cowardice? What if, in the face of climate denial, the American Petroleum Institute had stood up for the truth?
What if, in the face of climate denial, the American Petroleum Institute had stood up for the truth?
Last fall, the scientific journal Nature published a study that put those questions into sharp perspective. British researchers Steve Westlake, Christina Demski and Nick Pidgeon, all of whom work at the nexus of human psychology and the environmental sciences, wrote that “visible leading by example from politicians and celebrities significantly increases the willingness” of the public to make high-impact, low-carbon choices. In other words, we look up to our leaders and expect them to guide us in making important decisions. According to the authors, this isn’t just true for things like our voting preferences and shopping habits, but also for sustainable activities that sometimes involve the very opposite of shopping — boycotting certain businesses, for example. Such “visible leading,” they argued, is a crucial but often missing link in climate change mitigation.
Obviously, most of us aren’t influential celebrities or politicians. But we can bolster our collective power by modeling sustainable behavior to our peers and to younger, and even to older, generations. For the past decade, for example, my family has opted to fly less and to do so only when necessary. We added solar panels to our home after talking to friends who broke down the cost and benefits over the long run; we also returned native vegetation to our yard, which depends on a rainwater catchment system that was largely subsidized by our city, Tucson, Arizona. The more changes we make, the more invested we become in continuing this behavior. And the more we do, the more collective the changes feel: We’re not only altering our family’s carbon footprint; we are also joining with others and helping to inspire our community.
Behavioral changes have the potential to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, not just from individuals but from entire communities across the West and ultimately across the globe. A 2023 study identified six different interventions to motivate behavior change: educating others by way of providing data; giving feedback on past climate-related behaviors; setting personal goals; urging people to act more sustainably; providing financial incentives; and establishing social comparisons that highlight sustainable behavior wherever it appears. Out of those six, the one with the strongest and most lasting impact has been the last. Social comparison could take the form of witnessing your neighbors’ switch to rooftop solar or listening to your favorite celebrity make a case — perhaps publicly vowing — to fly by private jet less often. Legions of sports and pop music fans might reconsider their choices if their heroes not only talked the talk but also walked the walk. Unfortunately, the opposite holds true as well: If we see others tossing recyclables into the trash, we’re easily inclined to follow their example.
With the right leadership, we can all be encouraged to help address the climate crisis by flying less, eating less meat, improving home energy efficiency and curbing our reliance on gas-guzzling cars. An estimated 74% of people in the U.S. polled by the Pew Research Center in 2021 said they were willing to “make at least some changes to the way they live and work to reduce the effects of climate change.” I’ve been particularly impressed by the mayor of Tucson, Regina Romero, who has prioritized climate resilience in one of the hottest cities in the country. She’s made rooftop solar more accessible for working-class families, and she’s invested in free public transportation while encouraging the restoration of green corridors throughout the city. Many of Tucson’s residents, myself included, have been inspired to adopt more sustainable behaviors simply by becoming aware of Romero’s priorities.
An estimated 74% of people in the U.S. polled by the Pew Research Center in 2021 said they were willing to “make at least some changes to the way they live and work to reduce the effects of climate change.”
From California to Utah to Arizona to New Mexico, and particularly among young people, our behavior has been shifting over the past 20 years. According to research led by Leaf Van Boven of the Department of Psychology and Neuroscience at the University of Colorado Boulder, one of the top three states for new solar panel installations is California. Among the top five states adopting electric vehicles are California, Hawai’i, Washington and Nevada. In Wyoming, Republican Gov. Mark Gordon has been promoting wind, solar and nuclear energy. What if instead of trying to save coal and kill green energy, Republican-led states banded together to promote and fund a serious transition to sustainability?
A lot of behavior changes start at home; our kid learned to recycle and conserve energy and water about the time she learned to walk and talk, simply by watching us. These behaviors can and should be further promoted by schools and by local governments and places of worship. But it’s one thing to achieve individual behavior change and another to achieve systemic or society-wide behavior changes. Still, it’s possible: Imagine if the American Petroleum Institute had acknowledged Big Oil’s impacts on the climate instead of burying them. That kind of leadership would have laid the groundwork for a remarkable systemic behavior change, and its ripple effects would have inspired the rest of us to do our part, as well.
Encounters is a serial column exploring life and landscape during the climate crisis.
We welcome reader letters. Email High Country News at editor@hcn.org or submit a letter to the editor. See our letters to the editor policy.
This article appeared in the May 2025 print edition of the magazine with the headline “Behavior change is society change.”
Republish our articles for free, online or in print, under a Creative Commons license.
