Climate Change Research

Caring about climate is not enough. It never was. A major review just published in Nature Climate Change, by Kelly Fielding and Matthew Hornsey, makes this case with unusual clarity. Across 125 countries, strong majorities express willingness to act on climate. Yet actual behavior remains stubbornly low. The gap between intention and action is not a communication failure. It is a systems failure. The review proposes a tripartite framework of mechanisms that explain why climate-friendly intentions so rarely translate into behavior: intrapersonal, social, and structural. Intrapersonal mechanisms include cognitive biases, emotion-based drivers, and behavioral habits. Our brains are wired for immediacy, not for diffuse, long-term threats. We discount future costs. We underestimate how much regret we will feel for inaction. We overestimate how inconvenient change will be. Social mechanisms involve norms, identity, and visibility. We look to others to calibrate what is normal, what is acceptable, what is worth doing. When climate action is invisible or socially risky, intentions collapse. And then there are structural mechanisms, the ones that politics consistently ignores. Cost. Convenience. Institutional trust. These are not soft variables. They are the architecture within which all individual motivation either succeeds or fails. You can have the strongest climate intention in the world and still be blocked by infrastructure that makes the sustainable option slower, more expensive, and less reliable. This is where the review gets politically uncomfortable. Self-reported intentions explained only 5% of the variance in actual pro-environmental behavior. Five percent. The remaining 95% is shaped by the systems people inhabit, not the values they hold. From an Eco-Affective Health perspective, this matters enormously. We have spent decades trying to change minds. The evidence says we also need to change cities, supply chains, financial systems, and governance structures. Affect, motivation, and identity are real forces, but they operate inside structural containers that either enable or constrain them. Closing the intention-behavior gap is not a psychology project. It is a political project that needs psychology. The intervention toolbox is there. Implementation intentions, peer modelling, block leaders, default green options, financial incentives, participatory governance. Effect sizes are documented. The knowledge exists. What is missing is the political will to deploy it at scale. Article link: https://lnkd.in/dhemQvSc Follow our work at ewahlab.com #EWAHLab #EcoAffectiveHealth #ClimateAction #BehaviorChange #ClimatePolitics #PlanetaryHealth #ClimateMentalHealth #EnvironmentalPsychology #GlobalMentalHealth #SystemsChange

For decades, climate policymakers have been navigating with the wrong models. Economic forecasts told us the energy transition would be slow, the cost of renewables would fall gradually, and the transition would be expensive. All of that was wrong, and wrong in a way that favored inaction. Professor Doyne Farmer has spent 50 years building a different approach: one where the decisions of millions of individual firms, their responses to shocks, and the cascading impacts across supply chains can finally be seen and modeled. That's what his new company @Macrocosm is building: a simulation engine for economic decision-making at a moment when the stakes couldn't be higher. I recently sat down with Doyne and my former Boston Consulting Group (BCG) colleague Sophia Davies to explore the science, the evidence, and what it means for institutions navigating the climate transition.

In our latest article in Nature Climate Change, we argue that we have reached the limits of voluntary climate action and need to move towards rigorous, cohesive, and fair ground rules to overcome the obstructionism that holds back a just climate transition. From its origins in climate science, ‘net zero’ has moved quickly to become a global goal and a target that individual countries, local governments, companies, and other actors have committed to achieve. Weighted by annual revenue, net-zero targets now cover nearly 80% of the largest 2,000 publicly traded companies globally. However, the robustness of these targets varies substantially, with major emitters frequently backtracking when the economic mood music changes. Despite their shortcomings, voluntary commitments can, under the right conditions, pave the way for mandatory rules. Indeed, in the climate realm, we are already starting to see the beginnings of such a ‘conveyor belt’. Such mandatory rules are less easily reversible, level the playing field, and benefit from stronger enforcement mechanisms. We are just at the start of that unprecedented regulatory challenge, however. Ultimately, net zero will need to be woven through the rules that structure the economy. Policymakers, regulators, and companies will need to turn the groundswell of voluntary action into rigorous, cohesive, and fair ground rules for the economy. The full article is freely available here: https://rdcu.be/dD5T3 This research is joint work with co-lead author Thomas Hale and an Oxford-based multidisciplinary team of experts: Selam Kidane Abebe, Ph.D., Myles Allen, Amir Amel-Zadeh, John Armour, Kaya Axelsson, Ben Caldecott, Lucilla Dias, Sam Fankhauser, Benjamin Franta, Cameron Hepburn, Kennedy Mbeva, Lavanya Rajamani, Steve Smith & Rupert Stuart-Smith – united in a new initiative called the Oxford Net Zero Regulation and Policy Hub. It is a collaborative effort between the Oxford Sustainable Law Programme (itself a joint initiative of the Faculty of Law, University of Oxford and the Smith School of Enterprise and the Environment - University of Oxford at the University of Oxford) and the Blavatnik School of Government, University of Oxford, with support of Oxford Martin School Oxford Net Zero. 

🚨 New preprint! 🚨 Behavioral science often asks: What is the single best theory of change for a particular behavior? But for many of the policy contexts we care about, from climate change to democratic values, the best motivational lever may not be an isolated mechanism. In our newest research https://lnkd.in/d9kNRr5D led by Anandita Sabherwal, Danielle Goldwert and Elke Weber, we introduce intervention ensembles: strategic combinations of psychological modules designed to target complementary barriers to action. Across a new megastudy and a followup preregistered experiment (N = 11,035), we test ensembles built in three ways: 1️⃣ combining previously top-performing interventions 2️⃣ covering key psychological mechanisms 3️⃣ aligning individual-, collective-, and system-level processes Here’s what we find: 🔥 Ensembles consistently outperform their constituent single-mechanism interventions across outcomes, including climate policy support, real donation behavior, and reductions in partisan animosity. 📈 The strongest approach is a multi-level ensemble that combines individual-level processes, collective-level processes, and system-level processes (specifically, psychological distance, social norms, and governmental efficacy). Critically, this is not just “more is better.” The most effective ensembles are not the longest or most content-heavy. They are smaller, coordinated combinations that align personal relevance, social influence, and institutional efficacy. Additional analyses suggest that ensembles work by resolving complementary psychological barriers, not by giving people more arguments. Overall, for complex societal challenges, behavioral science may need to move beyond the search for the single best mechanism and toward the design of coordinated intervention systems. Would love thoughts from others working on #interventiondesign, #megastudies, #climateaction, #climatechange, #democracy, and #behaviorchange

As we observe Women's Month, the persistent failure of environmental policies to protect rural women stands as a deliberate structural oversight rather than an administrative accident. Governing bodies cannot legislate effectively for realities they refuse to measure. When research frameworks operate without localized empirical data specific to women, they render vulnerable populations invisible to the very systems engineered to protect them. Reversing this failure demands a rigorous structural analysis of existing data pipelines to pinpoint and eliminate the systemic exclusion of female perspectives. True advocacy requires translating corrected empirical evidence into inescapable visual narratives. By integrating localised data science with strategic visual storytelling, we can map the direct consequences of ecological shifts onto critical metrics like maternal health outcomes. Presenting legislative councils with undeniable evidence that connects environmental degradation to lived human consequences forces immediate political accountability. Honouring women must go beyond seasonal celebration and demand the transformation of ignored statistics into urgent legislative mandates.

🎉 Climate change engagement of scientists paper published! 🎉 In our new paper, which has just been published in Nature Climate Change, we explored scientists’ beliefs about their role and the role of scientific institutions in the context of climate change as well as their engagement in climate actions. These actions include forms of advocacy and activism ranging from signing petitions to engaging in civil disobedience and high-impact lifestyle changes such as reducing flying or adopting a plant-rich diet. Surveying N = 9,220 scientists from 115 countries, all disciplines, and all career stages we find, for example, that 91% of surveyed scientists believe that fundamental changes to social, political, and economic systems are needed to address climate change; that a large majority of scientists feel a responsibility as scientists to address climate change; that more scientists agree than disagree that scientists should become more involved in advocacy and protest; and that the proportion of scientists who say they are willing to engage in these actions is substantial, suggesting that there is great potential for increased engagement by scientists on climate change beyond research. Based on the quantitative and qualitative responses to our survey, we propose a two-stage model of engagement in advocacy and protest: First, in order for scientists to be willing to engage, they need to overcome mostly intellectual barriers such as a lack of belief in the effectiveness of the actions, lack of identification with activists, lack of knowledge, fear of losing credibility, and fear of repercussions. Second, to actually engage they need to overcome mostly practical barriers such as a perceived lack of skills, lack of time, lack of opportunities, and not knowing any groups involved in climate action. In the paper, we discuss a number of ways to increase the engagement of scientists with climate change. You can find the published version of the paper at https://lnkd.in/dTRwb_QJ and an open access version at https://lnkd.in/ddErKKnS. Finally, thanks to my fantastic co-authors Maien Sachisthal Jonas Haslbeck Viktoria Cologna Noel Strahm Nana-Maria Grüning Anna Bosshard Alison Green Cameron Brick Adam Aron!

Indigenous Feminist Ecology (IFE) considers women as part of nature rather than separate from it. Through the recent survey that we conducted in the rural areas of Cameroon, indigenous women described their relationships with land, water, forests, and animals as reciprocal, whereby they mentioned their responsibilities as well as rights towards these three main resources (land, water, and forests). The research we did and the data we collected in these indigenous communities of Cameroon enabled us to understand how indigenous women and other marginalized Indigenous peoples interact with, manage, and protect their lands, waters, and ecosystems. Our data collection also examined how patriarchy, environmental degradation, and climate change affect these reciprocal relationships. But despite these challenges (patriarchy, environmental degradation, and climate change), many indigenous women in the Eastern and Southern regions of Cameroon have developed new ecological solutions that help them to adapt to climate change and improve the farming systems. These ecological solutions are based on the Indigenous Environmental Knowledge (IEK) that is transmitted from generation to generation (mother to daughter) in their community. The indigenous feminist ecology perspective, which we developed in this research, argues that securing Indigenous women's access to land is essential for environmental sustainability, climate adaptation, and social justice. When women have secure land rights, they are able to apply traditional ecological knowledge, conserve local biodiversity, protect forests, and adopt climate-resilient farming practices. Access to land strengthens women’s economic independence while also reinforcing their role as environmental stewards and custodians of traditional knowledge. Consequently, improving indigenous women's land access in rural areas is not only a matter of gender equality but also a critical strategy for strengthening community resilience and ecological sustainability. In the coming weeks, the results of this research will be published in a peer-reviewed journal. Innocent Antoine HOUEDJI Grace Ananda muriel veldman Daphne Gondhalekar Pamela Duran Diaz Walter T. de Vries Ghita Abouyoub Ruth Murambadoro Pr. Abderrahim ID-RAIS nadine yango Ruth Hall Moha EL-AYACHI Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore Scuola di Dottorato Agrisystem Università Cattolica Uchendu Eugene Chigbu

What motivates people to take collective climate action? 🔍 In this large-scale behavioral megastudy, scientists from across disciplines collaboratively developed and evaluated 17 theory-informed interventions designed to catalyze public, political, and financial climate advocacy. These interventions were first proposed by teams of behavioral scientists, then ranked by subject-matter experts, and the most promising strategies were tested experimentally on a quota-matched sample of over 31,000 U.S. residents. This work is a great example of collaborative, open science aimed at understanding what really motivates collective climate action. 🔥 One of the most effective interventions — the one I co-designed with Xinhui Chen — emphasized collective efficacy alongside the emotional benefits of climate action. It consistently boosted advocacy outcomes (e.g., sign-ups, commitments to act, even political engagement) more than other tested approaches. This suggests a crucial insight: People may not be fully aware that collective mobilization works, because its effects are often long-term and intangible. Showing that mobilization does make a difference can itself motivate sustained engagement. 📊 This project stands out not only for its scale but for its methodological innovation — bringing together diverse scientific perspectives, expertise, and theory in an open, competitive design. I’m glad to be part of this collaborative effort and excited about what it means for future climate advocacy research. Huge congratulations to Danielle Goldwert for leading this project ! 👉 Feel free to check out the paper here: https://lnkd.in/e7yZV86M

Everyone that talks about climate change, often talk about rising temperatures, carbon emissions, floods, droughts, deforestation, and biodiversity loss. What they do not talk about enough is the face of the climate crisis. And very often than not, that face is a woman. Across the world, women and girls are disproportionately affected by environmental degradation and climate change. Yet they are also among the most powerful agents of environmental protection, climate resilience, and sustainable development. Climate justice cannot be achieved without gender justice. The climate crisis is not gender-neutral. When floods destroy homes and farmlands and water resources are polluted, women often bear the responsibility of rebuilding households and caring for affected families. Across Nigeria and throughout the Global South, women are leading environmental movements,( Rooted Rising Initiative ) restoring ecosystems, advancing sustainable agriculture, advocating for climate justice, and building resilient communities. Perfect Johndick Yet their contributions often remain underrepresented in climate conversations and decision-making spaces. This must change. In communities across the Niger Delta, The consequences of environmental injustice are not experienced equally. Women often carry a disproportionate share of the social, economic, and health impacts. And yet, despite these challenges, women continue to demonstrate remarkable resilience by organizing, advocating, educating, restoring and leading. This reality lies at the heart of eco-feminism. Eco-feminism recognizes the interconnected relationship between the exploitation of nature and the marginalization of women. It argues that systems that devalue the environment often perpetuate inequalities that affect women and other vulnerable groups. At its core, eco-feminism is not simply about protecting women or protecting nature.It is about recognizing that sustainable societies cannot exist where either people or the planet are treated as expendable. The fight for environmental justice is therefore inseparable from the fight for social justice. And if we are serious about climate action, women must not merely be included in the conversation and be empowered to lead it. Women are not victims waiting to be rescued. They are leaders creating solutions, innovators transforming communities, advocates holding institutions accountable, guardians of traditional knowledge and environmental stewardship and are essential partners in building a climate-resilient future. Cheers to women leading climate advocacy campaigns. Cheers to women educating future generations. Cheers to women demanding accountability for environmental harm. Cheers to women building sustainable futures against extraordinary odds. Today, we honor you, whose work is creating a healthier planet and a more just society. #worldenvironmentday2026 #climatejustice #genderjustice #ecofeminism #womenforclimate

Excited to announce two papers I've been working on quite a lot over the past several years - labors of love during COVID - are finally out. Both relevant to Nature-based Solutions and the work we have ahead of us to rise to the challenge of meeting our 2030 targets. First, led by Robert McDonald, Ph.D., a huge modeling effort to assess the trade-offs and synergies between different NbS strategies for a wide variety of nature's contributions to people: https://lnkd.in/g-FuSVPp The places with the greatest potential for climate change mitigation are often not the same ones with the most potentially to benefit people locally for climate adaptation. But careful targeting can help identify win-wins – which cover only 35% of the possible area of implementation but would provide 80% of the possible benefits to over 2 billion people! Second, a research agenda set forth by an incredible collaboration of world-class modelers for integrated assessment (including Steve Polasky, Rob Alkemade, William Cheung, Ingo Fetzer, Michael Harfoot, Thomas Hertel, Samantha Hill, Justin Andrew Johnson, Jan Janse, HyeJin Kim, Jan Kuiper, Eric Lonsdorf, David Leclere, Mark Mulligan, Henrique Pereira, Garry Peterson, Stephanie Roe, PhD, Aafke Schipper, Tord Snäll, Arnout Van Soesbergen, Aline Soterroni, Detlef Van Vuuren, Lan Wang-Erlandsson, Geoff Wells, and others): https://lnkd.in/g5d24vDj We hope many others will join us in tackling the following challenges:   1) downscaling impacts of drivers on ecosystems - we need to know where different human pressures are impacting nature (and its contributions to people), because WHERE makes all the difference in how damaging that impact will be 2) incorporating feedbacks within & between ecosystems - we can't understand the long-term impacts of our decisions if we don't have a way of understanding how the impacts of these different drivers cascade through interconnected systems  3) linking ecological impacts to human well-being - we've seen huge advances in ecosystem service modeling in recent years but still often fall short of translating biophysical changes to values that really resonate with decision makers  4) disaggregating outcomes - it's not enough to know how people on average are impacted; averages hide huge inequalities, and people who are the most dependent on nature are often the most vulnerable 5) incorporating dynamic feedbacks on the social-economic system - this is where it all comes together; we can do each of the steps above individually but if we don't connect the outcomes back to the drivers we're stuck in a snapshot with no ability to anticipate how degradation in nature undermines our whole economy and society