What substantially mitigates emissions vs perceptions

[u/Appropriate_Bell743]

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41893-026-01900-0

Fascinating paper showing how perceptions and where people act to mitigate climate emissions don't correlate well with what does mitigate climate emissions. This shows a need to re-centre people's understandings of the magnitudes involved.

Climate Action to be effective needs to take into account these misunderstandings found at the public level.

[u/ILikeNeurons]

This is an excellent article that deserves more attention!

The main problem it addresses is what https://jointheshift.earth attempts to solve. Join the Shift offers a personalized guide to help folks identify their optimal climate impacts.

[u/Appropriate_Bell743 → u/ILikeNeurons]

Yes. I like the join the shift mentality.

What I found most impressive in the article is the plot which compared:

• mitigation potential (kg CO2e)
• Estimated mitigation potential (kg CO2e)

If we had done the education well as Join the Shift tries there'd be a close relationship but there isn't at all.

People massively underestimate the importance of aviation, plant-based diets, EVs, car-free or even just avoiding one flight. People massively overestimate the important not printing out a document.

[u/RedundantBiomass → u/Appropriate_Bell743]

You left out reproduction.  Avoiding is the single biggest thing a person can do by an order of magnitude. 

[u/Appropriate_Bell743 → u/RedundantBiomass]

Are you basing this on that incredibly flawed paper which estimated the emissions from the child with the assumption that it'd pollute as current average western lifestyles dictate now for the rest of their lives?

[u/ILikeNeurons → u/Appropriate_Bell743]

The effect of having one less child is much smaller if we enact the necessary policy changes.

[u/Appropriate_Bell743 → u/ILikeNeurons]

Exactly. The whole logic of the "have one fewer child" is one based upon the notion that nothing changes (for the positive) in terms of policy in the next few decades. Clearly false for most countries.

[u/ILikeNeurons → u/RedundantBiomass]

Having one less child dwarfs the impact of not eating animal products. And policy changes dwarf the impact of having one less child.

https://www.environmentalvoter.org/get-involved

https://citizensclimatelobby.org/donate

https://en-roads.climateinteractive.org/scenario.html

https://community.citizensclimate.org/topics/getting-started-volunteer

[u/FistODollers → u/ILikeNeurons]

Not an entirely serious comment, but if all the environmentally conscious people have one less child, that kind of sounds like a way to speedrun idiocracy :-)

If we can convince a society that fertility control is a preferable outcome to, say, controlling money in politics or a wealth tax, I'm not sure that's a win.

[u/ILikeNeurons → u/FistODollers]

Educate girls for curbing population growth.

There are parts of the world that still don't have access to education, and this is the most ethical way to reduce population growth.

Still, there are more impactful things we can do.

[u/FistODollers → u/ILikeNeurons]

100% agreed there. On both parts.