Change Behavior Not Climate campaign in Bangladesh - © Debra Efroymson

What seems to be missing in many of the discussions about climate change is the possibility that many of the needed changes to reduce human impact on the climate would, far from involving sacrifice, be the very measures needed to solve many intractable problems and increase quality of life. A shift in focus from technological to lifestyle solutions could help make this possibility a reality.

What intractable problems? The obesity epidemic, fuel crisis, injuries and deaths from road crashes; alienation, isolation and crime in big cities; poverty…most could be significantly improved through a dramatic shift away from one form of energy to another: away from mindless consumption, traffic congestion, pollution and rising disparities in income to patterns involving less work and more play, fewer purchases and more socializing, less driving and more active transport.

Forgive my blindness but I fail to see how people benefit from spending hours a day in traffic jams, from living in polluted cities, from fearing their neighbours and the poor, and from growing obese. How quality of life is determined by the amount of useless items one can buy rather than the richness of one’s social network. Do we really find TV, cars, long days at work and little family time pleasant? And if so, why do people so often spend their weekends at very different pursuits?

If the solutions to climate change were phrased as beneficial to quality of life rather than as difficult changes to one’s “comfortable” life, would it not be easier to overcome resistance to the desired changes? If we stopped thinking in absolutes–giving up the car versus giving up an inhabitable planet–and instead discussed gradual but significant changes? The question is not whether everyone will come on board, whether some climates or cultures are more suited to the change, or whether rich or poor should take the lead, but rather whether we could promote some immediate changes that could be adopted by a substantial portion of the population and that would yield such obvious improvements to quality of life that others would likely follow, and governments, seeing their popularity, could be persuaded to make the infrastructural changes to further advance such positive trends.

Two brief examples may suffice to illustrate my point: driving and economic growth. When asked to give up their car, people naturally balk. When reminded of the pleasures of walking and cycling, of the need for more physical activity, of the time spent chauffeuring children and the elderly, of the possibility of recreating lively streets, some people may be willing to make some changes. If people in rich countries simply stopped using the car for short trips in decent weather, huge savings could ensue; imagine if children walked or cycled to school? Such changes need not occur in 100% or even 50% of the population to show policymakers that he public is ready for better public transit and infrastructure for walking and cycling.

We often hear that countries such as India and China must increase their carbon emissions in order to generate economic growth and thus enjoy the pleasures of a more Western lifestyle. Ever been to a large Indian or Chinese or other Asian city? Ever imagine standing on a street corner taking a deep breath and fully experiencing the sights and sounds in one? Walking for any length of time you are likely to become nauseated, and the constant honking of horns and dodging of cars and motorbikes–even on sidewalks–is not likely to improve your mood. Meanwhile, it is difficult to escape noticing the deeply entrenched poverty–all the people whose incomes and living standards are failing to rise with rising GDP. A more humane–and less climactically disastrous–policy in such countries would involve less emphasis on production and more on employment; less on speed and more on safe movement for all; less on GDP and more on people and equality. How does individual motorized transport for the few–or even sometimes (in the case of motorbikes) the majority, enrich the country? Ask people where (if) their children play, look on the streets for the elderly and for those with disabilities, and ponder whether carbon emissions really do increase quality of life for the masses.

With less pressure to buy junk (including cars), people could work fewer hours and enjoy more leisure. Fewer labor-saving and fuel-burning machines would mean more employment. Less driving and TV watching means less obesity. More walking and cycling and time for socializing means stronger social networks as well as fitter people. Why fear such changes? Why not promote them as beneficial to the doer as well as to the climate?

Change behavior not climate. Lead a happier life.

Debra Efroymson