Portuguese 
English 
Spanish 
3 min of reading 
0 comments 
Among people with higher income and education, liking nature did not mean emitting less. The study shows that those who talk the most about the environment can also maintain a travel and consumption pattern that weighs more on the climate.
Even among people who say they value nature, the environmental footprint can remain high — and, in some cases, even higher. This is pointed out by a study cited by newscientist, showing that among groups with higher income, education, and professional prestige, those most aligned with ecological discourse also appear among those who emit the most carbon.
The research drew attention for contradicting a common idea: that concern for the environment, by itself, would change consumption behavior. In practice, the study indicates that green values are not enough when the lifestyle remains dependent on frequent flights, larger homes, and other high-impact habits.
The scientists involved argue that the focus needs to shift from the individual to more stringent changes in public policies. For them, campaigns that rely solely on environmental awareness tend to have a limited effect given the lack of truly accessible alternatives for many people.
-
China wants to install a giant power bank in space to harvest solar energy continuously, day and night, and has already tested on the ground, in a 75-meter tower, the wireless transmission of energy over a distance of 100 meters to various moving targets.
-
The brute force of the waves turns into clean energy with almost no waste, as promised by a gyroscopic converter created in Japan that, in simulations, couples with the sea’s sway and reaches the maximum limit of 50% efficiency, leaving old marine generators behind.
-
NASA’s space telescope already has 73% of its images contaminated by satellite trails, and scientists warn that the problem could reach 100% if millions of objects are launched into low Earth orbit.
-
From discarded uniform to blanket for those sleeping on the streets: Brazilian initiative transforms tons of corporate fabric into shelter, reduces textile waste, and creates a chain of social impact that starts in companies and ends in the hands of those who need it most.
What the researchers found in 5,000 people
The survey interviewed 5,000 people in Canada, France, Germany, Italy, the United Kingdom, and the United States. Participants answered questions about income, wealth, education, and job prestige, in an attempt to measure each one’s socioeconomic status.
Then, the researchers asked what these people thought about nature, climate, and waste. Next, they cross-referenced the responses with information about meat and dairy consumption, house size, waste generation, vehicle use, and flight hours, to estimate a broader ecological footprint.
Among the majority of respondents, an expected relationship appeared: the more importance someone gave to nature preservation, the smaller their environmental footprint was. But this logic changed among the top 30% richest and most educated.
When love for nature does not reduce emissions
At the top of the socioeconomic scale, the people most sympathetic to the environmental cause ended up having a larger footprint than their peers. According to the researchers, the main reason was simple: this group travels more by plane.
And the airplane remains one of the most carbon-intensive forms of emission per person. The research suggests that, in this context, the habit of flying frequently weighs much more than actions like recycling, which help but have a much smaller effect on total emissions.
For Malte Dewies, from the University of Cambridge, one of the authors of the work, it is not about placing all the responsibility on individuals. He notes that low-carbon alternatives are still difficult to find for activities like flying, which limits behavior change even among those who want to reduce their impact.
Pressure on governments, not just on consumers
The study also contradicts the so-called environmental Kuznets curve, a hypothesis that suggested a decrease in pressure on the environment after a certain level of wealth. The authors state that the results do not support this view when the focus is on individuals, not just countries.
In the team’s assessment, trying to change emissions only with campaigns aimed at individual attitudes does not solve the problem. Micha Kaiser, also from the University of Cambridge, was direct in saying that, at some point, stronger measures will need to be adopted.
This comes at a time when some governments are already trying to change the price of air travel, with higher taxes on aviation in countries like the United Kingdom and Germany. Even so, the researchers assess that recent fare increases are probably not enough to deter high-income passengers.
The final message of the study is less about hypocrisy and more about limits. Even those who claim to be committed to the planet may remain stuck in habits that drive emissions up — and, for the authors, it is public policy that will determine if this truly changes. If the topic interests you, share the article and leave your opinion.
-
1 person reacted to this.