Does individual climate action distract from the overall vision? New research has answers

New research suggests that trying to change people’s climate habits won’t hurt support for global solutions.

Climate activists have long debated whether promoting small eco-friendly choices, like cycling to work or avoiding plastic straws, could undermine the promotion of radical policies needed to combat climate change.

A new cross-cultural study published in Behavioral public policy and led by Dr Omid Ghasemi of the UNSW Institute for Climate Risk and Response, suggests concerns may be overblown.

The researchers found that encouraging individual climate action, such as recycling or reducing energy use, did not erode public support for government-led interventions.

“For years, climate communicators worried that if we focused too much on personal behavior, we risked diverting energy and attention from the systemic changes that really matter,” says Dr. Ghasemi.

“There is also concern that small eco-friendly habits allow people to justify more damaging behavior or believe progress is being made when we urgently need better overall policy. But our research suggests this is not the case.”

Testing a long-standing concern

The team interviewed and conducted experiments with more than 1,200 people in total, including Australian university students and a broader sample of the Iranian and Australian public.

Dr Ghasemi explains that Iran and Australia were chosen for the study because they are very different in terms of culture, politics, economics and exposure to climate risks.

“Iran’s governance and economic situation present different challenges for carrying out large-scale climate initiatives,” explains Dr. Ghasemi. “These challenges may make it more difficult for the country to support big policy changes, which could lead people to focus more on their personal actions.

“By comparing a Western democracy like Australia with a country like Iran, we were able to see how people in very different contexts think about personal climate action versus government-led climate action.”

Study participants were divided into groups and shown different climate messages: one focused on government policies and the other on individual action, while a control group received either a balanced mix or an unrelated science quiz.

Participants then answered questions about the effectiveness of the different solutions, their level of support for government action, and whether they viewed personal and government actions as being in conflict.

Across all groups, people continued to show strong support for systemic climate action – or overall government-led solutions – regardless of how many messages they saw about individual actions.

“Iranian participants particularly saw systemic solutions as the main actor in the fight against climate change, which speaks to some cultural difference in how we perceive government responsibility,” explains Dr. Ghasemi.

The researchers also conducted a survey to determine whether the number of times a person encountered climate information about individual solutions in their daily life was associated with less support for government-led initiatives. These everyday interactions did not detract from Iranian and Australian participants’ general support for global solutions.

“More interestingly, Australian students tended to show greater support for systemic change if they were exposed to more individual climate actions,” says Dr Ghasemi. “On average, the Australian population as a whole views personal climate action as a moderate substitute for systemic change, suggesting that they believe individual solutions ‘somewhat’ reduce the need for systemic solutions.

“However, they have consistently shown strong support for systemic solutions, regardless of their beliefs about whether their individual actions complement or contradict their support for broader climate policies.”

A complementary couple, not a crowd

Dr Ghasemi says the findings challenge the long-standing “crowding out” hypothesis – the idea that personal climate efforts can reduce enthusiasm for systemic reform.

“Past studies have been mixed, perhaps due to differences in how experiments were designed,” says Dr. Ghasemi. “Our results suggest that rather than competing, individual and systemic actions may complement each other.”

The research, he says, highlights how individual behaviors can act as social signals, creating “bottom-up” pressure for governments and institutions to act. However, climate communicators must be careful not to exaggerate the power of personal choice.

“It is essential to communicate the true scale of individual actions,” he says. “If designed as a substitute for systemic policies, this could risk reducing public support for more significant reforms.”

Towards integrated climate action

But, according to Dr. Ghasemi, drawing a hard line between personal responsibility and systemic change is counterproductive. “The success of systemic policies often depends on individual behavior,” he says. “Our evidence indicates a synergistic relationship.

“For policymakers, this means taking a more integrated approach, which values ​​both comprehensive reforms and the role of small, everyday actions.

“Australia’s gambling reform is a great example of how combining individual-level tools, like monthly activity statements, with system-wide policies, such as banning gambling providers from offering credit, can have a big impact.

“Behavioral scientists, like Professor Ben Newell, have played a key role in designing these complementary interventions. Additionally, because people often assume that others are not as interested in climate action, when they change their habits, such as recycling more or reducing their energy use, it sends a message.

“This shows us that kindness is more common than we thought, which can help create momentum for larger system-wide changes. There’s no need to pit the individual against the system, when we know from research that climate campaigns can be most effective when they both work hand in hand.”