February 28, 2025 • 53 mins
What is a more sustainable lifestyle, and what are strategies and motivations for living within the 1.5-degree target? In this episode, we explore barriers to making this switch and discuss policies that could increase acceptance. The EU 1.5 Lifestyles project, featuring researchers from the IIIEE, addresses these critical questions. Join us as we hear from Andrius Plepys, Anna Elfström, Jessika Richter, Matthias Lehner, Marianne Ekdahl, and Oksana Mont about their work, experiences, and reflections. They share valuable suggestions, such as finding others with similar motivations for adopting a more sustainable lifestyle as well as improved quality of live. You can also enlist for free in the MOOC: 1.5° Lifestyles: Mainstreaming Everyday Sustainability (best right click and open in new tab) visit the projects website: EU 1,5° Lifestyles explore the Citizen’s Guidebook (in Swedish): En livsstil i linje med 1,5-gradersmålet. En forskningsbaserad guide or read this news article about the project (in Swedish): Ny forskning: livsstilsförändringar avgörande för att nå klimatmålen.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Philipp Montenegro (00:03):
Hey, and welcome to the first episode of
season five of AdvancingSustainable Solutions. I'm
Philipp Montenegro hosting thisepisode where we will be
exploring the European one pointfive lifestyles project and the
involvement of our colleagues atthe institute who worked on the
Swedish case. We've divided thisepisode into two separate
recordings. In the first part,which was recorded last year, we
(00:24):
discuss the importance of therebound effect of adopting a
more sustainable lifestyle, aswell as the benefits of using a
qualitative research approach,including workshops, to better
understand the complexitiesbehind people's lifestyles,
choices, and their motivationsfor change. In the second part
of this episode, we'll hearabout some of the barriers to
switching to a more sustainablelifestyle and why even if we
(00:46):
might miss the 1.5 target, itstill matters to transition
towards more sustainablelifestyles.
We'll also explore theadditional benefits this shift
can bring as well as tools likegames, the massive online open
course that is online now, andnumerous articles that can help
along the way. So get ready forwhat we hope will be an
interesting and insightfulepisode. Thanks for listening.
(01:10):
Welcome on another episode ofadvancing sustainable solutions.
Today we have three guests here,and I'm really happy to welcome
them, especially Anna since it'sher last day also.
So maybe we start with a quick,round of introduction. And, just
introduce yourself and whatyou've been doing here.
Anna Elfström (01:27):
Hi, everyone. My name is Anna, and I have been
working here at the Institutefor a year now, as a project
assistant on the 1.5 degreelifestyles project, and it's
been fun. And it's sad that it'smy last day, but I'm happy that
I get to do this.
Philipp Montenegro (01:45):
Yeah. Thanks for having for being here on the
show. Really cool, especially onthe last day, just to squeeze
this in.
Anna Elfström (01:50):
Thank you for having me.
Philipp Montenegro (01:51):
Yes. Of course. Jessica?
Jessika Richter (01:53):
Yes. My name is Jessika Richter, and I am a
researcher at the InternationalInstitute for Industrial
Environmental Economics. And mybackground is with circular
economy policy research mostlyand sustainable consumption,
which is why I've been involvedin the 1.5 degree project as
well.
Philipp Montenegro (02:08):
Oh, great to have you here also. And last but
not least.
Matthias Lehner (02:12):
Hi, everyone. My name is Matthias Lehner. I'm
also a researcher at the IIIIWhere, also part of the 1.5
degree lifestyles project. And,most recently my work has been
concerned with rebound effectsand, digitalization.
Philipp Montenegro (02:26):
Okay. Interesting. And, today, we want
to learn a little bit more aboutthe 1.5 lifestyle degree project
that you're doing. Could youmaybe give us a short
introduction, of the project?
Jessika Richter (02:37):
Okay. I can give a bit of background to the
1.5 degree project. So it's anEU project. We've been working
with several case countrypartners throughout the EU,
Spain, Hungary, Latvia, andSweden, and Germany. So those
are the countries we've beenworking with as case countries,
then we also have more researchpartners throughout, Europe as
(02:57):
well.
So it's quite a big project. Alot of it is about working in in
an interdisciplinary context andalso an international context.
So that's been a big part of theproject. In terms of what we're
actually researching, there areseveral parts that we're that
we're looking at. We're lookingat the 1.5 degree target.
That's why that's part of thethe name and the the aim, but
(03:18):
also the gap to getting there.We're looking at what is needed
to close that gap, particularlywith EU countries, and also from
a consumption based approach.And when I say that, it's what
we're actually the impact andclimate impact we're causing, as
countries and as individualshere in Europe through our
consumption. So that's that'sthe tie to sustainable
(03:41):
consumption. We're also lookingat the individual level, what
kind of consumption impacts wehave in our lifestyles here in
Europe, as well as thestructural level.
So how we can also change thestructures in which we live in
Europe to be more sustainableand aligned with a 1.5 degree
target.
Philipp Montenegro (04:01):
Why the different shifts on individual
focus and systemic focus? Andwhat is maybe the the difference
here in the approach on yourresearch also?
Jessika Richter (04:09):
So the difference when we're when we're
looking from the citizen pointof view to the structural point
of view is also who we'reinvolving in the research.
Another thing that is uniqueabout this project is the way
that we're doing research. A lotof it is through cocreation
workshops and thinking labs thatwe call it. So when we're
working at the individual level,we're actually working with
(04:30):
citizens in the case countriesthat I mentioned earlier. When
we're working at the structurallevel, we're often working with
different stakeholders fromdifferent sectors.
So policymakers, people workingin municipalities, people
working in businesses, peopleworking in NGOs, so on a more
organizational level and and atthat structural level for the
(04:53):
changes.
Philipp Montenegro (04:53):
And how much of this, like, now talking on a
personal level, how much of theaims and the research that
you're doing, were already knownto you before doing this
research? So how much of thechanges towards the 1.5
lifestyle degrees were already,something that you were
interested in or something thatyou're now figuring out or now
(05:14):
opening up through thisresearch?
Matthias Lehner (05:16):
As Jessica pointed out briefly there, I
would also, I would agree thatthe rebound part of our work is
maybe the least intuitive.Because otherwise, I mean, what
we do is very relevant. And eventhough it's not revolutionarily
new that, driving cars andflying planes and eating meat,
(05:39):
has a big carbon impact. Itstill is a problem that has to
be solved. You know, just beingaware of it doesn't solve it.
But what is newer, though veryrelevant in research and and and
by now, at least in the researchcommunity, very well, supported
by findings also is this thingcalled the rebound effect.
(06:02):
Because it is easy to thinkabout which behavior, which
individual behaviors have to bechanged and then basically stop
there and say, well, great. I'vesold my car. Now I've done my
part for climate change. And,obviously, I have a lower
footprint.
But obvious but that is notnecessarily the case. And that
is expressed, with this termrebound effect, which is the
(06:25):
fact that, when you change yourbehavior in one way, it often
ripples through other behaviors.And and so there's further
behavior changes that mighteasily increase your carbon
footprint, again, in particular,of course, when you save money
by changing a behavior.
Philipp Montenegro (06:44):
Could you elaborate on that and give an
example, maybe sticking to thecar? So when someone, sold sells
their car, what is then arebound effect that is maybe
typical that you now found out,according to this?
Matthias Lehner (06:56):
Well, that's not something we found out. That
is well established inliterature, and cars are a
commonly used example. I wouldrather than explain it by
talking about what happens whenyou sell your car, I would I
would go, I would, focus on,like, a more typical typical
example for the rebound effect,which is just efficiency gains.
(07:17):
A car engine becoming moreefficient. And that that is well
documented that that hashappened, over the last hundred
years.
Cars have become incredibly moreefficient, but we're not using
less gasoline for that. Ratherthe opposite. And that is
because using the using the carhas become cheaper and thus we
(07:38):
use it more and find new ways touse it also. So both on a on an
individual level, it means thecar being cheaper increases the
likelihood that you use it more.And on a societal level, the car
as like a tool being cheaper,makes it more available to be
(07:58):
used in many contexts.
And that is what has happened onboth an individual level and a
societal level. That there'sjust like tons of ways in which
internal combustion engines areused for transportation and
other, means. And that is verywell established that, behavior
changes that also, mean costsavings have a rebound effect.
(08:24):
And that is, a problem for, for,climate change, if you look at
it that way.
Philipp Montenegro (08:31):
And I think another aspect there was also
that even though the efficiencyis getting better, the cars are
getting heavier and then usingmore. So even though we might
have stronger and moreefficient, engines, just because
we have heavier cars and usethem more, the gains that we get
from efficient, motors
Jessika Richter (08:51):
Then we could say it depends because we do
have actually lighter cars, butwe're buying bigger cars. So
when you say heavier, it'simportant to also think, okay.
Why are they heavier? It's notheavier because we are buying
the same car, but it's heaviermaterial. In fact, it's the
opposite.
We're actually getting lightermaterials. There are more
plastics with cars and lessmetal. But we are buying bigger
(09:13):
cars. We see this SUV, effect aswell that we're getting bigger
and bigger. And that's alsosomething that we see already
established in the literaturethat there is an escalation of
consumption in terms of size ofwhat we're buying.
But if we return also to thisexample, like efficiency, yes,
is is established that we can'tget there to a 1.5 with just
(09:36):
efficiency strategies, therebound effect being a major
barrier to that. But even if wehave sufficiency strategies,
even if we're giving up our car,we can still have rebound if
we're not thinking holisticallyaround lifestyles. And there,
the classic is people who giveup their car and instead fly,
and instead not fly to replacetheir car, but instead say, I
(09:56):
don't have a car, so I can fly.And this is what we call the
moral licensing effect where youfeel like you're offsetting one
behavior with another. But theend result is it's not the gains
that were predicted from givingup your car, that it is
compensated by having increasedvacations by flight, instead.
So we see that. We also see thatthe opposite way. People might
(10:19):
stop flying and then use the carmore. It's, again, a different
overall effect, but still arebound effect that we see.
Philipp Montenegro (10:26):
Now when you just talked about some of the
barriers, what other barriers doyou then see maybe for a 1.5
lifestyle that you're trying toaddress with this research and
this project?
Jessika Richter (10:35):
Yep. Here, I can say a little bit, and I
think Anna can say even moreabout another side that we are
looking at when people areadopting different lifestyle
changes is not only what kind ofrebound effects might happen and
what they do with their money ortheir time instead and why
they're doing what they'redoing, but also what kind of
other effects happened. Whathappened to their social lives?
(10:56):
What happened to their mentalhealth? And here, we also found
some barriers to people adoptinglifestyle changes that they
might not have had the knowledgeor support, that they might have
been scared that this isdifferent than what their
friends are doing and what theirfamily is doing, and that they
might be judged.
It's not the normal thing insociety to do some of these
behaviors to stop flying, andthen you don't join your friends
(11:18):
when they're going to Spain forthe weekend. So you do miss out,
and we we talked with citizensabout these kind of effects as
well and what they did aboutthem, what they did instead. And
I'll let Anna say more aboutthis.
Anna Elfström (11:32):
Yes. So like Jessica said, in in one of the
workshops that we held thisyear, we, we asked citizens,
what what happened. Like,everything on the spectrum from
from like, everything that canhappen in your life, basically,
We we asked a really broadquestion to get a lot of results
to see what what happens whenyou give up your car, or what
(11:52):
happens when you give up meat,or what happens when you reduce
your living space, and whathappens when you give up flying.
And we got, some really, reallyinteresting results, and I think
also people started to reflecton this because people might not
have reflected on this earlier.So it made people think, and,
like, yeah, like Jessica said,many people felt a social
(12:14):
exclusion, because they weredifferent.
And a way then for them to tomitigate this negative effect
was to seek out other peoplethat were, doing the same same
lifestyle changes and seeksupport through these, social
networks, like new networks.And, another another thing was
that people might feel like theyavoided certain, topics when
(12:38):
with their friends because itfelt, loaded, you know, meat,
for example, or flying. And sothey avoided maybe these topics
and maybe also going to certainplaces like barbecues because it
was all socially awkward forthose that were, vegetarian. But
but but they they also found newfriends and new knowledge in
(13:00):
this, and they tried to, yeah,create this this this new this
new identity a little bit, inorder to support their their new
choices. And, and some of theirlifestyle changes were a lot
more, like, ethically loaded andsome were not so, yeah, they
they didn't have so much to dowith identity, all of them, but
(13:22):
some of the lifestyle changesdid.
And, those psychologicalapproaches were really, really
important for the participantsin our workshops.
Philipp Montenegro (13:30):
I can imagine it's a big, impact. And
then when you conducted theseworkshops, how did you approach
or how did you find theseparticipants? And when doing
this, did they have the samemotivations behind their
changes? Was it alwaysenvironmental reasons or were
there different reasons behindthat that then led to these
changes, but out of differentmotivations maybe?
Anna Elfström (13:51):
We we tried to recruit, like, at a very diverse
group, from from all differentages and all different, like,
urban and rural citizens. Andwe, we found that not everyone
had given up their car or theirflying habits or whatever for
environmental reasons. That wasnot the motivation for all of
them, and that was not also thatwasn't the point. We we we'd
(14:14):
rather want, like, a diversityto to show that you can give up
your car or do this lifestylechanges for different reasons.
Matthias Lehner (14:22):
I just wanna add that here. One thing we,
aimed for in this researchproject was to capture and and
also deal with the the thecomplexity of different
lifestyles. Because, one thingthat I think that one can forget
in the public debate, but thenthat also complicates, things
(14:44):
for policy makers, for example,especially when you then
consider things like the reboundeffect is that lifestyles can
look very differently, ofcourse. And so policies impact
different people verydifferently. And we saw that in
the, because what is maybenecessary to point out here is
that we did not do, most of ourwork was qualitative in nature
(15:05):
in order to get, to to tounderstand the depth of
decisions and behavior andbehavior change.
So these are we didn't collect,statistically representative
sample. But what we did is, workwith diverse people to capture
the the the variation inbehaviors. And we did have
(15:27):
people, that that differed eventhough they could have a similar
carbon footprint. They differedvery much in, like, where their
carbon footprint comes from. Isit from housing?
Is it from transportation? Is itfrom food? You know? And that
that changed, of course, verymuch what type of behavior
change was necessary and whathad an impact for them. And the
(15:48):
other thing, that we did thatwas, I think also surprising for
many of the participants is thethe amount of behavior change or
how much behavior change isnecessary in a way to achieve
the 1.5 degree lifestyle.
And and as, Anna just said, itbecame in our work, it became
(16:10):
clear well, we were aware ofthat because of the numbers, but
the participants also became, Ithink, aware of the fact that
the simple changes that maybe donot impact their social
environment, their socialcontext that will not have an
impact on their mentalwell-being and require more
(16:32):
fundamental changes to their,lifestyle. Those are not enough.
You know, the the low hangingfruits, the low hanging fruits,
will not do the trick,basically. What are examples
there?
Jessika Richter (16:45):
So some examples of low hanging fruits
are things like changing yourlight bulbs, switching off the
lights when you go out. Justmore efficiency switches as
well. Even if you have money,it's easy to install the
technology that is needed. Sothese efficiency strategies we
were talking about before, maybegiving up a little bit of
things, meatless Monday. Youknow, these are not so big.
(17:09):
And it comes across when you'reone of our workshops was playing
a game to get down to the 1.5degree lifestyle. And there you
could see there were smallpieces to get there and there
were big pieces. And the bigpieces were some of these
strategies that we mentionedbefore that we looked at in the
rebound workshops of giving upyour car, stopping flying
(17:30):
completely, giving up meatcompletely, or living in a
smaller housing or sharedhousing. These were bigger
pieces in that board game.Another thing I think that was
interesting that alsodifferentiates our qualitative
research, as Matthias mentionedit is, versus quantitative
research, was often inquantitative, you get a snapshot
(17:50):
of people's preferences, whatthey're willing to do or not,
what they say they will do ornot.
And here in the discussions,what was also interesting was
finding not only when theparticipants came up across,
like, that they needed to domore substantial lifestyle
changes, many of them in thefirst respect would say, I don't
want to do these or it doesn'twork to do these. But when you
(18:13):
went deeper and asked them, whatwould make you want to do this?
What would make this easier todo? It wasn't that they were
against it without anyconditions. It's that they would
change their preferences undercertain conditions.
So another part of the projectwas finding out under what
conditions would people adoptthese lifestyle changes that in
(18:34):
first take, they would beopposed to.
Philipp Montenegro (18:37):
What will be an example there that you maybe
remember?
Jessika Richter (18:39):
Yeah. An example there would be about
flying as well as it was oftenmore expensive to go by train,
and I don't have time to go bytrain. If I had more time, if it
was more efficient, or if it wasnot so cheap and compelling to
go by flight and not so normalthat all my friends were flying
as well, I could see myselfgiving up flying. It is not a
(19:02):
necessity in a lifestyle formost people. It is just to be
normal.
Philipp Montenegro (19:07):
And that's maybe then a good example also
to understand the individual andthe systematic levels, of it
where you said that if flyingwouldn't be that, cheap and if
trains would be more accessibleand culturally more, normal,
basically. So these are not juston the individual level.
Matthias Lehner (19:26):
And and I would like to add another example,
which, relates also to anotherpart of our methodology in the
workshops, and that is visioningworkshops or to to provide, so
instead to talk instead oftalking about the barriers and
the status quo to flip the coinand say, here's the future, a
(19:47):
future that is more aligned in amore or less in line with the
1.5 degree lifestyle. How do youfeel about that? And so instead
of telling people, or instead ofasking people, well, how are you
gonna solve that? How are yougonna get from where you are
today to the future that weneed? Instead, say, here's one
possible future.
How would you like that? Andthere, it was interesting, to
Philipp Montenegro (20:10):
if I now think about
Matthias Lehner (20:12):
the housing example, in particular, living
smaller, giving up living spaceand or sharing shared living,
because those were one of two ofthe least favorable options in
our initial work. When we askedpeople like, what could you
imagine doing? Those were reallynot popular in none of the
(20:35):
countries. Basically, there wasagreement across the five case
countries that
Philipp Montenegro (20:39):
no, I don't want
Matthias Lehner (20:39):
to live small and no, I do not want wanna
share.
Philipp Montenegro (20:42):
And all for the same reasons also? Or just,
like, flat out similar?
Matthias Lehner (20:46):
Yeah. Similar. It had to do with privacy, with
comfort, with, kind of a senseof freedom and ability that
comes from your living quartersand living space, space in
itself, possibilities to storethings, to have things, to own
things, you know. You know, ininfamously, people fill the
(21:08):
space they have. Right?
And, it's not easy for us togive up what we have. So a
multiple multitude of reasons,but pretty similar across across
the case countries. But thenwhen we instead said, so here's
the future. You do live smaller.You do share more.
But it's also more social. Youknow your neighbors. It's, you
(21:29):
know, that when you add thesocial component to it, the fact
that, you don't need to spend asmuch, time taking care of your,
home, then we found, a lot morereceptive audience. And then
people were also a lot morewilling to dis to discuss these
ideas and be like, well, I Icould imagine, having my,
(21:53):
friends over for barbecue in acommon space as long as there is
a common space, and I can counton it being available. So, you
know, and and there comes inagain the the systematic or the
the structural part becausepeople themselves are unlikely
to build common barbecue spaces,not least because they're not
allowed to, but in a context, inan environment where they are
(22:15):
provided with these spaces,increasing individual space and,
and like the the size of thespace that you have appear to be
less relevant?
Anna Elfström (22:27):
So, it's interesting about the the
smaller living space, because,when we asked the participants
what happened in their life,like, good and bad effects from
from that. I think many of theother lifestyle changes, a lot
of the negative effects werethat they felt, limited in a
certain way, like, a loss offreedom. I can't fly. I can't
drive my car, that sort ofthing. But in the living smaller
(22:49):
group, a lot of the positiveeffects were a sense of freedom
that they could declutter.
They had so much less stuff.And, and they didn't have to
spend so much time, likeMatthias said, on cleaning and
maintaining the the space. Andalso the that that saved money
because you you you livesmaller. You don't have to spend
(23:09):
so much on heating, for example.So, I think that's an
interesting aspect that thosethat actually did this big thing
that was, like, hard for peopleto to say that they wanted to
do, those that have done it,they had a lot of, positive
things to to say about, yeah,their sense of freedom freedom.
Philipp Montenegro (23:26):
And on that note, also, I guess, it makes a
difference how you frame it. SoI remember during the lunch
seminar that you hold, a fewweeks ago, you also said that
many people gain also newconnections, new social
interactions, and, more freedomnow, as you said in this,
example when decluttering, whichoften is maybe in conflict with
(23:50):
the question of giving up,giving up flying, giving up
eating meat, giving up having acar. So I guess that's also a
big aspect of this researchmaybe showing that it's not just
about giving up, but also ofreevaluating and gaining things
towards a better future, asyou'd said now, imagining a
great future instead of saying,imagine giving up all of this.
Anna Elfström (24:14):
Definitely. And that's that's something that,
you asked before what was thesurprising thing about this
research. And I think that was,for me, a surprising thing that
people had so much positives toshare. You know, a lot of good
things can happen. When you whenwhen you make a big lifestyle
change, it's it's gonna have abig impact, but those can also
be good impacts.
And that's, that's somethingthat we learned. And and it
(24:36):
there's a there's a plethora ofdifferent things that can
happen. There's no one, onething that happens. So that's
also the the variety of peoplethat we had showed that a lot of
things can happen.
Jessika Richter (24:48):
Yep. And I think this idea of framing and
the positive message is reallyimportant for people to hear as
well. When we go out and talk towith citizens, often they'll
ask, who are these people thathad they adopted these lifestyle
changes, and where did you findthem? And the implication is
almost clear. They're saying,are did they come from caves?
Like, where have you foundthese, 1.5? Because there has
(25:09):
been a narrative that has beenmore negative around giving up
with climate change and aboutthe negative consequences. And I
think it is, important to flipthis and talk about the co
benefits and what is gained frommoving towards sustainable
lifestyles as well. And sothat's a message for citizens
themselves, but it's also amessage for policymakers. And it
(25:31):
is something that is reallyimportant in our project that we
are crafting the results and thedifferent messages for different
stakeholders.
So we are talking to the media.We are talking to policymakers.
We are talking to businesses,and we are talking to citizens
themselves about the out the,results of this project. Mhmm.
Philipp Montenegro (25:50):
And how do you share this then? And, how do
you make them more accessiblethat people actually don't
understand, oh, this is someonelike me that did this change,
and it's not someone coming outof a cave that, is reducing the
impact?
Matthias Lehner (26:06):
Well, actually, and I apologize
Philipp Montenegro (26:08):
for that. Instead of answering your
question now, I'm gonna
Matthias Lehner (26:11):
go back to a previous question that you've
asked, about who our mainrecipient is or target audience.
Because and invite my colleaguesto disagree with me. But even
though we study first andforemost individual lifestyles,
I mean, the main recipient hasto be policy makers. And we and
(26:35):
that it could almost sound,like, counterintuitive to how
the project is set up, but notreally. Because what we are
primarily interested in is whatprevents like, what what what
are the barriers for individualsfrom, to go from where we are
now to where they have to go andthe complexity in that.
(26:56):
We do involve stakeholdersdirectly or policy makers, as
we've said, but we also in manyways work with the individuals
in order to better understandwhere kind of where the levers
are in order to get from A to B.And what is
Philipp Montenegro (27:12):
then something that you hope or maybe
want to give on to policymakers, that they actually then
should take as a learning fromthis project?
Jessika Richter (27:20):
I think we have several policy briefs that are
coming out of the project andpolicy recommendations, and
there are different parts tothis as well. So there are parts
to how to support peopleadopting the lifestyle changes.
So we have the lifestyle changescommunicated and what policies
would enable those. I mean, someof them are as as Matias
(27:40):
mentioned. It is about makingthe the climate, harmful
activities more expensive andenabling the alternatives.
But we do have to look at bothwhat we want to have less of and
what we want to have more of. Soit's not just about making
something more expensive, butalso enabling the alternatives
that we want to see. I think forpolicymakers, it is also
(28:03):
important, this framing andnorms question of what kind of
examples we're giving tocitizens and to society and what
kind of narratives that we'rewe're framing this not just as
cutting back and doing less andmaking things more expensive,
but having a higher quality oflife, having increased
well-being, and really focusingon the benefits from these types
(28:26):
of policies that need to be putin place.
Philipp Montenegro (28:28):
Which then maybe even goes as far as
reflecting and questioning ourcurrent lifestyles and being
like, well, what is it actuallythat we are so used to that
might necessarily not be,something that we as society or
as individuals need? And thentherefore, when we give up on
these things, we gain somethingas with all the clutter and the
(28:49):
consumption, some sorts ofoverconsumptions actually tie us
back. As you then mentioned inthe example, when people
declutter, they feel more freeby giving up these things. So in
a way, reflecting some negativeaspects of the current
lifestyles and looking forpositive and more environmental,
future lifestyle, like, tomorrowlifestyle, basically.
Jessika Richter (29:13):
Yep. And I think that what you've hit upon
too is that we need to go beyondefficiency and also be focusing
on sufficiency as well. What isenough for a good life?
Matthias Lehner (29:25):
What I would like, to add here in terms of
takeaways for policymakers isand and Jessica mentioned this
possibility for win winsolutions. You know? Because one
thing that I think sometimes isthere's there's sometimes a
little bit of amisrepresentation of the our
(29:50):
current lifestyle when talkingabout climate change in terms
of, like, what has to change. Itit would almost if you listen
sometimes to a to a climatedebate, it would almost sound
like we have the perfect life,all of us. And then there's this
unfortunate issue of climatechange.
But if you look at society morebroadly, we, of course, have
lots of other issues that haveto deal with mental health and
(30:12):
with physical health. You know,there's in in other policy
areas, and policy makers arevery aware of all the issues
that, come from people feelingstressed and overwhelmed. And,
well, again, mental and physicalhealth is not great in in in
some ways in society. And, therea less carbon intense lifestyle
(30:37):
could easily also mean a Ahealthier stressful lifestyle.
Yes.
I mean, just taketransportation. Cycling is a
great way to keep in shape. It'sa simple way. And it has,
there's no question that it hasa positive health effect
compared to sitting in a car.
Philipp Montenegro (30:57):
Yeah. Or walking.
Matthias Lehner (30:58):
Walking or sitting.
Philipp Montenegro (31:00):
Yes, of course. Exactly.
Matthias Lehner (31:01):
And and the other thing is also true because
when we talk about when wetalked about these, bigger
behavior changes in particular,for example, flying, then that
is very often perceivedinitially as something negative.
I give up flying. I cannotexplore the world anymore as I
used to and stuff. But thealternative, it seems, is then
(31:24):
often to instead explore yourclose environment more,
including more time to buildlocal connections. And, and that
is a very positive outcome from,this behavior change to be more
rooted in your localenvironment, to have closer ties
(31:46):
to neighbors and other socialconnections.
Because in the end, if you'rehonest, what will make your life
better is not the two weeks ayear that you spent among
strangers on Bali, but the fiftyweeks a year that you spent with
your neighbors. And whether youhave good neighbors and you like
them and you have a good socialnetwork around you or not makes
(32:07):
a lot more difference. So it hasa
Philipp Montenegro (32:09):
lot more impact on your life. That's
definitely something I will takeaway from this, episode to
reflect on this and to maybeappreciate the environment
around us even more. What thingshave you maybe or are you taking
away from your research on thisproject?
Anna Elfström (32:26):
Well, what I'm taking away from from working
with this project is how how funit is to talk to citizens about
this, and how engaged they are,and how how willing they are to
to share, and to be a part ofthis change. Even though it's
hard, it's it's really fun totalk about, and it's really fun
to hear about these ideas. AndI've been really inspired both
(32:49):
by stakeholders and by thecitizens that we have talked to.
And, there's so many differentways that you can change your
lifestyle. There's no one waythat one fits all.
Like, it's it's also what'sinteresting about the project is
different nations, differentcultures. There's there's so
many different ways that we canwe can all do something, and
that's been the main takeawayfor me.
Philipp Montenegro (33:10):
Mhmm. And, Yesika, what is your main
takeaway?
Jessika Richter (33:13):
I think, actually, you captured my main
takeaway before too. I think intalking to the citizens and and
seeing, okay, how much of thisis even possible now still
highlighted to me the barriersthere and why it is still not
normal and the real need tofocus on these structures, a lot
of which is really questioningthe systematic structures we
(33:36):
have now. So I think I've becomemore critical of the on the
structural level and really morefocused on that level, knowing
that there are already lots ofcitizens willing to change and
lots of citizens who even seethe benefits of the change
already.
Philipp Montenegro (33:52):
What is your main takeaway, Matthias? Was it
the previous previous pointsmaybe? Yeah.
Matthias Lehner (33:56):
Well, I'm I mean, I I agree with what my
colleagues, said, before me. Imaybe wanna say two things then.
I do think that policymakersunderestimate the willingness
for people to change if changehappens in an orderly and fair
way. Then people
Philipp Montenegro (34:16):
also, I guess.
Matthias Lehner (34:17):
Yes. If what if everybody contributes, I think
people are, in the medium tolong term, way more receptive to
changes than policy makersthink. Personally, I what I take
away from the project is theimportance of community.
Community being this verypowerful enabling tool for,
(34:40):
individual behavior change,Because I think it makes it more
fun and it simply, it providesthe support network, that most
people need. Only few of us havethe willpower, you know, to
power through some some changewithout, any environmental or
(35:01):
external support.
And, and so I think one crucialfactor that that I took away
from from our results was thatmost individuals that seem to
have succeeded in in a majorbehavior change did so with the
support of a community that theyfound. In particular, in the in
(35:23):
the beginning, changes aredifficult because first, there's
all the chaos, and then you findthe new structure and new
routines and things that youlike about them. And and their
community is,
Philipp Montenegro (35:33):
is an enabling factor that is
important. So maybe on that, howcan listeners and general public
maybe, reach and read some ofyour findings and get maybe
inspired. You mentioned a gamebefore. Are any of these or what
are your recommendations forinterested, listeners to, get
some of these inspiration,inspirational stories and
(35:56):
learnings?
Anna Elfström (35:57):
Well, like you said, we we do have the game,
the climate puzzle, and here inLund, at least, that puzzle will
be available soon, at CircleCenter, where you can borrow it
and play it.
Philipp Montenegro (36:10):
The local library
Anna Elfström (36:12):
of things.
Philipp Montenegro (36:12):
Okay. Great.
Anna Elfström (36:13):
Exactly. I don't know the the the website by
heart, but Jessica does, I hope.
Philipp Montenegro (36:18):
And we'll add it also to the description
of this episode.
Anna Elfström (36:21):
But
Jessika Richter (36:22):
Great. Because it's 1.5lifestyles.eu.
Philipp Montenegro (36:26):
Okay. We'll find that. Well, thanks so much
for being here on, the show andfor giving us so many great
insights and inspirations also,and all the best, and see you
around.
Jessika Richter (36:37):
Thank you. Bye.
Philipp Montenegro (36:42):
Welcome to another round of discussions
with the one point fivelifestyles team here at the
Institute. And I'm happy to havea few more speakers as last time
we talked with Matthias, Anna,and Jessica. And now we're
joined again by Jessica, butalso Oksana, Mariana, and
Andreas. So welcome, everyone.
Oksana Mont (36:59):
Hello. Oksana Mont here. I'm a professor in
sustainable consumptiongovernance at the Institute and
part of the 1.5 team.
Philipp Montenegro (37:06):
Very nice to have you here. Yes.
Marianne Ekdahl (37:08):
I'm Marianne Ekdahl research
assistant here at the Institute.
Jessika Richter (37:11):
Jessica Richter, associate senior
lecturer at the IIIEE.
Andrius Plepys (37:15):
And Andrius Plepys I'm a researcher
in the project.
Philipp Montenegro (37:17):
Thanks so much for being here. And maybe
we can start with you, Oksana.Could you give us a little bit
of an overview of the 1.5lifestyle project and the work
that you've been doing as it'scoming to an end?
Oksana Mont (37:28):
Gladly. So we are talking about a European
project, a four year projectthat started in 2021. It's
called 1.5 degrees lifestyles,policies and tools for
mainstreaming 1.5 degreeslifestyles. The starting point
of the project is that we needto introduce and implement
(37:48):
behavioral changes in additionto technological improvements
that we see in order to be inline with the Paris agreement
target of 1.5 degrees warming inthe world. And what we've done
is that we started byidentifying lifestyle options.
We've done a lit review andidentified almost 500 options
(38:08):
that people can implement. Thenthrough validation with experts,
we narrowed this choice to 50options. And then what's
important for the project andwhat's one of its unique points
is that we calculated how muchreduction of CO2 can be reached
with each of these options. Andthe idea is that we really need
drastic reductions. If we have2030 as our goal, then Swedish,
(38:34):
for example, footprint needs tobe to 2.5 tons of CO2, and by
2050 we need to be down to 0.7.
Currently, on average, we have6.2 tons, so we have a long way
to go. And that also shows howimportant this project is. We
also employed quite engagement,kind of participatory methods in
(38:56):
the project. We engaged with thecitizens, invited them, and run
workshops with them. In theproject also, we used climate
puzzle, where people cancalculate their footprint, but
then also in dialogue discusswhat changes they can implement,
to reduce the CO2 impacts, whatkind of hinders they encounter,
(39:17):
and under what conditions theycan overcome these barriers.
So this is also important andled to important publications
and realizations about reboundeffects and other side effects,
both positive and negative, thatcan help us, as researchers, but
also us as individuals toimplement the changes that need
to be implemented.
Philipp Montenegro (39:36):
And I guess it goes further also than just a
carbon footprint calculator,right, which you can find
online, but then I guess througha game and gamification of it to
have a longer discussion and gomore in-depth.
Oksana Mont (39:46):
Yes. With the carbon footprint, you know how
large your footprint is, howmany tons of CO2 your lifestyle
emits. But then we, come up witha list of 50 lifestyle options.
What you actually can do,calculate it with how much
reduction potential each ofthese options associates with.
And with Climate Basel, youbasically lay a path for how
(40:08):
much reductions you can achieve,what are easy changes you can
implement easily, or by payingeconomically for them, for
example, installing solarpanels, but which other
behavioral changes you canimplement to reach actually the
targets of 2,030 or 02/1950.
Philipp Montenegro (40:25):
And since it's already quite known that we
need to reduce our impact andhave a more sustainable
lifestyle, why is it then maybethat there is such a high
acceptance for for it, for a 1.5lifestyle or a more general
sustainable lifestyle?
Marianne Ekdahl (40:39):
Well, as you as you mentioned, acceptance is a
very important factor in that.And, we have actually studied in
the research project project howacceptance varies between
different lifestyle options andcountries. And acceptance varies
really a lot. And we all knowthat from our everyday life
that, I mean, people have a highacceptance for certain things,
(40:59):
but certain things, I mean,they're really, really against.
And and, of course, that's veryimportant for policy makers as
well to to and it also kind ofdirects how they make decisions.
But in general, I mean, a verygeneral pattern is that we can
see a high level of acceptancefor lifestyle options with low
climate impact, but that reallyneeds a financial investment.
(41:20):
And one very good example is,installing solar panels that in
at least in the Swedish setting,it has a low climate impact. But
it requires a financialinvestment and it it's also
visible for the neighbors and soon. But it doesn't really
require a behavioral change. Butthen there is a low level of
acceptance for for, I mean, thelifestyle options that really
(41:43):
have the highest, impact interms of climate benefit.
For but that really requires abehavioral change in everyday
life. And for example, oneexample is switching to a
vegetarian, or vegan diet or,moving to a smaller, smaller
living space or or sharinghousing. And, and in those
cases, in those lifestyleoptions, I mean, they very often
(42:05):
lead to financial savings. Soyou save money, but, but you
don't need an investment, butstill acceptance is, is really
low. So that's, that's really,interesting.
And the reason why this is,important is of course that
policy makers need need tounderstand this. And of course,
I mean, most of them dounderstand that, but it's also
very important that we have alsofound in the studies that
(42:26):
individuals can increase, theiracceptance under certain so
called conditions of acceptance.And this means that policy
makers can also contribute tohigher acceptance levels. And,
in in the context we have hadwith policy makers and, civil
servants from, from,municipalities and so on, we can
see that there is a highinterest from policy makers on
this topic.
Philipp Montenegro (42:46):
And what are conditions for acceptance?
Oksana Mont (42:48):
That's an important question where policy makers and
municipalities can, help. Forexample, in our study of smaller
living spaces, it's much easierfor people to move to smaller
living spaces in certain timesof their lives. For example,
when children are grown up andleave the space, then
policymakers can help people toreduce, for example, taxes if
(43:13):
the properties are changinghands within a family. They
also, for people, it's easierthan to move maybe to city
centre where they don't need torely on cars so much. People
also can, accept much better,for example, shared spaces, if
individual spaces are small, butthen common spaces are provided.
(43:33):
So access to common utilities,extra services, also green
areas, then they are much moreeager to accept smaller
individual living spaces wherethey have access to shared
spaces. It's easier to shift,abandon your car or leave at
home if there is a bicycleinfrastructure available, shared
(43:55):
bikes, well functioningcollective transport system,
well functioning trains, so thatit's easier to not to fly. And
these are all examples of how byproviding access to
infrastructure, and with certaineconomic incentives, policy
makers can increase acceptance.
Philipp Montenegro (44:14):
Goes back again a little bit to the two
different approaches. One, theindividual approach, but then
also the structural societalapproach within the policy
makers.
Andrius Plepys (44:22):
Yeah. You are right. And, the project focused
on these issues quite a lotbecause if we want acceptance to
be accepted, we need to removethe hinders. We have to lower
lower the behavioral barriers.And, of course, there is not one
solution that fits all.
And in different context, indifferent consumption areas,
hinders could be very, verydifferent. They can be from
(44:44):
anything related to structurallock in effects in existing
technologies to simple lack ofawareness or simple,
misperception of benefits thatlifestyle changes can bring you.
For instance, better health, orit could be better work and
family life balance. People canbe simply happier by adopting
(45:07):
how they move, what they eat,how they communicate to the
others, how they together solvethese behavioral adaptations.
And there, of course, there aremany factors that could support
a lifestyle change.
Some of them are on the surface.Some of them are deeper. And for
instance, citizen engagementalways shows that, well, people
are better off by solving issuestogether, seeing examples.
(45:30):
Anything from global to verylocal initiatives can help that.
And, sure, people also needeconomic incentives, incentives
that discourage them fromunsustainable behaviors and
encourage them to consumedifferently.
For that, of course, there is alot of room for policy changes
that could be different taxationpolicies, editing out
(45:51):
unsustainable products,sunsetting dangerous products to
greening energy mix, providingmore convenient public transport
that Oksana mentioned, make itmore convenient for people to
make better choices.
Philipp Montenegro (46:05):
And that also, I guess, then shows that
it's not just about the carbonemissions, and it's not just
about 1.5 degrees, but also amore sustainable, maybe more
social life and communitiesright even if we might not hit
the 1.5 target it's still reallyrelevant to focus on these more
sustainable lifestyle choicesand changes right
Jessika Richter (46:26):
right I think the 1.5 degree lifestyle whether
it's 1.5 degree or we say thatit's a sustainable lifestyle is
relevant. It's something that weneed and these behavior changes
are part of the, of thelifestyle changes we need to fit
within basically the planetaryboundaries.
Oksana Mont (46:42):
So though the overall message from the project
is that first, we cannot relyonly on technological progress
to solve environmental problems,important are behavioral
changes. The next message isthat although behavioral changes
at individual level extremelyimportant, they need to be
enabled and supported bysocietal, and infrastructure and
(47:04):
institutional changes in societythat enable and facilitate
behavioural changes. And forthat part, we have a number of
tools developed in the project,like the mentioned climate
puzzle that is available fororder, and it can be used both
by individuals, but also bymunicipalities, by schools,
(47:25):
anyone in who is involved withengaging the public, in this
transition.
Philipp Montenegro (47:31):
And also you have an upcoming MOOC, right?
Jessika Richter (47:33):
Yes. So we have an upcoming MOOC. We should say
maybe by the time this episodeis out, the MOOC is also
available on the Courseraplatform and it is free to take
the MOOC and follow. And it'swhere we have tried to really,
record videos of the different,researchers that are involved in
the project. Each talking aboutthe research that they have done
(47:53):
as part of the project.
So we have researchers from allof our partner, countries and
partner institutes talking aboutthat research, sharing the
findings, but also then sharingthe tools that have been
mentioned. So we also will havea guidebook for citizens that
walk them through, the differenthigh impact, lifestyle options
that have been mentioned. Wealso walk through all the
(48:15):
different structural barriers,but enablers as well. And then
we talk about visions of thefuture and we challenge, those
that are taking the MOOC as wellto implement a lifestyle change,
something major for a shorttime, and really observe what
else changes in their life whenthey make one change. How do
they look at things differently?
(48:36):
What do they find easier thanexpected? What do they find
harder than expected? And thenshare that with other people who
are also trying this out in ajourney. So it is, it is a fun
way to connect with others andto connect with the research
project findings as well. So weencourage everybody to look it
up on the Coursera platform andjoin us for the MOOC.
Oksana Mont (48:56):
We also have, in addition to MOOC, we have a
citizen guide, that wasmentioned, and we also run now,
campaigns on social media wherewe encourage people to implement
these changes and share theirstories, both good and bad.
Jessika Richter (49:12):
And we can say while the project itself will be
wrapping up in April 2025, andit will be ending with the
sustainable consumption,conference, SCORI conference,
where we'll be sharing thefinal, project findings. The
MOOC and the citizen guidebookand some of the resources will
be available well after theproject has ended. So still look
for those resources. They'lllive on even after the project
(49:34):
has wrapped up in April 2025.
Philipp Montenegro (49:36):
What are your reflections and maybe
learnings or what has surprisedyou from this project from
working on this? Also I thinkit's really interesting to see a
project with so many differentcountries, focusing on the same,
topic, but then with differentcultural acceptances, for
example, or what is maybe someof the reflections that you
have?
Oksana Mont (49:55):
It was actually fascinating to see the
difference between countries.We're all European countries,
but then it's hard to talk aboutreducing, for example, meat
consumption in Sweden, but evenharder in Hungary where a lot or
Spain. So it's thesedifferences, between countries
that were fascinating.
Marianne Ekdahl (50:14):
I think it was interesting to see how, I mean,
in our outreach after theproject, I think it's
interesting to see the interestfor consumption based policy and
the interest from from policymakers to, for example, reduce,
consumption based emissions,working with different ways to
develop strategies for reducingconsumption based emissions and
(50:37):
helping their citizens to toreduce the the emissions from
from their their everyday life.Research findings was
interesting in that sense.
Andrius Plepys (50:44):
Everything was interesting. Perhaps, I could
add that throughout the project,we had opportunities to hear
individual stories. And thenwhat we could extract from those
interviews was was fascinated.People are so different, and you
can assume that, well, avegetarian is a vegetarian, but
their lifestyles are very, veryindividual. And they have
(51:06):
different motivations anddifferent different behavioral
patterns.
It was difficult to connect howpeople are not consistent in
their behavior.
Philipp Montenegro (51:15):
And I think that's a little bit the
advantage of this project alsowhere you went into depth with a
qualitative approach where yougot to understand the depth of
the different choices and thepeople and persons behind this.
And Yessica, what is your takeon this project?
Jessika Richter (51:29):
So one of the lifestyle challenges that we had
in one of our campaigns inJanuary was, having a plant
based diet and reducing the foodwaste. And with the food waste
or waste in general, I was alsotrying to reduce packaging. And
I think for me, it was eyeopening how much, packaging
there was to food. And then alsogoing to, we tried a vegan diet
(51:53):
for a month as well. And for us,it was, it was easier in some
respects when we were cooking athome to, to find new recipes and
great new recipes that are nowpart of our rotation.
So that was easier thanexpected. It was a little harder
expected on the social sidewhere I had told people I was
doing this and I still went overto people's houses and they're
(52:13):
like, we are serving you porktoday. I'm like, oh. So I I
could really it resonated withme. A lot of the citizens that
we had been, talking to in theworkshops when they talked about
some of the things that they hadencountered, it was the same as
I was encountering it myself inthis challenge as well.
But I think that was one of themajor learnings of how complex
(52:35):
it really is, to make theselifestyle changes, but also how
if we start with some it leadsto others and while we may not
be perfect we can be better.
Philipp Montenegro (52:45):
Very nice, thanks so much for sharing this.
I look forward to playing thegame and maybe also through that
then, push push for moresustainable or exchange on more
sustainable lifestyles. Sothanks so much for sharing and
being here and looking forwardto the mook coming out and to
playing around the 1.5 stylegames thanks so much
Oksana Mont (53:03):
thank you
Hey, and welcome to the first episode of
season five of AdvancingSustainable Solutions. I'm
Philipp Montenegro hosting thisepisode where we will be
exploring the European one pointfive lifestyles project and the
involvement of our colleagues atthe institute who worked on the
Swedish case. We've divided thisepisode into two separate
recordings. In the first part,which was recorded last year, we
(00:24):
discuss the importance of therebound effect of adopting a
more sustainable lifestyle, aswell as the benefits of using a
qualitative research approach,including workshops, to better
understand the complexitiesbehind people's lifestyles,
choices, and their motivationsfor change. In the second part
of this episode, we'll hearabout some of the barriers to
switching to a more sustainablelifestyle and why even if we
(00:46):
might miss the 1.5 target, itstill matters to transition
towards more sustainablelifestyles.
We'll also explore theadditional benefits this shift
can bring as well as tools likegames, the massive online open
course that is online now, andnumerous articles that can help
along the way. So get ready forwhat we hope will be an
interesting and insightfulepisode. Thanks for listening.
(01:10):
Welcome on another episode ofadvancing sustainable solutions.
Today we have three guests here,and I'm really happy to welcome
them, especially Anna since it'sher last day also.
So maybe we start with a quick,round of introduction. And, just
introduce yourself and whatyou've been doing here.
Anna Elfström (01:27):
Hi, everyone. My name is Anna, and I have been
working here at the Institutefor a year now, as a project
assistant on the 1.5 degreelifestyles project, and it's
been fun. And it's sad that it'smy last day, but I'm happy that
I get to do this.
Philipp Montenegro (01:45):
Yeah. Thanks for having for being here on the
show. Really cool, especially onthe last day, just to squeeze
this in.
Anna Elfström (01:50):
Thank you for having me.
Philipp Montenegro (01:51):
Yes. Of course. Jessica?
Jessika Richter (01:53):
Yes. My name is Jessika Richter, and I am a
researcher at the InternationalInstitute for Industrial
Environmental Economics. And mybackground is with circular
economy policy research mostlyand sustainable consumption,
which is why I've been involvedin the 1.5 degree project as
well.
Philipp Montenegro (02:08):
Oh, great to have you here also. And last but
not least.
Matthias Lehner (02:12):
Hi, everyone. My name is Matthias Lehner. I'm
also a researcher at the IIIIWhere, also part of the 1.5
degree lifestyles project. And,most recently my work has been
concerned with rebound effectsand, digitalization.
Philipp Montenegro (02:26):
Okay. Interesting. And, today, we want
to learn a little bit more aboutthe 1.5 lifestyle degree project
that you're doing. Could youmaybe give us a short
introduction, of the project?
Jessika Richter (02:37):
Okay. I can give a bit of background to the
1.5 degree project. So it's anEU project. We've been working
with several case countrypartners throughout the EU,
Spain, Hungary, Latvia, andSweden, and Germany. So those
are the countries we've beenworking with as case countries,
then we also have more researchpartners throughout, Europe as
(02:57):
well.
So it's quite a big project. Alot of it is about working in in
an interdisciplinary context andalso an international context.
So that's been a big part of theproject. In terms of what we're
actually researching, there areseveral parts that we're that
we're looking at. We're lookingat the 1.5 degree target.
That's why that's part of thethe name and the the aim, but
(03:18):
also the gap to getting there.We're looking at what is needed
to close that gap, particularlywith EU countries, and also from
a consumption based approach.And when I say that, it's what
we're actually the impact andclimate impact we're causing, as
countries and as individualshere in Europe through our
consumption. So that's that'sthe tie to sustainable
(03:41):
consumption. We're also lookingat the individual level, what
kind of consumption impacts wehave in our lifestyles here in
Europe, as well as thestructural level.
So how we can also change thestructures in which we live in
Europe to be more sustainableand aligned with a 1.5 degree
target.
Philipp Montenegro (04:01):
Why the different shifts on individual
focus and systemic focus? Andwhat is maybe the the difference
here in the approach on yourresearch also?
Jessika Richter (04:09):
So the difference when we're when we're
looking from the citizen pointof view to the structural point
of view is also who we'reinvolving in the research.
Another thing that is uniqueabout this project is the way
that we're doing research. A lotof it is through cocreation
workshops and thinking labs thatwe call it. So when we're
working at the individual level,we're actually working with
(04:30):
citizens in the case countriesthat I mentioned earlier. When
we're working at the structurallevel, we're often working with
different stakeholders fromdifferent sectors.
So policymakers, people workingin municipalities, people
working in businesses, peopleworking in NGOs, so on a more
organizational level and and atthat structural level for the
(04:53):
changes.
Philipp Montenegro (04:53):
And how much of this, like, now talking on a
personal level, how much of theaims and the research that
you're doing, were already knownto you before doing this
research? So how much of thechanges towards the 1.5
lifestyle degrees were already,something that you were
interested in or something thatyou're now figuring out or now
(05:14):
opening up through thisresearch?
Matthias Lehner (05:16):
As Jessica pointed out briefly there, I
would also, I would agree thatthe rebound part of our work is
maybe the least intuitive.Because otherwise, I mean, what
we do is very relevant. And eventhough it's not revolutionarily
new that, driving cars andflying planes and eating meat,
(05:39):
has a big carbon impact. Itstill is a problem that has to
be solved. You know, just beingaware of it doesn't solve it.
But what is newer, though veryrelevant in research and and and
by now, at least in the researchcommunity, very well, supported
by findings also is this thingcalled the rebound effect.
(06:02):
Because it is easy to thinkabout which behavior, which
individual behaviors have to bechanged and then basically stop
there and say, well, great. I'vesold my car. Now I've done my
part for climate change. And,obviously, I have a lower
footprint.
But obvious but that is notnecessarily the case. And that
is expressed, with this termrebound effect, which is the
(06:25):
fact that, when you change yourbehavior in one way, it often
ripples through other behaviors.And and so there's further
behavior changes that mighteasily increase your carbon
footprint, again, in particular,of course, when you save money
by changing a behavior.
Philipp Montenegro (06:44):
Could you elaborate on that and give an
example, maybe sticking to thecar? So when someone, sold sells
their car, what is then arebound effect that is maybe
typical that you now found out,according to this?
Matthias Lehner (06:56):
Well, that's not something we found out. That
is well established inliterature, and cars are a
commonly used example. I wouldrather than explain it by
talking about what happens whenyou sell your car, I would I
would go, I would, focus on,like, a more typical typical
example for the rebound effect,which is just efficiency gains.
(07:17):
A car engine becoming moreefficient. And that that is well
documented that that hashappened, over the last hundred
years.
Cars have become incredibly moreefficient, but we're not using
less gasoline for that. Ratherthe opposite. And that is
because using the using the carhas become cheaper and thus we
(07:38):
use it more and find new ways touse it also. So both on a on an
individual level, it means thecar being cheaper increases the
likelihood that you use it more.And on a societal level, the car
as like a tool being cheaper,makes it more available to be
(07:58):
used in many contexts.
And that is what has happened onboth an individual level and a
societal level. That there'sjust like tons of ways in which
internal combustion engines areused for transportation and
other, means. And that is verywell established that, behavior
changes that also, mean costsavings have a rebound effect.
(08:24):
And that is, a problem for, for,climate change, if you look at
it that way.
Philipp Montenegro (08:31):
And I think another aspect there was also
that even though the efficiencyis getting better, the cars are
getting heavier and then usingmore. So even though we might
have stronger and moreefficient, engines, just because
we have heavier cars and usethem more, the gains that we get
from efficient, motors
Jessika Richter (08:51):
Then we could say it depends because we do
have actually lighter cars, butwe're buying bigger cars. So
when you say heavier, it'simportant to also think, okay.
Why are they heavier? It's notheavier because we are buying
the same car, but it's heaviermaterial. In fact, it's the
opposite.
We're actually getting lightermaterials. There are more
plastics with cars and lessmetal. But we are buying bigger
(09:13):
cars. We see this SUV, effect aswell that we're getting bigger
and bigger. And that's alsosomething that we see already
established in the literaturethat there is an escalation of
consumption in terms of size ofwhat we're buying.
But if we return also to thisexample, like efficiency, yes,
is is established that we can'tget there to a 1.5 with just
(09:36):
efficiency strategies, therebound effect being a major
barrier to that. But even if wehave sufficiency strategies,
even if we're giving up our car,we can still have rebound if
we're not thinking holisticallyaround lifestyles. And there,
the classic is people who giveup their car and instead fly,
and instead not fly to replacetheir car, but instead say, I
(09:56):
don't have a car, so I can fly.And this is what we call the
moral licensing effect where youfeel like you're offsetting one
behavior with another. But theend result is it's not the gains
that were predicted from givingup your car, that it is
compensated by having increasedvacations by flight, instead.
So we see that. We also see thatthe opposite way. People might
(10:19):
stop flying and then use the carmore. It's, again, a different
overall effect, but still arebound effect that we see.
Philipp Montenegro (10:26):
Now when you just talked about some of the
barriers, what other barriers doyou then see maybe for a 1.5
lifestyle that you're trying toaddress with this research and
this project?
Jessika Richter (10:35):
Yep. Here, I can say a little bit, and I
think Anna can say even moreabout another side that we are
looking at when people areadopting different lifestyle
changes is not only what kind ofrebound effects might happen and
what they do with their money ortheir time instead and why
they're doing what they'redoing, but also what kind of
other effects happened. Whathappened to their social lives?
(10:56):
What happened to their mentalhealth? And here, we also found
some barriers to people adoptinglifestyle changes that they
might not have had the knowledgeor support, that they might have
been scared that this isdifferent than what their
friends are doing and what theirfamily is doing, and that they
might be judged.
It's not the normal thing insociety to do some of these
behaviors to stop flying, andthen you don't join your friends
(11:18):
when they're going to Spain forthe weekend. So you do miss out,
and we we talked with citizensabout these kind of effects as
well and what they did aboutthem, what they did instead. And
I'll let Anna say more aboutthis.
Anna Elfström (11:32):
Yes. So like Jessica said, in in one of the
workshops that we held thisyear, we, we asked citizens,
what what happened. Like,everything on the spectrum from
from like, everything that canhappen in your life, basically,
We we asked a really broadquestion to get a lot of results
to see what what happens whenyou give up your car, or what
(11:52):
happens when you give up meat,or what happens when you reduce
your living space, and whathappens when you give up flying.
And we got, some really, reallyinteresting results, and I think
also people started to reflecton this because people might not
have reflected on this earlier.So it made people think, and,
like, yeah, like Jessica said,many people felt a social
(12:14):
exclusion, because they weredifferent.
And a way then for them to tomitigate this negative effect
was to seek out other peoplethat were, doing the same same
lifestyle changes and seeksupport through these, social
networks, like new networks.And, another another thing was
that people might feel like theyavoided certain, topics when
(12:38):
with their friends because itfelt, loaded, you know, meat,
for example, or flying. And sothey avoided maybe these topics
and maybe also going to certainplaces like barbecues because it
was all socially awkward forthose that were, vegetarian. But
but but they they also found newfriends and new knowledge in
(13:00):
this, and they tried to, yeah,create this this this new this
new identity a little bit, inorder to support their their new
choices. And, and some of theirlifestyle changes were a lot
more, like, ethically loaded andsome were not so, yeah, they
they didn't have so much to dowith identity, all of them, but
(13:22):
some of the lifestyle changesdid.
And, those psychologicalapproaches were really, really
important for the participantsin our workshops.
Philipp Montenegro (13:30):
I can imagine it's a big, impact. And
then when you conducted theseworkshops, how did you approach
or how did you find theseparticipants? And when doing
this, did they have the samemotivations behind their
changes? Was it alwaysenvironmental reasons or were
there different reasons behindthat that then led to these
changes, but out of differentmotivations maybe?
Anna Elfström (13:51):
We we tried to recruit, like, at a very diverse
group, from from all differentages and all different, like,
urban and rural citizens. Andwe, we found that not everyone
had given up their car or theirflying habits or whatever for
environmental reasons. That wasnot the motivation for all of
them, and that was not also thatwasn't the point. We we we'd
(14:14):
rather want, like, a diversityto to show that you can give up
your car or do this lifestylechanges for different reasons.
Matthias Lehner (14:22):
I just wanna add that here. One thing we,
aimed for in this researchproject was to capture and and
also deal with the the thecomplexity of different
lifestyles. Because, one thingthat I think that one can forget
in the public debate, but thenthat also complicates, things
(14:44):
for policy makers, for example,especially when you then
consider things like the reboundeffect is that lifestyles can
look very differently, ofcourse. And so policies impact
different people verydifferently. And we saw that in
the, because what is maybenecessary to point out here is
that we did not do, most of ourwork was qualitative in nature
(15:05):
in order to get, to to tounderstand the depth of
decisions and behavior andbehavior change.
So these are we didn't collect,statistically representative
sample. But what we did is, workwith diverse people to capture
the the the variation inbehaviors. And we did have
(15:27):
people, that that differed eventhough they could have a similar
carbon footprint. They differedvery much in, like, where their
carbon footprint comes from. Isit from housing?
Is it from transportation? Is itfrom food? You know? And that
that changed, of course, verymuch what type of behavior
change was necessary and whathad an impact for them. And the
(15:48):
other thing, that we did thatwas, I think also surprising for
many of the participants is thethe amount of behavior change or
how much behavior change isnecessary in a way to achieve
the 1.5 degree lifestyle.
And and as, Anna just said, itbecame in our work, it became
(16:10):
clear well, we were aware ofthat because of the numbers, but
the participants also became, Ithink, aware of the fact that
the simple changes that maybe donot impact their social
environment, their socialcontext that will not have an
impact on their mentalwell-being and require more
(16:32):
fundamental changes to their,lifestyle. Those are not enough.
You know, the the low hangingfruits, the low hanging fruits,
will not do the trick,basically. What are examples
there?
Jessika Richter (16:45):
So some examples of low hanging fruits
are things like changing yourlight bulbs, switching off the
lights when you go out. Justmore efficiency switches as
well. Even if you have money,it's easy to install the
technology that is needed. Sothese efficiency strategies we
were talking about before, maybegiving up a little bit of
things, meatless Monday. Youknow, these are not so big.
(17:09):
And it comes across when you'reone of our workshops was playing
a game to get down to the 1.5degree lifestyle. And there you
could see there were smallpieces to get there and there
were big pieces. And the bigpieces were some of these
strategies that we mentionedbefore that we looked at in the
rebound workshops of giving upyour car, stopping flying
(17:30):
completely, giving up meatcompletely, or living in a
smaller housing or sharedhousing. These were bigger
pieces in that board game.Another thing I think that was
interesting that alsodifferentiates our qualitative
research, as Matthias mentionedit is, versus quantitative
research, was often inquantitative, you get a snapshot
(17:50):
of people's preferences, whatthey're willing to do or not,
what they say they will do ornot.
And here in the discussions,what was also interesting was
finding not only when theparticipants came up across,
like, that they needed to domore substantial lifestyle
changes, many of them in thefirst respect would say, I don't
want to do these or it doesn'twork to do these. But when you
(18:13):
went deeper and asked them, whatwould make you want to do this?
What would make this easier todo? It wasn't that they were
against it without anyconditions. It's that they would
change their preferences undercertain conditions.
So another part of the projectwas finding out under what
conditions would people adoptthese lifestyle changes that in
(18:34):
first take, they would beopposed to.
Philipp Montenegro (18:37):
What will be an example there that you maybe
remember?
Jessika Richter (18:39):
Yeah. An example there would be about
flying as well as it was oftenmore expensive to go by train,
and I don't have time to go bytrain. If I had more time, if it
was more efficient, or if it wasnot so cheap and compelling to
go by flight and not so normalthat all my friends were flying
as well, I could see myselfgiving up flying. It is not a
(19:02):
necessity in a lifestyle formost people. It is just to be
normal.
Philipp Montenegro (19:07):
And that's maybe then a good example also
to understand the individual andthe systematic levels, of it
where you said that if flyingwouldn't be that, cheap and if
trains would be more accessibleand culturally more, normal,
basically. So these are not juston the individual level.
Matthias Lehner (19:26):
And and I would like to add another example,
which, relates also to anotherpart of our methodology in the
workshops, and that is visioningworkshops or to to provide, so
instead to talk instead oftalking about the barriers and
the status quo to flip the coinand say, here's the future, a
(19:47):
future that is more aligned in amore or less in line with the
1.5 degree lifestyle. How do youfeel about that? And so instead
of telling people, or instead ofasking people, well, how are you
gonna solve that? How are yougonna get from where you are
today to the future that weneed? Instead, say, here's one
possible future.
How would you like that? Andthere, it was interesting, to
Philipp Montenegro (20:10):
if I now think about
Matthias Lehner (20:12):
the housing example, in particular, living
smaller, giving up living spaceand or sharing shared living,
because those were one of two ofthe least favorable options in
our initial work. When we askedpeople like, what could you
imagine doing? Those were reallynot popular in none of the
(20:35):
countries. Basically, there wasagreement across the five case
countries that
Philipp Montenegro (20:39):
no, I don't want
Matthias Lehner (20:39):
to live small and no, I do not want wanna
share.
Philipp Montenegro (20:42):
And all for the same reasons also? Or just,
like, flat out similar?
Matthias Lehner (20:46):
Yeah. Similar. It had to do with privacy, with
comfort, with, kind of a senseof freedom and ability that
comes from your living quartersand living space, space in
itself, possibilities to storethings, to have things, to own
things, you know. You know, ininfamously, people fill the
(21:08):
space they have. Right?
And, it's not easy for us togive up what we have. So a
multiple multitude of reasons,but pretty similar across across
the case countries. But thenwhen we instead said, so here's
the future. You do live smaller.You do share more.
But it's also more social. Youknow your neighbors. It's, you
(21:29):
know, that when you add thesocial component to it, the fact
that, you don't need to spend asmuch, time taking care of your,
home, then we found, a lot morereceptive audience. And then
people were also a lot morewilling to dis to discuss these
ideas and be like, well, I Icould imagine, having my,
(21:53):
friends over for barbecue in acommon space as long as there is
a common space, and I can counton it being available. So, you
know, and and there comes inagain the the systematic or the
the structural part becausepeople themselves are unlikely
to build common barbecue spaces,not least because they're not
allowed to, but in a context, inan environment where they are
(22:15):
provided with these spaces,increasing individual space and,
and like the the size of thespace that you have appear to be
less relevant?
Anna Elfström (22:27):
So, it's interesting about the the
smaller living space, because,when we asked the participants
what happened in their life,like, good and bad effects from
from that. I think many of theother lifestyle changes, a lot
of the negative effects werethat they felt, limited in a
certain way, like, a loss offreedom. I can't fly. I can't
drive my car, that sort ofthing. But in the living smaller
(22:49):
group, a lot of the positiveeffects were a sense of freedom
that they could declutter.
They had so much less stuff.And, and they didn't have to
spend so much time, likeMatthias said, on cleaning and
maintaining the the space. Andalso the that that saved money
because you you you livesmaller. You don't have to spend
(23:09):
so much on heating, for example.So, I think that's an
interesting aspect that thosethat actually did this big thing
that was, like, hard for peopleto to say that they wanted to
do, those that have done it,they had a lot of, positive
things to to say about, yeah,their sense of freedom freedom.
Philipp Montenegro (23:26):
And on that note, also, I guess, it makes a
difference how you frame it. SoI remember during the lunch
seminar that you hold, a fewweeks ago, you also said that
many people gain also newconnections, new social
interactions, and, more freedomnow, as you said in this,
example when decluttering, whichoften is maybe in conflict with
(23:50):
the question of giving up,giving up flying, giving up
eating meat, giving up having acar. So I guess that's also a
big aspect of this researchmaybe showing that it's not just
about giving up, but also ofreevaluating and gaining things
towards a better future, asyou'd said now, imagining a
great future instead of saying,imagine giving up all of this.
Anna Elfström (24:14):
Definitely. And that's that's something that,
you asked before what was thesurprising thing about this
research. And I think that was,for me, a surprising thing that
people had so much positives toshare. You know, a lot of good
things can happen. When you whenwhen you make a big lifestyle
change, it's it's gonna have abig impact, but those can also
be good impacts.
And that's, that's somethingthat we learned. And and it
(24:36):
there's a there's a plethora ofdifferent things that can
happen. There's no one, onething that happens. So that's
also the the variety of peoplethat we had showed that a lot of
things can happen.
Jessika Richter (24:48):
Yep. And I think this idea of framing and
the positive message is reallyimportant for people to hear as
well. When we go out and talk towith citizens, often they'll
ask, who are these people thathad they adopted these lifestyle
changes, and where did you findthem? And the implication is
almost clear. They're saying,are did they come from caves?
Like, where have you foundthese, 1.5? Because there has
(25:09):
been a narrative that has beenmore negative around giving up
with climate change and aboutthe negative consequences. And I
think it is, important to flipthis and talk about the co
benefits and what is gained frommoving towards sustainable
lifestyles as well. And sothat's a message for citizens
themselves, but it's also amessage for policymakers. And it
(25:31):
is something that is reallyimportant in our project that we
are crafting the results and thedifferent messages for different
stakeholders.
So we are talking to the media.We are talking to policymakers.
We are talking to businesses,and we are talking to citizens
themselves about the out the,results of this project. Mhmm.
Philipp Montenegro (25:50):
And how do you share this then? And, how do
you make them more accessiblethat people actually don't
understand, oh, this is someonelike me that did this change,
and it's not someone coming outof a cave that, is reducing the
impact?
Matthias Lehner (26:06):
Well, actually, and I apologize
Philipp Montenegro (26:08):
for that. Instead of answering your
question now, I'm gonna
Matthias Lehner (26:11):
go back to a previous question that you've
asked, about who our mainrecipient is or target audience.
Because and invite my colleaguesto disagree with me. But even
though we study first andforemost individual lifestyles,
I mean, the main recipient hasto be policy makers. And we and
(26:35):
that it could almost sound,like, counterintuitive to how
the project is set up, but notreally. Because what we are
primarily interested in is whatprevents like, what what what
are the barriers for individualsfrom, to go from where we are
now to where they have to go andthe complexity in that.
(26:56):
We do involve stakeholdersdirectly or policy makers, as
we've said, but we also in manyways work with the individuals
in order to better understandwhere kind of where the levers
are in order to get from A to B.And what is
Philipp Montenegro (27:12):
then something that you hope or maybe
want to give on to policymakers, that they actually then
should take as a learning fromthis project?
Jessika Richter (27:20):
I think we have several policy briefs that are
coming out of the project andpolicy recommendations, and
there are different parts tothis as well. So there are parts
to how to support peopleadopting the lifestyle changes.
So we have the lifestyle changescommunicated and what policies
would enable those. I mean, someof them are as as Matias
(27:40):
mentioned. It is about makingthe the climate, harmful
activities more expensive andenabling the alternatives.
But we do have to look at bothwhat we want to have less of and
what we want to have more of. Soit's not just about making
something more expensive, butalso enabling the alternatives
that we want to see. I think forpolicymakers, it is also
(28:03):
important, this framing andnorms question of what kind of
examples we're giving tocitizens and to society and what
kind of narratives that we'rewe're framing this not just as
cutting back and doing less andmaking things more expensive,
but having a higher quality oflife, having increased
well-being, and really focusingon the benefits from these types
(28:26):
of policies that need to be putin place.
Philipp Montenegro (28:28):
Which then maybe even goes as far as
reflecting and questioning ourcurrent lifestyles and being
like, well, what is it actuallythat we are so used to that
might necessarily not be,something that we as society or
as individuals need? And thentherefore, when we give up on
these things, we gain somethingas with all the clutter and the
(28:49):
consumption, some sorts ofoverconsumptions actually tie us
back. As you then mentioned inthe example, when people
declutter, they feel more freeby giving up these things. So in
a way, reflecting some negativeaspects of the current
lifestyles and looking forpositive and more environmental,
future lifestyle, like, tomorrowlifestyle, basically.
Jessika Richter (29:13):
Yep. And I think that what you've hit upon
too is that we need to go beyondefficiency and also be focusing
on sufficiency as well. What isenough for a good life?
Matthias Lehner (29:25):
What I would like, to add here in terms of
takeaways for policymakers isand and Jessica mentioned this
possibility for win winsolutions. You know? Because one
thing that I think sometimes isthere's there's sometimes a
little bit of amisrepresentation of the our
(29:50):
current lifestyle when talkingabout climate change in terms
of, like, what has to change. Itit would almost if you listen
sometimes to a to a climatedebate, it would almost sound
like we have the perfect life,all of us. And then there's this
unfortunate issue of climatechange.
But if you look at society morebroadly, we, of course, have
lots of other issues that haveto deal with mental health and
(30:12):
with physical health. You know,there's in in other policy
areas, and policy makers arevery aware of all the issues
that, come from people feelingstressed and overwhelmed. And,
well, again, mental and physicalhealth is not great in in in
some ways in society. And, therea less carbon intense lifestyle
(30:37):
could easily also mean a Ahealthier stressful lifestyle.
Yes.
I mean, just taketransportation. Cycling is a
great way to keep in shape. It'sa simple way. And it has,
there's no question that it hasa positive health effect
compared to sitting in a car.
Philipp Montenegro (30:57):
Yeah. Or walking.
Matthias Lehner (30:58):
Walking or sitting.
Philipp Montenegro (31:00):
Yes, of course. Exactly.
Matthias Lehner (31:01):
And and the other thing is also true because
when we talk about when wetalked about these, bigger
behavior changes in particular,for example, flying, then that
is very often perceivedinitially as something negative.
I give up flying. I cannotexplore the world anymore as I
used to and stuff. But thealternative, it seems, is then
(31:24):
often to instead explore yourclose environment more,
including more time to buildlocal connections. And, and that
is a very positive outcome from,this behavior change to be more
rooted in your localenvironment, to have closer ties
(31:46):
to neighbors and other socialconnections.
Because in the end, if you'rehonest, what will make your life
better is not the two weeks ayear that you spent among
strangers on Bali, but the fiftyweeks a year that you spent with
your neighbors. And whether youhave good neighbors and you like
them and you have a good socialnetwork around you or not makes
(32:07):
a lot more difference. So it hasa
Philipp Montenegro (32:09):
lot more impact on your life. That's
definitely something I will takeaway from this, episode to
reflect on this and to maybeappreciate the environment
around us even more. What thingshave you maybe or are you taking
away from your research on thisproject?
Anna Elfström (32:26):
Well, what I'm taking away from from working
with this project is how how funit is to talk to citizens about
this, and how engaged they are,and how how willing they are to
to share, and to be a part ofthis change. Even though it's
hard, it's it's really fun totalk about, and it's really fun
to hear about these ideas. AndI've been really inspired both
(32:49):
by stakeholders and by thecitizens that we have talked to.
And, there's so many differentways that you can change your
lifestyle. There's no one waythat one fits all.
Like, it's it's also what'sinteresting about the project is
different nations, differentcultures. There's there's so
many different ways that we canwe can all do something, and
that's been the main takeawayfor me.
Philipp Montenegro (33:10):
Mhmm. And, Yesika, what is your main
takeaway?
Jessika Richter (33:13):
I think, actually, you captured my main
takeaway before too. I think intalking to the citizens and and
seeing, okay, how much of thisis even possible now still
highlighted to me the barriersthere and why it is still not
normal and the real need tofocus on these structures, a lot
of which is really questioningthe systematic structures we
(33:36):
have now. So I think I've becomemore critical of the on the
structural level and really morefocused on that level, knowing
that there are already lots ofcitizens willing to change and
lots of citizens who even seethe benefits of the change
already.
Philipp Montenegro (33:52):
What is your main takeaway, Matthias? Was it
the previous previous pointsmaybe? Yeah.
Matthias Lehner (33:56):
Well, I'm I mean, I I agree with what my
colleagues, said, before me. Imaybe wanna say two things then.
I do think that policymakersunderestimate the willingness
for people to change if changehappens in an orderly and fair
way. Then people
Philipp Montenegro (34:16):
also, I guess.
Matthias Lehner (34:17):
Yes. If what if everybody contributes, I think
people are, in the medium tolong term, way more receptive to
changes than policy makersthink. Personally, I what I take
away from the project is theimportance of community.
Community being this verypowerful enabling tool for,
(34:40):
individual behavior change,Because I think it makes it more
fun and it simply, it providesthe support network, that most
people need. Only few of us havethe willpower, you know, to
power through some some changewithout, any environmental or
(35:01):
external support.
And, and so I think one crucialfactor that that I took away
from from our results was thatmost individuals that seem to
have succeeded in in a majorbehavior change did so with the
support of a community that theyfound. In particular, in the in
(35:23):
the beginning, changes aredifficult because first, there's
all the chaos, and then you findthe new structure and new
routines and things that youlike about them. And and their
community is,
Philipp Montenegro (35:33):
is an enabling factor that is
important. So maybe on that, howcan listeners and general public
maybe, reach and read some ofyour findings and get maybe
inspired. You mentioned a gamebefore. Are any of these or what
are your recommendations forinterested, listeners to, get
some of these inspiration,inspirational stories and
(35:56):
learnings?
Anna Elfström (35:57):
Well, like you said, we we do have the game,
the climate puzzle, and here inLund, at least, that puzzle will
be available soon, at CircleCenter, where you can borrow it
and play it.
Philipp Montenegro (36:10):
The local library
Anna Elfström (36:12):
of things.
Philipp Montenegro (36:12):
Okay. Great.
Anna Elfström (36:13):
Exactly. I don't know the the the website by
heart, but Jessica does, I hope.
Philipp Montenegro (36:18):
And we'll add it also to the description
of this episode.
Anna Elfström (36:21):
But
Jessika Richter (36:22):
Great. Because it's 1.5lifestyles.eu.
Philipp Montenegro (36:26):
Okay. We'll find that. Well, thanks so much
for being here on, the show andfor giving us so many great
insights and inspirations also,and all the best, and see you
around.
Jessika Richter (36:37):
Thank you. Bye.
Philipp Montenegro (36:42):
Welcome to another round of discussions
with the one point fivelifestyles team here at the
Institute. And I'm happy to havea few more speakers as last time
we talked with Matthias, Anna,and Jessica. And now we're
joined again by Jessica, butalso Oksana, Mariana, and
Andreas. So welcome, everyone.
Oksana Mont (36:59):
Hello. Oksana Mont here. I'm a professor in
sustainable consumptiongovernance at the Institute and
part of the 1.5 team.
Philipp Montenegro (37:06):
Very nice to have you here. Yes.
Marianne Ekdahl (37:08):
I'm Marianne Ekdahl research
assistant here at the Institute.
Jessika Richter (37:11):
Jessica Richter, associate senior
lecturer at the IIIEE.
Andrius Plepys (37:15):
And Andrius Plepys I'm a researcher
in the project.
Philipp Montenegro (37:17):
Thanks so much for being here. And maybe
we can start with you, Oksana.Could you give us a little bit
of an overview of the 1.5lifestyle project and the work
that you've been doing as it'scoming to an end?
Oksana Mont (37:28):
Gladly. So we are talking about a European
project, a four year projectthat started in 2021. It's
called 1.5 degrees lifestyles,policies and tools for
mainstreaming 1.5 degreeslifestyles. The starting point
of the project is that we needto introduce and implement
(37:48):
behavioral changes in additionto technological improvements
that we see in order to be inline with the Paris agreement
target of 1.5 degrees warming inthe world. And what we've done
is that we started byidentifying lifestyle options.
We've done a lit review andidentified almost 500 options
(38:08):
that people can implement. Thenthrough validation with experts,
we narrowed this choice to 50options. And then what's
important for the project andwhat's one of its unique points
is that we calculated how muchreduction of CO2 can be reached
with each of these options. Andthe idea is that we really need
drastic reductions. If we have2030 as our goal, then Swedish,
(38:34):
for example, footprint needs tobe to 2.5 tons of CO2, and by
2050 we need to be down to 0.7.
Currently, on average, we have6.2 tons, so we have a long way
to go. And that also shows howimportant this project is. We
also employed quite engagement,kind of participatory methods in
(38:56):
the project. We engaged with thecitizens, invited them, and run
workshops with them. In theproject also, we used climate
puzzle, where people cancalculate their footprint, but
then also in dialogue discusswhat changes they can implement,
to reduce the CO2 impacts, whatkind of hinders they encounter,
(39:17):
and under what conditions theycan overcome these barriers.
So this is also important andled to important publications
and realizations about reboundeffects and other side effects,
both positive and negative, thatcan help us, as researchers, but
also us as individuals toimplement the changes that need
to be implemented.
Philipp Montenegro (39:36):
And I guess it goes further also than just a
carbon footprint calculator,right, which you can find
online, but then I guess througha game and gamification of it to
have a longer discussion and gomore in-depth.
Oksana Mont (39:46):
Yes. With the carbon footprint, you know how
large your footprint is, howmany tons of CO2 your lifestyle
emits. But then we, come up witha list of 50 lifestyle options.
What you actually can do,calculate it with how much
reduction potential each ofthese options associates with.
And with Climate Basel, youbasically lay a path for how
(40:08):
much reductions you can achieve,what are easy changes you can
implement easily, or by payingeconomically for them, for
example, installing solarpanels, but which other
behavioral changes you canimplement to reach actually the
targets of 2,030 or 02/1950.
Philipp Montenegro (40:25):
And since it's already quite known that we
need to reduce our impact andhave a more sustainable
lifestyle, why is it then maybethat there is such a high
acceptance for for it, for a 1.5lifestyle or a more general
sustainable lifestyle?
Marianne Ekdahl (40:39):
Well, as you as you mentioned, acceptance is a
very important factor in that.And, we have actually studied in
the research project project howacceptance varies between
different lifestyle options andcountries. And acceptance varies
really a lot. And we all knowthat from our everyday life
that, I mean, people have a highacceptance for certain things,
(40:59):
but certain things, I mean,they're really, really against.
And and, of course, that's veryimportant for policy makers as
well to to and it also kind ofdirects how they make decisions.
But in general, I mean, a verygeneral pattern is that we can
see a high level of acceptancefor lifestyle options with low
climate impact, but that reallyneeds a financial investment.
(41:20):
And one very good example is,installing solar panels that in
at least in the Swedish setting,it has a low climate impact. But
it requires a financialinvestment and it it's also
visible for the neighbors and soon. But it doesn't really
require a behavioral change. Butthen there is a low level of
acceptance for for, I mean, thelifestyle options that really
(41:43):
have the highest, impact interms of climate benefit.
For but that really requires abehavioral change in everyday
life. And for example, oneexample is switching to a
vegetarian, or vegan diet or,moving to a smaller, smaller
living space or or sharinghousing. And, and in those
cases, in those lifestyleoptions, I mean, they very often
(42:05):
lead to financial savings. Soyou save money, but, but you
don't need an investment, butstill acceptance is, is really
low. So that's, that's really,interesting.
And the reason why this is,important is of course that
policy makers need need tounderstand this. And of course,
I mean, most of them dounderstand that, but it's also
very important that we have alsofound in the studies that
(42:26):
individuals can increase, theiracceptance under certain so
called conditions of acceptance.And this means that policy
makers can also contribute tohigher acceptance levels. And,
in in the context we have hadwith policy makers and, civil
servants from, from,municipalities and so on, we can
see that there is a highinterest from policy makers on
this topic.
Philipp Montenegro (42:46):
And what are conditions for acceptance?
Oksana Mont (42:48):
That's an important question where policy makers and
municipalities can, help. Forexample, in our study of smaller
living spaces, it's much easierfor people to move to smaller
living spaces in certain timesof their lives. For example,
when children are grown up andleave the space, then
policymakers can help people toreduce, for example, taxes if
(43:13):
the properties are changinghands within a family. They
also, for people, it's easierthan to move maybe to city
centre where they don't need torely on cars so much. People
also can, accept much better,for example, shared spaces, if
individual spaces are small, butthen common spaces are provided.
(43:33):
So access to common utilities,extra services, also green
areas, then they are much moreeager to accept smaller
individual living spaces wherethey have access to shared
spaces. It's easier to shift,abandon your car or leave at
home if there is a bicycleinfrastructure available, shared
(43:55):
bikes, well functioningcollective transport system,
well functioning trains, so thatit's easier to not to fly. And
these are all examples of how byproviding access to
infrastructure, and with certaineconomic incentives, policy
makers can increase acceptance.
Philipp Montenegro (44:14):
Goes back again a little bit to the two
different approaches. One, theindividual approach, but then
also the structural societalapproach within the policy
makers.
Andrius Plepys (44:22):
Yeah. You are right. And, the project focused
on these issues quite a lotbecause if we want acceptance to
be accepted, we need to removethe hinders. We have to lower
lower the behavioral barriers.And, of course, there is not one
solution that fits all.
And in different context, indifferent consumption areas,
hinders could be very, verydifferent. They can be from
(44:44):
anything related to structurallock in effects in existing
technologies to simple lack ofawareness or simple,
misperception of benefits thatlifestyle changes can bring you.
For instance, better health, orit could be better work and
family life balance. People canbe simply happier by adopting
(45:07):
how they move, what they eat,how they communicate to the
others, how they together solvethese behavioral adaptations.
And there, of course, there aremany factors that could support
a lifestyle change.
Some of them are on the surface.Some of them are deeper. And for
instance, citizen engagementalways shows that, well, people
are better off by solving issuestogether, seeing examples.
(45:30):
Anything from global to verylocal initiatives can help that.
And, sure, people also needeconomic incentives, incentives
that discourage them fromunsustainable behaviors and
encourage them to consumedifferently.
For that, of course, there is alot of room for policy changes
that could be different taxationpolicies, editing out
(45:51):
unsustainable products,sunsetting dangerous products to
greening energy mix, providingmore convenient public transport
that Oksana mentioned, make itmore convenient for people to
make better choices.
Philipp Montenegro (46:05):
And that also, I guess, then shows that
it's not just about the carbonemissions, and it's not just
about 1.5 degrees, but also amore sustainable, maybe more
social life and communitiesright even if we might not hit
the 1.5 target it's still reallyrelevant to focus on these more
sustainable lifestyle choicesand changes right
Jessika Richter (46:26):
right I think the 1.5 degree lifestyle whether
it's 1.5 degree or we say thatit's a sustainable lifestyle is
relevant. It's something that weneed and these behavior changes
are part of the, of thelifestyle changes we need to fit
within basically the planetaryboundaries.
Oksana Mont (46:42):
So though the overall message from the project
is that first, we cannot relyonly on technological progress
to solve environmental problems,important are behavioral
changes. The next message isthat although behavioral changes
at individual level extremelyimportant, they need to be
enabled and supported bysocietal, and infrastructure and
(47:04):
institutional changes in societythat enable and facilitate
behavioural changes. And forthat part, we have a number of
tools developed in the project,like the mentioned climate
puzzle that is available fororder, and it can be used both
by individuals, but also bymunicipalities, by schools,
(47:25):
anyone in who is involved withengaging the public, in this
transition.
Philipp Montenegro (47:31):
And also you have an upcoming MOOC, right?
Jessika Richter (47:33):
Yes. So we have an upcoming MOOC. We should say
maybe by the time this episodeis out, the MOOC is also
available on the Courseraplatform and it is free to take
the MOOC and follow. And it'swhere we have tried to really,
record videos of the different,researchers that are involved in
the project. Each talking aboutthe research that they have done
(47:53):
as part of the project.
So we have researchers from allof our partner, countries and
partner institutes talking aboutthat research, sharing the
findings, but also then sharingthe tools that have been
mentioned. So we also will havea guidebook for citizens that
walk them through, the differenthigh impact, lifestyle options
that have been mentioned. Wealso walk through all the
(48:15):
different structural barriers,but enablers as well. And then
we talk about visions of thefuture and we challenge, those
that are taking the MOOC as wellto implement a lifestyle change,
something major for a shorttime, and really observe what
else changes in their life whenthey make one change. How do
they look at things differently?
(48:36):
What do they find easier thanexpected? What do they find
harder than expected? And thenshare that with other people who
are also trying this out in ajourney. So it is, it is a fun
way to connect with others andto connect with the research
project findings as well. So weencourage everybody to look it
up on the Coursera platform andjoin us for the MOOC.
Oksana Mont (48:56):
We also have, in addition to MOOC, we have a
citizen guide, that wasmentioned, and we also run now,
campaigns on social media wherewe encourage people to implement
these changes and share theirstories, both good and bad.
Jessika Richter (49:12):
And we can say while the project itself will be
wrapping up in April 2025, andit will be ending with the
sustainable consumption,conference, SCORI conference,
where we'll be sharing thefinal, project findings. The
MOOC and the citizen guidebookand some of the resources will
be available well after theproject has ended. So still look
for those resources. They'lllive on even after the project
(49:34):
has wrapped up in April 2025.
Philipp Montenegro (49:36):
What are your reflections and maybe
learnings or what has surprisedyou from this project from
working on this? Also I thinkit's really interesting to see a
project with so many differentcountries, focusing on the same,
topic, but then with differentcultural acceptances, for
example, or what is maybe someof the reflections that you
have?
Oksana Mont (49:55):
It was actually fascinating to see the
difference between countries.We're all European countries,
but then it's hard to talk aboutreducing, for example, meat
consumption in Sweden, but evenharder in Hungary where a lot or
Spain. So it's thesedifferences, between countries
that were fascinating.
Marianne Ekdahl (50:14):
I think it was interesting to see how, I mean,
in our outreach after theproject, I think it's
interesting to see the interestfor consumption based policy and
the interest from from policymakers to, for example, reduce,
consumption based emissions,working with different ways to
develop strategies for reducingconsumption based emissions and
(50:37):
helping their citizens to toreduce the the emissions from
from their their everyday life.Research findings was
interesting in that sense.
Andrius Plepys (50:44):
Everything was interesting. Perhaps, I could
add that throughout the project,we had opportunities to hear
individual stories. And thenwhat we could extract from those
interviews was was fascinated.People are so different, and you
can assume that, well, avegetarian is a vegetarian, but
their lifestyles are very, veryindividual. And they have
(51:06):
different motivations anddifferent different behavioral
patterns.
It was difficult to connect howpeople are not consistent in
their behavior.
Philipp Montenegro (51:15):
And I think that's a little bit the
advantage of this project alsowhere you went into depth with a
qualitative approach where yougot to understand the depth of
the different choices and thepeople and persons behind this.
And Yessica, what is your takeon this project?
Jessika Richter (51:29):
So one of the lifestyle challenges that we had
in one of our campaigns inJanuary was, having a plant
based diet and reducing the foodwaste. And with the food waste
or waste in general, I was alsotrying to reduce packaging. And
I think for me, it was eyeopening how much, packaging
there was to food. And then alsogoing to, we tried a vegan diet
(51:53):
for a month as well. And for us,it was, it was easier in some
respects when we were cooking athome to, to find new recipes and
great new recipes that are nowpart of our rotation.
So that was easier thanexpected. It was a little harder
expected on the social sidewhere I had told people I was
doing this and I still went overto people's houses and they're
(52:13):
like, we are serving you porktoday. I'm like, oh. So I I
could really it resonated withme. A lot of the citizens that
we had been, talking to in theworkshops when they talked about
some of the things that they hadencountered, it was the same as
I was encountering it myself inthis challenge as well.
But I think that was one of themajor learnings of how complex
(52:35):
it really is, to make theselifestyle changes, but also how
if we start with some it leadsto others and while we may not
be perfect we can be better.
Philipp Montenegro (52:45):
Very nice, thanks so much for sharing this.
I look forward to playing thegame and maybe also through that
then, push push for moresustainable or exchange on more
sustainable lifestyles. Sothanks so much for sharing and
being here and looking forwardto the mook coming out and to
playing around the 1.5 stylegames thanks so much
Oksana Mont (53:03):
thank you
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
Las Culturistas with Matt Rogers and Bowen Yang
Ding dong! Join your culture consultants, Matt Rogers and Bowen Yang, on an unforgettable journey into the beating heart of CULTURE. Alongside sizzling special guests, they GET INTO the hottest pop-culture moments of the day and the formative cultural experiences that turned them into Culturistas. Produced by the Big Money Players Network and iHeartRadio.