Tehmina Haider and Michael O’Leary on Consumers and Climate Change
Tehmina Haider and Michael O’Leary, leaders of L Catterton Impact, recently spoke on the role of consumers in the transition to clean energy. ExxonMobil CEO Darren Woods has previously faced criticism for suggesting that the slow progress towards clean energy is due to consumers’ reluctance to spend money on such fuels.
The SEC’s new rules on climate disclosures put the responsibility of emissions reporting on public companies. However, the emissions resulting from consumers using the companies’ products are not included in this, meaning these emissions are still considered part of the consumer’s carbon footprint.
Consumer Responsibility
Many climate activists disagree with placing the blame on consumers. The notion of a consumer’s “carbon footprint” only became popular following an ad campaign funded by BP in the early 2000s. Regardless, Woods’ core argument holds truth: the development of sustainable products is futile if consumers are not willing to purchase them.
The climate movement has often assumed that, given the right technology, climate-conscious consumers will readily adopt sustainable options. However, the actual consumer adoption rate proves to be quite unpredictable.
Consumer Adoption Rates
The transportation and food sectors account for approximately half of a consumer’s total emissions. Both sectors have seen significant technological advancements that could reduce emissions. Nonetheless, adoption rates have been inconsistent. For instance, while electric vehicles have 48% lower cradle-to-grave emissions than conventional vehicles, they only accounted for 7.6% of total automotive sales in the U.S. last year.
In the food industry, alternative proteins have the potential to reduce emissions by up to 90% compared to beef. Yet, their current market share is just 2%.
Overall, consumer consumption is responsible for 72% of greenhouse gas emissions. To limit global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius, we need to cut per capita emissions by 50% within this decade. However, the full potential of emissions savings will only be realized if consumers are willing to pay for these climate technology solutions.
The Consumer Trade-Off
Although many consumers claim to value sustainability, it often falls to the wayside when compared to price, quality, or convenience. Studies have shown that support for sustainable options can plummet by 70% or more when consumers are forced to compromise on these primary factors.
For a sustainable product to see long-term adoption, it must either match or surpass the quality, convenience, or price point of its non-sustainable counterpart. Once a sustainable product is favored for reasons other than sustainability, it will likely achieve mainstream success.
For example, many consumers choose dairy alternatives because they are healthier and more enjoyable, not necessarily because they are better for the environment. The same can be seen with secondhand apparel, which is growing in popularity due to its cost-effectiveness.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the consumer remains a key player in the fight against climate change. For substantial progress towards a net zero emissions world, products must be developed that consumers prefer over traditional alternatives. Until then, it is unfair to place the bulk of the blame for climate change on consumers.
Original Story at fortune.com
The Consumer Still Reigns Supreme in Climate Technology
Tehmina Haider and Michael O’Leary on Consumers and Climate Change
Tehmina Haider and Michael O’Leary, leaders of L Catterton Impact, recently spoke on the role of consumers in the transition to clean energy. ExxonMobil CEO Darren Woods has previously faced criticism for suggesting that the slow progress towards clean energy is due to consumers’ reluctance to spend money on such fuels.
The SEC’s new rules on climate disclosures put the responsibility of emissions reporting on public companies. However, the emissions resulting from consumers using the companies’ products are not included in this, meaning these emissions are still considered part of the consumer’s carbon footprint.
Consumer Responsibility
Many climate activists disagree with placing the blame on consumers. The notion of a consumer’s “carbon footprint” only became popular following an ad campaign funded by BP in the early 2000s. Regardless, Woods’ core argument holds truth: the development of sustainable products is futile if consumers are not willing to purchase them.
The climate movement has often assumed that, given the right technology, climate-conscious consumers will readily adopt sustainable options. However, the actual consumer adoption rate proves to be quite unpredictable.
Consumer Adoption Rates
The transportation and food sectors account for approximately half of a consumer’s total emissions. Both sectors have seen significant technological advancements that could reduce emissions. Nonetheless, adoption rates have been inconsistent. For instance, while electric vehicles have 48% lower cradle-to-grave emissions than conventional vehicles, they only accounted for 7.6% of total automotive sales in the U.S. last year.
In the food industry, alternative proteins have the potential to reduce emissions by up to 90% compared to beef. Yet, their current market share is just 2%.
Overall, consumer consumption is responsible for 72% of greenhouse gas emissions. To limit global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius, we need to cut per capita emissions by 50% within this decade. However, the full potential of emissions savings will only be realized if consumers are willing to pay for these climate technology solutions.
The Consumer Trade-Off
Although many consumers claim to value sustainability, it often falls to the wayside when compared to price, quality, or convenience. Studies have shown that support for sustainable options can plummet by 70% or more when consumers are forced to compromise on these primary factors.
For a sustainable product to see long-term adoption, it must either match or surpass the quality, convenience, or price point of its non-sustainable counterpart. Once a sustainable product is favored for reasons other than sustainability, it will likely achieve mainstream success.
For example, many consumers choose dairy alternatives because they are healthier and more enjoyable, not necessarily because they are better for the environment. The same can be seen with secondhand apparel, which is growing in popularity due to its cost-effectiveness.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the consumer remains a key player in the fight against climate change. For substantial progress towards a net zero emissions world, products must be developed that consumers prefer over traditional alternatives. Until then, it is unfair to place the bulk of the blame for climate change on consumers.
Original Story at fortune.com
Trending News
Introducing the Mainers Leading the Home Electrification Revolution
U.S.-Europe Split on ESG Investing Evident in Climate Action 100+ Departures
US Initiates Funding Call to Identify Standardized Offshore Wind Transmission Equipment
Spain Reverses Stance on EU Tariffs for Chinese-Made Electric Vehicles – South China Morning Post
Portland Clean Energy Fund allocates $92 million for community-led grants
Rising Carbon Emissions from Amazon, Google, and Facebook