Farmers and urban dwellers are equally willing to make lifestyle changes to address climate change, an ESRI study has found.
These include measures such as “flying less, improving home-energy efficiency, eating less meat or going car free”.
Farmers and the general population worry about climate change to the same extent, countering the perception that there is an urban-rural divide on the issue, according to the research published on Wednesday.
Most farmers surveyed said they took climate into consideration in their farming decisions: “two-thirds reported being more likely than not to change how they farm in the future to help the climate”.
David McWilliams: ‘I’ve never seen anything like this economic chaos. Buckle up’
My grandfather died by suicide. I work in the same Irish university where he taught history
Government plans to quickly remove citizenship from convicted terrorist
Contraceptive concerns: ‘When I came off the pill, everything became so much better’
“The public underestimates how worried farmers are about climate change, while in general, people assume others are less worried and less willing to change than they are themselves,” the ESRI says.
[ Farmers need certainty on climate change measuresOpens in new window ]
For the study, carried out by the ESRI’s behavioural research unit, 467 farmers were surveyed across regions and farm types, alongside representative samples of urban and rural dwellers. It recorded perceptions and understanding of climate change, willingness to make changes and support for relevant policies.
Awareness of climate change and willingness to act is high, but “factual knowledge on causes and effects of climate change is poor”, the research states.
More than a third of participants, both farmers and non-farmers, failed to list agriculture as one of the three sectors that create most greenhouse gas emissions (GHGs) in Ireland, even though it is the highest-emitting sector due to methane emissions.
[ To reach net zero, farming will have to address the cattle conundrumOpens in new window ]
Most farmers were unaware of multiple climate-friendly farming practices contained in Government educational materials.
The link between diet and climate change is poorly understood, the study finds. “When quizzed, most people in all groups incorrectly thought that switching to a hybrid car reduces personal emissions more than adopting a plant-based diet,” it states. “Members of the public were twice as likely as farmers to get this question right, with beef and dairy farmers least likely to answer correctly.”
[ We can eat ourselves and our planet healthier with wise food choicesOpens in new window ]
Government policies based on subsidies, such as home retrofit grants and assistance for farmers taking up green technologies, are more popular than those based on restrictions, such as taxing flights or reducing national herd size. Very few people in all groups strongly oppose all pro-climate policies, the study finds.
Compared to non-farmers, farmers indicated stronger support for subsidising farmers to take up green technology, but less support for subsidising a switch to plant-based farming or forestry, taxing meat or reducing national herd size.
As well as worry about climate change, understanding facts about emissions makes people more willing to take action to reduce them, the research finds.
“Most people – farmers, urban, and rural residents alike – are worried about the climate and willing to take action, but misperceive others’ worry and willingness,” said lead author Dr Lucie Martin.
“We need to recognise that pro-climate views are held by the large majority. Narratives that instead emphasise vocal opposition may create division between communities and are not based in fact.”
ESRI behavioural scientist Prof Pete Lunn said: “Knowledge about climate change really could improve, especially knowledge of the link between what we eat and greenhouse gas emissions.
“A clear statement from the Government about diet and emissions is needed. We could start by publicising how following current healthy eating guidelines is good for the planet’s health as well as your own.”
The complexity of co-ordinated reduction of carbon is difficult to understate, the researchers say. “Although there are multiple benefits to climate action, including cleaner air and better public health, the necessary changes entail disruption to the status quo.”
Understanding and deploying evidence from behavioural science on how to encourage different groups to make these sorts of changes can help, the study adds, particularly where efforts are voluntary, “rather than mandated or strongly incentivised, as is currently the case in Ireland’s agricultural sector”.
While there is a need to improve understanding of which actions are most effective at reducing emissions, attitudes about the importance of this action are positive, the study says. “For farmers specifically, the results also point to substantial potential to assist them in taking the kind of climate action they are already willing to take, while improving their understanding of the most effective actions.”
This may have further benefits for cooperation, it adds, if these efforts are communicated effectively to the wider public to correct misperceptions of farmers.
“Retaining concern about climate change and positive attitudes towards climate action to foster cooperation may require active efforts to resist attempts at manufacturing division between subgroups in society or at amplifying the small ‘climate-resistant’ minority,” it concludes.
