The task we cannot avoid anymore: Design for 1.5C lifestyles
The failure of the supply-side strategy to achieve substantial progress towards the 1.5C target emphasizes the inescapable truth: We must transform our lifestyles to align with the 1.5C target. While we are already aware of what needs to be done, the challenge lies in determining how to effectively implement these changes. It is now time to embrace the ultimate endeavor: Designing for 1.5C lifestyles.
Let’s start with a question: What changes have taken place in your life due to the climate crisis?
Well, when it comes to willingness to make changes, the majority of Americans and Europeans say they are willing to make changes like purchasing more energy efficient appliances or considering alternatives to flying. Or, at least this is what they tell the survey interviewers. Another survey suggested that 25% of Americans consider “potentially giving up long-term projects such as having children” due to the climate crisis.
However, putting aside, for a moment, what we may be willing to potentially change in the future when it comes to what we actually change in our lifestyle in the present, apparently, the answer is not that much. Demand for air travel is rising, and meat and dairy consumption remains high, alongside food waste. And yes, we do see stronger demand for electric cars, not to mention plant-based options that are becoming more mainstream in some markets. However, in general, most people in the Global North have not changed their lives significantly due to the climate crisis.
The ‘Invisible Strategy’ to fight the climate crisis
The little to no change in our lifestyles shouldn’t come as a surprise. After all, most of the climate efforts so far by governments and companies, aiming to achieve net zero goals that align with the Paris Agreement, i.e., limiting global warming to 1.5C above pre-industrial levels, have been concentrating on the supply side.
These efforts focus for the most part on changes that are invisible to most people, including a shift from fossil fuels to renewable energy, energy efficiency measures, electrification of urban systems, efforts to reduce deforestation, and so on. I suggest that these changes are invisible because we either don’t see them (how the grid is powered for example), or we can see them (electric Amazon vans) but they don’t change anything in our life, and thus, eventually become invisible.
This ‘invisible strategy,’ with its focus on the supply-side or production systems and manifestation in net zero targets, appeared to be a sensible approach to combat the climate crisis. There were several reasons for this perception. First, fossil fuels account for 75% of all greenhouse gas emissions, making them a primary target for reduction. Second, framing the fight against climate change as “a value neutral technical discussion” seemed to offer fewer obstacles and political backlash, as noted by David Roberts.
Last but not least, this strategy appeared to require minimal sacrifices from individuals. While there may be a need to replace home appliances with new electric ones and transition from gasoline cars to electric ones, the availability of monetary incentives to make these changes more cost-effective is supposed to reduce the perceived burden. In essence, this approach did not imply that individuals would need to make substantial sacrifices or undergo drastic lifestyle changes, which made it more palatable to the public.
Well, as we are aware, this invisible strategy has proven to be ineffective. The last U.N. emissions gap report from last October found “that countries’ strongest climate pledges put the Earth on a path to warm by a dangerous 2.4 degrees Celsius (4.3 degrees Fahrenheit) by the end of the century.” Moreover, companies have also failed to reduce emissions in alignment with the goals of the Paris Agreement (see here and here, for example). Another significant indication of this failure comes from a recent study conducted by the World Meteorological Organisation (WMO) suggesting that the world is likely “to breach 1.5C climate threshold by 2027.”
Now, there are numerous potential reasons that could account for this ongoing failure, particularly concerning the implementation of the invisible climate strategy and its struggle to overcome predatory delay forces that actively impede or hinder progress. However, one crucial factor is the inherent flaw within the strategy itself: its exclusive emphasis on the supply side while largely disregarding the demand side. This represents a significant design error that undermines its effectiveness.
Why we cannot ignore the demand-side
There is an increasingly acknowledged realization that the lack of emphasis on demand-side emissions has been a significant oversight. This does not imply that the transition on the supply side is any less crucial, but rather that efforts to reduce consumption, particularly among the affluent, are equally vital. In other words, the notion that technology is the only key to climate solutions is more of a wishful aspiration. As the authors of the report “1.5–Degree Lifestyles: Towards A Fair Consumption Space for All”, which was published by the Hot or Cool Institute wrote:“…technological improvements in the emission-intensity of goods and services must be accompanied with major lifestyle changes towards reduced consumption is especially pertinent and should form the basis for emergency governmental plans of action.”
The 2022 IPCC report also highlights the necessity of reducing consumption and implementing demand-side mitigation, which “encompasses changes in infrastructure use, end-use technology adoption, and socio-cultural and behavioural change.” Significantly, the report identifies where the focus of these efforts should be: “Globally, the 10% of households with the highest per capita emissions contribute 34–45% of global consumption-based household GHG emissions, while the middle 40% contribute 40–53%, and the bottom 50% contribute 13–15%.”
It is crucial to emphasize the significance of directing our attention to the wealthiest individuals. As indicated in the 1.5-Degree Lifestyles report, “Not all lifestyles contribute equally to climate change.” There are those who are the “polluter elite”, whose historical and current responsibility for the climate crisis is greater than anyone else. According to the report, “The 80 million richest people around the world are responsible for more greenhouse gas emissions from their consumption and their investments than the poorest four billion.”
With this in mind, the report introduces the concept of “a fair consumption space — an ecologically healthy perimeter that supports within it an equitable distribution of resources and opportunities for individuals and societies to fulfill their needs and achieve wellbeing.” The notion of a just transition is not only morally imperative but also emerges as the sole viable choice when considering both the required profound level of mitigation and innate human nature.
If lifestyles at the upper and even middle levels do not undergo significant changes, the expansion of the middle class (or the consumer class) will exert more pressure on our limited ecological resources. Ultimately, it becomes a numbers game — the more people adopt unsustainable consumption patterns, the greater the strain on our planet’s resources. Speaking of numbers — according to the 1.5-Degree Lifestyles report, a fair consumption space that is in alignment with a 1.5C increase requires reaching annual per capita targets of 2.5 tCO₂e by 2030 and 0.7 tCO₂e budget by 2050.
So, where do we stand now? Well, that depends on where you live. According to the analysis conducted in the 1.5-Degree Lifestyles report, which examined 10 countries, the total average lifestyle carbon footprints vary significantly between these countries. Canada has the highest carbon footprint at 14.2 tCO₂e per capita per year, followed by Finland at 9.7, the United Kingdom at 8.5, Japan at 8.1, China at 5.0, South Africa and Turkey at 4.9, Brazil at 3.2, India at 3.0, and Indonesia at 2.2 tCO₂e.
It is important to note that both the current emission levels and the targets for 2030 and 2050, as stated in the report, are presented in terms of lifestyle carbon footprint. Therefore, it is crucial to clarify this term. It refers to “embedded and indirect emissions, i.e., those resulting from intermediate consumption during production induced by household final demand, but exclude direct and indirect emissions and footprints caused by public sector and capital investment.”
The report further breaks down the lifestyle carbon footprint into six domains: food, housing, personal transport, consumer goods, leisure, and services (such as insurance and communication). Among the four high-income countries analyzed (Canada, Finland, the UK, and Japan), transport emerges as the top domain in terms of emissions in three of them. In Canada and the UK, it is followed by housing and food. In the UK, food comes second and housing third. Only in Japan, housing takes the lead, followed by transport and food.
Who is responsible for reducing lifestyle emissions?
The discussions surrounding personal carbon footprint often quickly delve into questions about the significance of our individual actions within the broader context. Is it our responsibility to align our lifestyle with the 1.5C target, or should governments and companies, who bear key responsibility for creating this mess in the first place, take the lead in tackling it? And is this ongoing discussion simply a continuation of “a long history of industry-funded ‘deflection campaigns’ aimed to divert attention from big polluters and place the burden on individuals”?
Beyond the more philosophical questions about responsibility, there is also the practical aspect to consider. Even if we aspire to achieve a 1.5C lifestyle, we are likely to face significant challenges in realizing this goal. First, it demands high levels of self-discipline and the adoption of a scarcity mindset. Second, we may lack significant levers of change, to begin with. What if, for instance, changing your housing situation is not feasible, or there are no convenient public transit options for your daily commute? As Lloyd Alter writes in his book Living the 1.5 Degree Lifestyle: “For many people, lifestyle carbon emissions are baked into the way we live and very hard to change without concomitant societal and environmental changes; our developed Western world seems almost designed to emit carbon.”
I believe we need to adopt a “yes, and” approach rather than either/or one. It is important not to overlook the central role of governments and businesses in the fight against climate change. We should also recognize our own agency and contribution to this crisis. The solution lies in recognizing that “solving the climate crisis won’t happen unless everyone — including big fossil fuel companies — cuts their own pollution footprint,” as Zahra Hirji writes. Individual action, Hirji adds, quoting John Cook of Monash University, “is “one slice” of the climate action pie.”
We need to recognize that we cannot effectively tackle the climate crisis without making lifestyle changes. Furthermore, we must acknowledge that these changes require systemic interventions from governments and companies. However, we also have an essential role to play in this process. As one of the participants in the short video introducing Take the Jump says: “It’s not up to you to create the world we need, but it can’t be done without you.”
The crucial element lies in establishing reciprocal relationships between individual and systemic actions. This means that transitioning to 1.5C lifestyles requires a reinforcing feedback loop where individual actions and systemic interventions mutually support each other. For instance, Take the Jump, a movement that describes itself as “a joyous people-led movement,” offers individuals meaningful lifestyle shifts based on research to contribute to a 1.5C future. One of these shifts is “dress retro,” which encourages buying no more than three new clothing items per year. Another one is “holiday local,” which advocates for limiting short-haul flights to one every three years.
However, for such restrictive actions to have a meaningful impact on a larger scale, they must be accompanied by regulatory measures and shifts in social norms. Without these crucial levers, individual-based efforts are likely to remain limited to a small group of individuals who are already committed to the cause, and their overall impact will be minimal. At the same time, changes in regulation and social norms do not simply emerge spontaneously; they require the support of individuals nudging the system and influencing decision-makers in various ways.
Thus, the key value in taking steps to align ourselves with a 1.5C lifestyle may not solely lie in reducing our own carbon footprint but rather in the potential of these steps to propel us towards a higher level of impact. This includes engaging in political action, getting involved in employee activism, becoming norm entrepreneurs, and so on. By actively serving as agents of change, we can contribute to systemic transformations that then pave the way for genuine shifts towards 1.5C lifestyles.
As economist Robert Frank writes: “Over time, taking small steps to lower your carbon footprint forges the general habit of behaving in a climate-friendly way. And the development of that perspective is a crucial step toward greater political engagement on the issue. Conscious consumption is neither “irrelevant” nor merely a way to advertise our virtue. It creates cascading changes in social behavior, as well as deeper changes in how we view the world.”
We need to figure out the HOW — Designing for 1.5C lifestyles
There are multiple reports that provide a clear vision of what is required to transition to 1.5C lifestyles. One notable example, the 1.5-Degree Lifestyles report, outlines key measures: “The options with large emission reduction potentials as revealed in this report are reducing car travel, air travel, meat consumption, and fossil-based energy usage. If these options are fully implemented they could reduce the footprint of each domain by a few hundred kg to over a ton annually.” While the actions necessary for the transition are relatively straightforward, the real challenge lies in determining HOW to implement these measures on a larger scale. How might we effectively put these strategies into practice and ensure widespread adoption?
Operatively, the report suggests three approaches for implementing footprint reduction measures: absolute reduction, modal shift, and efficiency improvement. Absolute reduction involves reducing the physical consumption of goods or services. Modal shift entails transitioning from a high-carbon consumption mode to a less carbon-intensive one, such as adopting plant-based diets instead of consuming excessive meat. Energy improvement focuses on decreasing emissions by replacing high-carbon technologies with lower-carbon alternatives without changing the overall amount consumed or used.
Still, how should these strategies be effectively implemented? The report emphasizes policy approaches, such as choice editing, creating limits on environmentally harmful consumption, and policies that promote a more equitable society through measures like universal basic services and adopting a sufficiency approach towards addressing climate change. These proposed measures appropriately place the responsibility for driving change on policymakers, recognizing the necessity of systemic mechanisms to support individual-level changes. However, it is important to note that there are still noticeable gaps in the theory of change that underlies these recommendations.
Take, for example, choice editing. As the report notes “There are several ways to implement choice editing, from removing the worst products, to making the least sustainable choices less attractive or more expensive, to shifting the context for making choices.” We already have some examples of climate-centered choice editing such as new bans in the EU and California on the sales of new gas-powered cars by 2035. At the same time, the political opposition these bans have been facing (see here for example), even though they are set to take place only 12 years from now, indicates how challenging choice editing can be. These challenges can also be seen in the latest French ban on short domestic flights, which initially sounds promising but includes so many exceptions that it effectively only prohibits three routes. Moreover, the populist backlash from the right against the concept of 15-minute cities further highlights the limited potential of choice editing in the current landscape.
What is crucial at this moment is to invest in further design work to outline the practical implementation of the transition towards 1.5°C lifestyles. We need clear change pathways and comprehensive playbooks that provide guidance on utilizing systemic levers like choice editing and sufficiency strategies. While these levers have the potential to be effective, their practical effectiveness will remain limited unless we develop strategies to effectively activate and apply them.
To achieve this, we need a comprehensive effort focused on designing for 1.5C lifestyles. For instance, choice editing will not gain traction without the support of the public, and the public may not back it unless they perceive 1.5C lifestyle options as meeting their diverse needs while aligning with their cultural identity. After all, as Andrew Hoffman writes in his book How Culture Shapes the Climate Change Debate, positions on issues like climate change become part of our cultural identity. “We relate to climate change through our prior ideological preferences, personal experiences, and knowledge,” he notes.
Designing a transition for 1.5C lifestyles will be a substantial undertaking, encompassing practical and cultural considerations. Furthermore, it necessitates reframing 1.5C lifestyles from what may appear burdensome to an exciting adventure that creates more opportunities, rather than focusing solely on restrictions and trade-offs. To achieve this, we need different stakeholders to play different roles.
Companies, for example, must come on board and contribute to changing the narratives surrounding 1.5°C lifestyles. Just think about the potential of having McDonald’s playing a role in the effort to reduce meat consumption, H&M helping to reduce the number of new clothing items we buy, Apple and Ikea changing our perception of product durability, and so on.
Is this impossible? I believe not. Ultimately, it is up to us. Drawing on the ideas presented in my book Rethinking Corporate Sustainability in the Era of Climate Crisis: A Strategic Design Approach I plan to collaborate with my students and colleagues on projects focusing on design for 1.5°C lifestyles in the coming year. I will share more details about these efforts on Sandbox Zero in the upcoming months. If you’re interested in joining these endeavors, please feel free to email me at godelnir@newschool.edu.
Raz Godelnik is an Assistant Professor of Strategic Design and Management at Parsons School of Design — The New School. He is the author of Rethinking Corporate Sustainability in the Era of Climate Crisis (Palgrave Macmillan, July 2021). You are welcome to follow me on LinkedIn.
