There is a widespread belief that lack of education is the primary cause of public apathy towards climate change. In 2009, for example, UNESCO launched a programme to tackle this, by educating young people about the impact of global warming and encouraging changes in their attitudes and behaviours.
However, there isn’t much evidence of a causal link between education and climate literacy and pro-environmental behaviour. One study in 2015 looked at Europe (although not the UK), and found evidence that education increased the probability that someone will recycle, reduce energy consumption and car use, and buy environmentally friendly products. Another, in Thailand in 2017, showed that education made people more likely to use cloth bags instead of plastic, and use energy-saving light bulbs, but not more likely to unplug electrical equipment when not using it or to turn off the tap while brushing their teeth. It also didn’t show that education made people more concerned about global warming, or more willing to pay an environmental tax.
To properly test the idea, we would need large scale experiments that randomised the age at which children can leave school, but they would be as unethical as they were expensive. However, in September 1972, the UK raised the minimum school leaving age from 15 to 16, and the number of 15-year-olds leaving school fell by almost 30%. Suddenly, many more children were staying on at school, giving us a chance to see if this changed their awareness or environmental behaviour.
Using Understanding Society
By using Understanding Society, I was able to look at people born in England between 1930 and 1990, giving me roughly similar number of years before and after the reform, which affected those born in or after September 1957.
In Wave 4 (2012-14), participants answered questions on climate change literacy and pro-environmental behaviours. For example, they indicated how much they agreed or disagreed with statements such as “behaviour contributes to climate change” and “climate change is too far in the future to worry”. Participants also said whether their current lifestyle was environment-friendly, and if they paid more for environmentally friendly products. There was a question, too, about which political party they supported – one of which was the Greens.
Finally, they were asked to give an answer, ranging from ‘always’ to ‘never’, on pro-environmental behaviours such as
- leaving a TV on standby overnight
- switching off lights in rooms they weren’t in
- turning the tap off when brushing their teeth
- avoiding excessive packaging
- driving and flying less.
Mixed results
The rise in the school leaving age in 1972 successfully increased the number of people staying in school after 15 and getting at least one GCSE, CSE or O-level. We can also see, as a result of more education, a positive and sizeable effect on the participants’ belief that behaviour contributes to climate change. There is some evidence, too, that education causally reduced people’s belief that climate change is too far in the future to worry about. This suggests that people who spent more time in education have the intention to change their behaviours and are, indeed, more climate literate.
However, there is little evidence that the reform caused people to actually engage in more pro-environmental behaviours such as switching off lights, buying recycled toilet paper or tissues, and using public transport rather than travelling by car. They were also not more willing to adopt a more environmentally friendly lifestyle – by paying for environmentally friendly products.
Why is this?
We know the 1972 education reform was successful in increasing the number of people who stayed in school past the compulsory age, and that this has improved health, wealth and wellbeing on average. Unfortunately, its contribution to the fight against global warming has been disappointingly small, in fact almost non-existent.
This may be because – as suggested by psychology and behavioural economics – most people tend to prefer immediate gratification than delayed rewards. They may want to do more for the environment, or think that they should, but simply feel that driving to work is easier than taking public transport.
They may be comparing themselves to others – “I know I should recycle more, but why should I when most people I know in my neighbourhood don’t?” They may also be loss averse (“I know I should change to an electric car, but I don’t want to stop driving the car I’ve had for the last ten years”).
So, education of the type we currently have in secondary schools in England may not mitigate the cognitive biases that prevent people from doing what they should for the environment – but we shouldn’t give up on education in our fight against climate change.
Behavioural economics research has shown that ‘nudge’ policies can prompt pro-environmental behaviour more than simply telling people to change – but they’re more successful if people identify themselves as someone who cares deeply about the environment. In other words, while education may not necessarily cause pro-environmental behaviours, nudge policies may have a much more significant and longer-lasting impact on the responses of better-educated people.
Continuing to educate people about climate change, and developing new policies to encourage behavioural change, could still combine to make us all better at ‘doing our bit’ for the planet.
Authors
Nattavudh Powdthavee
Nattavudh (Nick) Powdthavee is Professor of Behavioural Science at Warwick Business School
