Climate policy Salzburg: Environmental psychologist: “I don’t treat flowers”
Why don’t we just do it? – This question is mentioned by your environmental psychologist Isabella Uhl-Hädicke in research on “Climate Change Communication” at the University of Salzburg. In the interview she gives an insight into her work.
SALZBURG. As an environmental psychologist, Isabella Uhl-Hädicke, as she puts it, treats “no flowers”. In her research at the University of Salzburg, she tries to get to the bottom of climate-friendly behavior. They would like to put their scientific knowledge directly into the hands of the people: they regularly share their knowledge in their own environmental segment on ORF; in her easy-to-understand book Why Don’t We Just Make It? gives Uhl-Hädicke tips on overcoming one’s own “environmental bastard”. Uhl-Hädicke recently received the Salzburg Environment Prize for her work. In the BezirksBlätter interview, she talks about her passion for environmental psychology, makes recommendations for Salzburg city politics and explains why we find it so difficult to take action when it comes to the climate crisis.
In your book you write “As an environmental psychologist I do not treat flowers”. Then what are they doing?
ISABELLA UHL-HAEDICKE: As an environmental psychologist you can work in two areas: either you look at how the environment affects people (for example: How does the environment affect human well-being?) or how people affect the environment. I work in the latter area. We all know that we should act. But why is it still so difficult for us? Which factors influence whether we take action and which are more of a hindrance? This area, where it is about understanding and promoting climate-friendly behavior, is the area in which I have my focus.
What excites you personally about environmental psychology or your more specific research area of climate change communication?
ISABELLA UHL-HAEDICKE: In the first semester of my psychology degree, I was already able to see how people tick. You think that something influences you and then experiments show something completely different. The fact that I work in the field of climate psychology arose out of a private interest. I was more concerned with the climate crisis and noticed: Wow, that’s really urgent. Something should happen there. This gave me the motivation to devote myself to the subject professionally. The two topics then complemented each other well. Human behavior plays a major role in the context of the man-made climate crisis. That still serves me and I find it super exciting when I read new insights. For me, this is really my dream job.
We have known for a long time that there is a climate crisis and that we must act. But now, in 2022, why are we still debating whether or not to build a new cycle lane now?
ISABELLA UHL-HAEDICKE: We humans are very complex beings. The first reasons are explained in my book Why Don’t We Make It Easy? dealt with. But I’ll pick one out now. A big factor are the social norms, i.e. our environment. We orient ourselves to the others. When we notice that the others don’t change anything either or only change small things, we think to ourselves: “It can’t be that tragic.” For example, there is a study where the smoke alarm went off in a room. A few people were told beforehand that the alarm should not be taken seriously and that they should remain seated. When the initiates actually stayed seated in the experiment, the other participants in the study also stayed seated. In a real situation, that would have been life-threatening. Our problem is that the standards in our society are currently more harmful to the climate. It is also normal to consume a lot, to eat meat several times a week. We orientate ourselves and think: “It can’t be that bad.”
You write in your book that the climate crisis is also not tangible enough for many people. What does it mean exactly?
ISABELLA UHL-HAEDICKE: The climate crisis itself is just so complex. I use the Ukraine war as a comparison. You can see pictures there. The consequences are equally strong after the action. This is not the case with the climate crisis. With our lifestyle we are now influencing the climate in 10-20 years. The problem is that we don’t feel the consequences immediately. To put it bluntly, when I decide to have a vegetable curry for lunch, I don’t feel that the glaciers are stopping to melt. However, immediately feeling the consequences is an important control mechanism for our behavior.
Many people say, “As an individual, I can’t change anything.” Fighting the climate crisis is the task of politics. Do you agree with this statement?
ISABELLA UHL-HAEDICKE: I would say yes and no. It’s true, political framework conditions are definitely needed, and political framework conditions also have the faster leverage effect than social change. But (emphasizes slowly) we are in a democracy. That means we decide which priorities are set by politicians. Politicians WILL take action IF THEY KNOW THAT THE POPULATION WILL ALSO SUPPORT THEM. You already have a large sphere of influence as an individual. It also shows that these role models are very important. This means that if I set an example in my environment that it is possible to live climate-friendly, I will take more and more people with me. For this reason, it is of course important that you are also active as an individual and do not shirk responsibility.
Do you have a tip for yourself to overcome your own “environmental bastard” and maybe cycle to work more often instead of driving?
ISABELLA UHL-HAEDICKE: One tip would be to think the situation through before picking up the car keys. What’s going on? I get up, get ready, maybe automatically grab the car key and leave the house. In advance I can think about where to set a reminder that will get me out of the usual situation. An example could be putting the bike helmet over the car key. It is also important to plan in advance how you will drive. Thinking about the best bike path to your destination. So that I don’t have to do that in the situation and maybe come too late or get annoyed and think to myself: “I’d rather drive the car then”. But the environment also plays a really important role. I might be able to team up with someone. Perhaps other colleagues are also interested in going to work together. I think support from the environment makes sense.
From the point of view of environmental psychology, are there already simple measures that, for example, city politics in Salzburg could take to get people to act in a more climate-friendly way?
ISABELLA UHL-HAEDICKE: We know that climate-friendly measures are more widely accepted when they are well explained. In other words, it is made transparent and understandable why something is changed. Ideally, people feel the benefit of the political decision. It would be important to make visible when something changes. That the consequences, which are otherwise so little noticeable, also become a little more tangible. For example, you could set up measuring boards to see how much the air quality has already improved. If you work with penalties or bans, you should also make the behavior more attractive, and you also want to motivate people. When the congestion charge was introduced in Sweden, people felt that the air was getting better. Even those who drove by car have noticed that you don’t have to search for parking spaces as often. The congestion charge is widely accepted by the population today.
Speaking of emotional incentives: In your book you write that from the point of view of environmental psychology, spontaneous incentives to change behavior are of little help and that people then die and fall back into their old patterns? Is something like the climate bonus effective at all?
ISABELLA UHL-HAEDICKE: In the case of incentives, they are less effective if you want to change routine behavior, i.e. everyday behavior. Financial incentives make sense for one-time activities, such as the purchase of an electric car. The climate bonus is less about changing behavior and more intended as a compensation measure. It will be the Co2-Tax introduced, things get more expensive. The climate bonus is there to pick people up and take them with them. The climate bonus alone is not there to control behavior.
From your point of view, the climate bonus does something, but not to change sustainable behavior?
The climate bonus is not there for behavioral change. That’s what the new taxes are for, they’re supposed to steer. The climate bonus is there more to increase the acceptance of the new Co2– Increase tax.
Do you think that is also effective?
ISABELLA UHL-HAEDICKE: My doctoral student is currently examining it, but unfortunately I don’t have the data yet (laughs). the co2-Tax in itself is effective because it is a steering mechanism.
After all, you have decided on an intermediate path between science and science communication for the general public. You have written an easy to understand book. You can be seen with TV meteorologist Marcus Wadsak in the environmental segment on ORF: what made you decide to make your findings available to everyone?
ISABELLA UHL-HAEDICKE: That’s actually my main reason why I chose this job. I noticed that people play a huge role in understanding the climate crisis, in counteracting the climate crisis. That is precisely the competence of psychology. It is important to me to put this knowledge into people’s hands, either people who work in the field die professionally or committed private individuals. I’ve noticed that the knowledge that science may have existed for years would be extremely helpful to people in practice.
What are your goals for the next few years?
ISABELLA UHL-HAEDICKE: As it is now, it is very, very fine. My book “Why Don’t We Make It Easy?” was of course a big milestone. My goal is that things continue to go well and that environmental psychological knowledge is passed on to as many people as possible.
More news from Salzburg city
You might also be interested in:
Journalist Lukas Bayer on the climate crisis
“The blossoms are drying up in the Alps”
Salzburg Climate Council participants present recommendations