Welcome to Carbon Brief’s Cropped.
We handpick and explain the most important stories at the intersection of climate, land, food and nature over the past fortnight.
This is an online version of Carbon Brief’s fortnightly Cropped email newsletter. Subscribe for free here.
Key developments
Weather drives food price spike
BITTER TRUTHS: Cocoa futures contracts being traded on the New York commodities exchange “hit an all-time high above $12,000 per tonne in April”, but fell below $9,000 this week “on the news of rains arriving in west Africa”, the Financial Times reported. The “wild swings” that are “enough to be bankrupting for a lot of people” are “a sign of market volatility and stress following successive poor harvests in Ivory Coast and Ghana” – the world’s two top producers of cocoa. Both countries, along with Nigeria and Cameroon, “have seen drastically reduced crop yields amid droughts, fires and other climate change-induced weather phenomena”, African Business reported, further “exacerbated by decades of underinvestment in the sector”. Farmers are having to “pursue alternative revenue streams”, the outlet added. The crisis facing the cocoa sector points to a systemic problem, the Guardian wrote: “Faced with global heating, increasing conflict and energy price instability, depending on the free market is a poor bet.”
-
Sign up to Carbon Brief’s free “Cropped” email newsletter. A fortnightly digest of food, land and nature news and views. Sent to your inbox every other Wednesday.
‘HEATFLATION’: A global olive oil shortage brought on by drought and extreme heat in Europe has driven prices to record highs and even “fuelled a crime surge”, CNBC News reported. Spain, the world’s largest olive supplier, saw output cut between 30-50% of its usual 1.3m-tonne harvest, with Spanish supermarkets reporting that “olive oil had become the most stolen item” across the country, the story added. Helena Bennett at policy thinktank Green Alliance UK “unequivocally attributed the record spike in olive oil prices to climate change”, telling CNBC: “It’s happening to other food crops too…Olive oil today, everything else soon.” The experts who predicted last year that “heatflation” would send olive oil price’s skyrocketing “were right”, Salon wrote.
‘SOGFLATION’: Meanwhile, the UK is staring at the costs of “sogflation”, according to Bloomberg. Bread, beer and biscuit prices “look set to rise sharply” after a wet winter impacted crops across the UK, according to new analysis by the Energy and Climate Intelligence Unit (ECIU), the Press Association reported. According to ECIU, yields of key crops such as wheat, barley, oats and rapeseed “might drop by 4m tonnes” compared to 2023, with wheat slated to see a 27% drop. Between October 2022 and March 2024, England experienced “the wettest 18-month period since records began in 1836”, the Guardian said, resulting in “crops either being flooded[,] damaged…or farmers not being able to establish crops at all.”
Hotter ocean, burning mountains
MARINE HEATWAVES: The Indian Ocean “is experiencing unprecedented and accelerated warming” and could hit a rate of 1.7-3.8C per century “unless greenhouse gas [emissions] are reduced immediately”, Down to Earth wrote, reporting on new research. The work – which forms the chapter of a new book – found that marine heatwave days “are expected to rise” from 20 to 220-250 a year, meaning that “most of the Indian Ocean could be in a near-permanent state of marine heatwave conditions”, the story said. This could cause tropical cyclones to intensify rapidly, “putting fisheries and people living along the coastline at risk”, Mongabay wrote, reporting on the same study.
LAKSHADWEEP LOSS: The Hindu reported that researchers at India’s Central Marine Fisheries Research Institute (CMFRI) recorded “widespread bleaching impacting coral reefs in the Lakshadweep Sea owing to marine heatwaves” this week. Since October last year, the Lakshadweep Sea – bordering India, Maldives and Sri Lanka – saw temperature “rises greater than 1C”, CMFRI scientists told the paper. “If the situation continues to rise, it could precipitate an unprecedented biodiversity crisis due to multispecies mortality,” said Dr KR Sreenath, senior scientist at the CMFRI. “The degradation of these ecosystems can lead to the collapse of local marine food webs, affecting a wide range of marine species, from fish communities to marine mammals like dugongs and dolphins,” he added.
FIRE IN THE MOUNTAIN: Meanwhile, on land, India reported a record 75,000 forest fires in April, according to the Hindustan Times. The eastern states of Odisha and Chhattisgarh and the Himalayan state of Uttarakhand were among the worst affected, with a senior forest official telling the paper that a “warmer-than-usual April and drier winter this year are the reasons for sudden spurt”. The mountainous state of Uttarakhand lost more than 142 hectares of forest to fires in just 72 hours, with “scanty winter rain” playing a major role in the 6,701 blazes that broke out in the hill state last month, another Hindustan Times story reported. A NewsLaundry investigation reported that Uttarakhand’s district authorities “ignored” warnings and deployed nearly all of their forest staff and vehicles for election duty during peak fire season, affecting “official preparedness to deal with the [fires]”.
Spotlight
Nature loss and climate change fuelling infectious diseases
In this spotlight, Carbon Brief reports on a new study finding that biodiversity loss is the largest driver of infectious diseases, with climate change, pollution and invasive species also increasing outbreak risks.
The role of environmental problems, such as climate change and biodiversity loss, in spreading infectious diseases to humans and animals has received renewed focus since the onset of the Covid-19 pandemic.
The root cause of the pandemic has never been identified, but some researchers suspect that the virus passed from bats to humans through an unknown intermediary animal, possibly a pangolin.
An infection or disease that has passed from an animal to a human is known as a “zoonosis”. Back in 2020, a range of scientists told Carbon Brief that such events could be increasing because of climate change, biodiversity loss and habitat destruction, which are each creating new opportunities for humans and animals to come into contact.
A new study in Nature conducted a meta-analysis of the available scientific literature to try to understand what the main global drivers of infectious disease risk could be for both humans and wildlife.
Data crunching
For the research, the scientists identified studies on the links between infectious disease and environmental change, a category that included biodiversity loss, chemical pollution, climate change, habitat loss or change and invasive alien species.
They extracted the relevant data from these studies to create a database detailing nearly 3,000 observations of infectious disease spread or harm in response to environmental change.
The next step was to standardise the data so that they could compare how different environmental change drivers affect infectious disease risk.
The results showed that biodiversity loss was the largest driver of infectious disease risk across the studies included in the database, co-lead author Prof Jason Rohr, an ecology and public health researcher at the University of Notre Dame in the US, told Carbon Brief:
“Biodiversity loss, climate change and alien species tend to increase infections, and urbanisation tends to decrease infections. These results were generally consistent across human and non-human diseases.”
Disease surveillance
The results could help policymakers to channel financial resources for tackling infectious diseases more effectively, Rohr said:
“The findings [we] uncovered should help target disease management and surveillance efforts towards global change drivers that increase disease.
“Specifically, reducing greenhouse gas emissions, managing ecosystem health and preventing biological invasions and biodiversity loss could help to reduce the burden of plant, animal and human diseases, especially when coupled with improvements to social and economic determinants of health.”
News and views
MAASAI MAROONED: Forty tourists and staff members marooned in Kenya’s Maasai Mara Game Reserve due to flooding were rescued by local authorities, the Star reported. Dozens “narrowly escaped death at dawn” when the Talek River, which runs through the park, burst its banks after “torrential” rains, the East African reported. The outlet added that visitors and workers were “forced to climb trees” after the camps became waterlogged. At least 11 people have died due to the floods in Narok and Bomet counties, the Nation said. Gazelles and giraffes were the most affected wild animals, with the floods “disrupting habitats, food sources and water availability”.
EARTH ANGELS: Seven environmental defenders from six different continents were awarded this year’s Goldman Prize. Widely described as the “green Nobel”, the prize is given out to campaigners for “sustained and significant” efforts to protect the environment, Reuters wrote, profiling India’s Alok Shukla and his role in the decade-long movement to protect the Hasdeo Arand forest from coal mining. Marcel Gomes, executive secretary at Repórter Brasil, won the prize for coordinating an international investigation that “pressured big European retailers to stop selling illegally sourced” beef, Mongabay reported. Other winners this year include Murrawah Johnson from Australia’s First Nations, Nonhle Mbuthuma from South Africa and Spain’s Teresa Vincente.
NICKEL FOR FORESTS: According to a Global Forest Watch report, primary forest loss in Indonesia increased by 27% in 2023 compared to the previous year, the Associated Press reported. While the report said this loss is “still seen as historically low compared to the 2010s”, some experts “saw concern in the recent uptick”, tying it to the “world’s appetite for mining Indonesia’s vast deposits of nickel, which is critical for the green energy transition”, the newswire wrote. AP added that Global Forest Watch’s data on deforestation is “higher” than official Indonesian figures.
BRAZIL FLOODS: Storms and flooding in the southern Brazilian state of Rio Grande do Sul have killed at least 78 people and displaced a further 115,000 people, Al Jazeera reported. The floods have caused damage to roads and bridges, triggered landslides and caused the partial collapse of a dam at a small hydroelectric power plant, the outlet noted. A second dam in the area is also at risk of collapsing due to rising water levels, according to BBC News. It added that the extreme weather has been caused by “a rare combination of hotter than average temperatures, high humidity and strong winds”.
G7 MEETING: A meeting of ministers from the G7 – Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, the UK and the US – in Turin saw countries restate and add detail to climate, energy and biodiversity commitments. Along with a much-publicised pledge to end new coal power by 2035, the G7 also committed to a “swift, full and effective implementation” of the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF) and to submit new national biodiversity plans ahead of the COP16 biodiversity summit in October. (France and Japan are the only G7 nations to have submitted plans so far and the US is not party to the UN biodiversity convention.) The G7 also said it would hold a workshop on implementing the GBF, with a focus on invasive species.
‘FIELDS OF FILTH’: Intensive meat and dairy farms in England have breached environmental regulations thousands of times in the past few years, according to a new investigation by the Bureau of Investigative Journalism. The organisation obtained investigation records from England’s Environment Agency describing more than 3,000 incidents, including “routine discharge of slurry and dirty water, maggot-infested carcass bins and the illegal incineration of pigs”. An Environment Agency spokesperson told the publication that there was a clear need for improvement, noting that around 80% of pig and poultry farm inspections resulted in advice and guidance, 16% resulted in a warning and around 2% resulted in a formal caution or prosecution.
Watch, read, listen
RESTORATION RETHINK: Dr Forrest Fleischman gave a talk at the Leverhulme Centre for Nature Recovery on the relationship between ecosystem restoration and social science, as large-scale restoration projects gain more traction as a climate solution.
OFFSETS INVESTIGATED: The BBC’s flagship investigations show Panorama exposed serious issues with company net-zero claims that rely on carbon offsets.
KILLER GANG: A Mongabay story reported on how a single poaching ring may have “wip[ed] out 10% of the entire global population of the critically endangered” Javan rhino.
SEDIMENT STRATEGY: A deep dive in Nature unpacked Maldives’ “race” to reclaim land from the sea to combat sea level rise, but critics say the environmental costs are too high.
New science
Asymmetric impacts of forest gain and loss on tropical land surface temperature
Nature Geoscience
A new study found that land-surface warming caused by tropical forest loss is stronger than the cooling produced by forest gain – a significant finding, since tree-planting is often viewed as a key climate solution. The authors used multiple sources of satellite data to understand how land temperatures responded to forest loss and gain, finding that loss caused warming of about 0.56C and afforestation only brought down temperatures by around 0.10C. This asymmetry has not been captured by current Earth-system models and “could overestimate the cooling effect of afforestation in future”, the authors said.
Global trends and scenarios for terrestrial biodiversity and ecosystem services from 1900 to 2050
Science
Climate change could become the largest driver of biodiversity loss by the middle of the century, new research suggested. The study used modelling to examine past and future drivers of global biodiversity loss. It found that during the 20th century, global biodiversity declined by 2-11%, with land-use change as the major driver. However, projections for the future suggested that climate change is likely to overtake land-use change to become the biggest driver by mid-century, especially under high emissions scenarios, the researchers said. They added that the findings “robustly show that renewed policy efforts are needed to meet the goals of the Convention on Biological Diversity”.
The positive impact of conservation action
Science
New research found that conservation actions improved the state of biodiversity – or at least slowed down biodiversity loss – but did not halt it “more than half of the time”. Researchers conducted a meta-analysis of 186 studies that measured biodiversity over time and contrasted conservation outcomes against areas where there were no measures in place to protect nature. Of all the conservation actions studied, invasive species control, habitat loss reduction and restoration, creation of protected areas and sustainable management had the highest impact. The authors concluded: “Conservation actions are investments rather than payments – and, as our study demonstrates, they are typically investments that yield genuine, high-magnitude positive impacts.”
In the diary
- 6-10 May: Nineteenth session of the UN Forum on Forests | New York City
- 13-29 May: Meetings of the UN Convention on Biological Diversity’s subsidiary bodies | Nairobi
- 14-17 May: FAO Regional Conference for Europe | Rome
Cropped is researched and written by Dr Giuliana Viglione, Aruna Chandrasekhar, Daisy Dunne, Orla Dwyer and Yanine Quiroz. Please send tips and feedback to cropped@carbonbrief.org.
The post Cropped 8 May 2024: Food price spike; Infectious diseases; Indian ocean heatwave appeared first on Carbon Brief.
Cropped 8 May 2024: Food price spike; Infectious diseases; Indian ocean heatwave
Climate Change
‘Ride the wave of momentum’: Australia announces once-in-a-decade Marine Parks Network review
In response to the federal government announcing its once-in-a-decade review of Australia’s Marine Parks Network, the following lines can be attributed to Elle Lawless, Senior Campaigner at Greenpeace Australia Pacific:
“Greenpeace Australia Pacific welcomes today’s announcement that the Albanese Government will review Australia’s Commonwealth Marine Parks Network. This is a rare, once-in-a-decade opportunity to strengthen our marine parks and ban industrial fishing in Australia’s marine protected areas.
“Australians would be appalled to know that more than half of Australia’s Marine Parks Network currently allows for extractive industries, like longlining, bottom trawling and oil and gas mining. These so-called ‘protected’ areas were designed to safeguard our beloved ocean wildlife and underwater ecosystems – that is what Australians expect. Damaging industrial industries should not be given a free pass to trawl, fish, drill or extract from our marine parks.”
“With the first Ocean COP just around the corner, and off the back of Australia’s move to ratify the Global Ocean Treaty earlier this year, the Australian government has a unique opportunity to ride the wave of this momentum and solidify itself as a true global ocean leader.
“Greenpeace Australia Pacific is calling for industrial activities to be banned from our protected waters and for at least 30% of Australia’s ocean to be protected as ocean sanctuaries. This review presents a rare opportunity to create more ocean sanctuaries, true blue havens where ocean life can recover, thrive and repopulate the surrounding waters.”
—ENDS—
‘Ride the wave of momentum’: Australia announces once-in-a-decade Marine Parks Network review
In recent days, prominent climate sceptics and rightwing commentators have shared charts on social media incorrectly implying that Europe is having its “quietest” year for wildfires in 2026.
These include Dr Matthew Wielicki, a former University of Alabama geochemist and self-described “professor in exile”, who was recently appointed by the Trump administration to lead the US Global Change Research Program.
However, these charts paint a misleading picture as they are skewed by encompassing the entirety of Russia in the data – including the vast plains of Siberia.
These charts also use data that include fires that are deliberately lit to manage cropland, which is a declining practice across much of Europe.
In this factcheck, Carbon Brief shows that the area burned by wildfires across the European Union in 2026 is second only to 2022 for this time of year.
The latest data from the European Forest Fire Information System (EFFIS) also shows that France has set a new modern record for area burned and Spain’s wildfire season is among the worst on record.
The fires have displaced more than a third of a million people across south-western Europe, while an impending heatwave has also raised fears of the fires worsening in the coming days.
‘Quietest year’
On 27 July, as wildfires raged across multiple European countries, former Conservative peer and climate-sceptic commentator Matt Ridley posted on Twitter that “2026 is the quietest year for wildfires in Europe by some distance”.
Ridley, who sits on the academic advisory council of the Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF), a UK-based climate-sceptic lobby group that refuses to reveal the sources of its funding, was responding to an article by Daily Telegraph columnist Tim Stanley.
Stanley’s column, headlined: “Climate change is real – and the right needs to get serious about it”, warned:
“This is no longer a matter of speculation: the wildfires of Europe, pitiless and persistent, are the way we live now.”
Ridley included a chart from Our World In Data, showing the cumulative area burned by wildfires by week for Europe. The chart puts 2026 as having the smallest area for this time of year in a dataset going back to 2012.
Ridley’s post was widely shared by prominent rightwing figures – including Richard Tice, deputy leader of the hard-right, climate-sceptic Reform UK party, former Conservative cabinet minister Jacob Rees-Mogg and multiple commentators.
Separately, Wielicki also shared a chart on Twitter to imply that wildfires in Europe are declining. Wielicki has previously claimed that the “science is not settled on climate change”.
The charts posted by Ridley and Wielicki both use data from the Global Wildfire Information System (GWIS). The GWIS category for “Europe” encompasses all the countries on the continent and includes the whole of Russia.
As a result, Russia accounts for about 74% of the area included in the GWIS definition of “Europe”.
Wildfires in Russia typically account for 80-90% of the burned area in the GWIS Europe dataset. In 2026, fires in Russia are substantially below average. Therefore, including Russia in this comparison creates the false impression that wildfire activity across Europe is unusually low.
Dr Calum Cunningham, a research fellow at the University of Tasmania’s Fire Centre, says that such claims are “highly misleading”, noting that “they rely on aggregating fire activity across an enormous and climatically diverse region”. He tells Carbon Brief:
“A relatively quiet season in Russia can easily mask an exceptionally active season in France or Spain. If the analysis is focused on the regions actually experiencing the current fires, the picture is very different.
“The reality is that western Europe has experienced an extraordinary sequence of climate conditions this year.”
In contrast, the EFFIS provides a subset of wildfire data specifically for the area covered by the 27 nations of the EU, which, therefore, excludes Russia.
Another difference between the two datasets is that GWIS monitors all fires – including those on agricultural land that are intentionally set alight. The burned area as measured by GWIS contains significant cropland area.
By contrast, EFFIS uses land-cover data and other information to filter specifically for forest fires.
Looking at the EU-only data from EFFIS reveals that Europe is far from having its “quietest” year. The bloc’s burned area, as of 29 July, is almost 435,000 hectares (ha) – second only to 2022 for this time of year.
Notably, Wielicki has actually continued to post charts based on GWIS data, even after acknowledging that “includ[ing] all of Russia, including vast areas of Siberia…isn’t a good proxy for Europe”.
French fires
Even looking at EU-wide data misses the scale of this year’s wildfires for some individual countries.
The chart below shows the surge in burned area in France since mid-July.
For much of the first half of the year, the country was having a wildfire season that was only slightly above average in terms of total burned area. However, a notable uptick began in the first week of July.
The third week of the month saw France break its previous cumulative annual record by more than 19,000ha. That gap has widened as the fires continue to burn; as of 29 July, the cumulative burned area in France during 2026 was nearly 24,700ha above the previous record.
The fires in France follow a record-breaking June heatwave that “dried out vegetation across the region, allowing fires to spread quickly”, wrote the New York Times.
On 27 July, French president Emmanuel Macron called a “crisis cabinet meeting” in order to address the fires “ravaging several areas of south-west France”, said France 24.
More than 220,000 people have been evacuated due to the Gironde fire, west of Bordeaux, in “what may be France’s largest peacetime evacuation”, reported the Associated Press.
In the Conversation, Cunningham and two other University of Tasmania researchers write that evacuation orders “protec[t] human lives, but makes it more likely houses and other structures will burn if there’s no one to defend them”. They add:
“There is little doubt climate change has made France and Spain’s wildfires worse. They represent yet another reason to redouble our efforts to tackle climate change and stabilise our climate.”
Central Spain scorched
While Spain’s fire season has not broken records in the same way that France’s has, it is on track to be among the worst since EFFIS began reporting data in 2006.
The chart below shows the rapid increase in burned area in Spain since 8 July. The latest data from EFFIS reveal that, as of 29 July, Spain has almost matched its previous record at this point in the year. It is also nearly five times the average area burned for this time of year.
In Spain, the wildfires have been concentrated in the central part of the country, near Madrid.
BBC News reported that the fires outside the capital have burned “an area more than twice as large as the city itself”.
Nearly 90,000 people were forced from their homes in central Spain by the fires, said the Associated Press.
Pedro Sánchez, Spain’s prime minister, called the fires a “painful expression” of climate change.
Meanwhile, the UK, French and Spanish governments have issued joint statements this week in response to the fires. The UK/Spain statement begins:
“This summer’s wildfires demonstrated that climate change was now a national security emergency facing Europe and threatening our way of life.”
Related
The post Factcheck: No, Europe is not having its ‘quietest’ year for wildfires appeared first on Carbon Brief.
Factcheck: No, Europe is not having its ‘quietest’ year for wildfires
The general public often underestimate support for climate action, while overestimating the real-world actions taken by other people to address the problem, according to new research.
The study, published in Nature Climate Change, explores the differences between people’s support for climate change, their behaviour and their assumptions about other people’s behaviour.
It is based on multiple surveys of more than 5,000 people across Germany and the US.
The study expands on previous research on how the general public systematically underestimate the climate commitment of their peers.
The difference between actual and perceived support for climate action among the public is sometimes known as a “perception gap”.
The surveys tested how people’s perceptions of climate attitudes and behaviours relate to their own willingness to contribute and undertake “climate-friendly” actions.
One of the authors tells Carbon Brief that this perception gap is not due to “ignorance or bias”, but because “people are just not good at making good estimations”.
The research also reveals that people’s opinions and behaviours are more “nuanced than previously assumed” and suggests that simply “correcting misperceptions” does not automatically lead to greater climate action.
Measuring climate actions
The study notes that correcting the perception gap is often seen as a “cost-effective” way to promote public engagement and drive action to reduce the intensification and impacts of climate change.
Most studies that explore the perception gap have primarily focused on surveys that have asked people to report their willingness to support climate change.
In other words, researchers have relied upon people saying they would support efforts to tackle climate change, rather than measuring people’s real-world actions, such as financial donations, attending protests or changing their behaviour.
To fill this gap, the researchers behind the new study surveyed a total of more than 5,000 people in Germany and the US over 2024-25. Surveys were split across five different experiments, each focused on public perceptions of climate attitudes and how they relate to individuals’ actual behaviour:
| Experiment | What they did |
| Survey one | Participants were asked if they were willing to donate 1% of their household income to WWF – and then were given the chance to do so. Follow-up questions asked participants to predict how many of their peers said “yes” and how many actually donated to the charity. |
| Survey two | Participants read a constitutional complaint against the German government, led by Greenpeace, which demands for stricter climate policies. They were asked if they were willing to participate as a claimant and/or donate to the cause – and then were given the chance to do so. Follow-up questions asked participants to predict how many of their peers said “yes” and how many went on to support the complaint. |
| Survey three | Participants were requested to complete an online “work for environmental protection task” where the more “pages” they completed resulted in more donations to WWF. They then predicted how many pages their peers completed. Participants also rated their individual behaviours and support for eight climate policies and then estimated the same for other people. |
| Surveys four and five | Participants were split into three groups that were either informed that 4% of participants had donated 1% of their household income to WWF, that “68% were willing to contribute” or given no information. They then had to state whether they were willing to support WWF and then were given the opportunity to do so. |
The authors note that Germany and the US are two of the “top 10 CO2 emitters” and are places where climate action is “especially necessary”. However, they add that the two countries are not reflective of “diverse cultural contexts” and further research is needed across the world.
The perception gap
The researchers find that most of their participants supported climate action, but much fewer actually performed verifiable behaviours.
For example, survey one finds that 37% of participants said they were willing to donate to WWF, yet just 4% did when given the opportunity.
Participants generally overestimated the climate actions of their peers, predicting that 23% of other people donated. Willingness, on the other hand, was slightly underestimated with respondents averaging around 34%.
The results from survey three suggest that this perception gap is likely due to general cognitive processes within the human brain that make accurate estimations about large groups difficult, say the authors.
The chart below shows the actual percentage of people who supported different environmental policies and performed climate-friendly behaviours (blue dots) compared to average predictions from the surveys (red dots).
They reveal a “consistent pattern” where “small proportions were overestimated and large ones were underestimated”, the authors say, driving predictions towards the middle. This phenomenon is known as “regression to the mean”.
In other words, where public support for a policy was high, participants in the survey estimated it was lower than it was. When the support was lower, estimates would be higher.
The study finds that individual and environmental factors played a role in shaping people’s perceptions of their peers’ climate actions, which were distinct from general misestimations.
For example, people who were already involved in climate action, had more frequent climate discussions and consumed more climate-focused news and media predicted a higher proportion of climate support “across the board”.
The results from the fourth and fifth surveys show that knowing the context of other people’s beliefs and behaviour in surveys can impact the attitudes of participants.
Participants that were told that 68% of people were willing to donate 1% of their household income to the WWF were more willing to donate.
In contrast, participants that were told that 4% of people actually donated did not report more willingness to “discuss climate change, sign petitions or donate” than the control group.
However, there was no obvious impact on actual donations for any of the three groups, the study notes.
Lead study author Dr Kevin Tiede, scientific managing director of the Institute for Planetary Health Behaviour at the University of Erfurt, tells Carbon Brief that the findings suggest that “just telling people how many people support climate action is likely not enough to really change something”.
However, Tiede adds that “direct comparability” between people saying they would donate and actually donating is “limited” and that giving people more time to answer and autonomy over where to donate might result in more people taking action.
‘Pluralistic ignorance’
Tiede explains that the study findings demonstrate the existence of “pluralistic ignorance”, where a person believes their own views differ from the majority.
For climate change, this means that the “vast majority of people around the world support climate action, but people considerably underestimate the extent of this support”, the study says.
However, the surveys reveal that pluralistic ignorance “in the climate domain” is more nuanced than previously thought, say the authors.
Prof Madalina Vascleanu, an assistant professor at Stanford University’s Doerr School of Sustainability, who was not involved in the study, tells Carbon Brief that encouraging climate action is complex.
It may take multiple and repeated “attempts” at effective communication, or for people to directly “experience” the “norm” that climate change is widely supported, she says, rather than simply being told.
“Observable” behaviours, such as “identity signalling” – which could involve anything from protesting to vegetarianism – might have more of an impact on encouraging climate action among peers than “private behaviours like donations”, she adds.
The study is a “great addition to the literature”, Vascleanu says, because “correcting” the perception gap did not have an effect on climate-friendly behaviour, as “scholars had previously assumed”. She adds that it has “sparked several new hypotheses” that her “lab is now working on”.
Prof Mauro Bertolotti, associate professor of social psychology at the Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, explains that the “attitude-behaviour gap” revealed by the research is a “rather common finding”.
However, he is “sceptical” of the “simplified and abstract” measures, warning that experiment environments often come with “assumptions and expectations” that are different from real life.
As a result, they might not “replicate” the process people go through when choosing to “make a donation to an environmental cause”, he says.
‘Targeted’ communication strategies
The researchers argue that it is more effective to focus on “targeted” communication strategies – encouraging climate-friendly behaviours that aim to reach the majority who already support climate action, rather than trying to convert climate sceptics.
They call for attention to be paid to the attitude-behaviour gap between people saying they support efforts to tackle climate change and following up with real-world climate actions.
The study suggests strategies for decision-makers to reduce the attitude-behaviour gap, such as “facilitating climate-friendly behaviour” with “convenience and subsidies”. They also recommend ensuring environmental policy prioritises fairness to gain visible and widespread public support.
They add that the public would benefit from understanding the “effectiveness and co-benefits” of climate action.
Tiede, K.E. et al. (2026) People systematically under- and overestimate public engagement in climate action, Nature Climate Change, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-026-02668-z
Related
Scientists are ‘most trusted’ source of climate information in global-south survey
Survey: ‘Very few’ Africans place responsibility for climate action on ‘rich nations’
Guest post: How public attitudes towards ‘CO2 removal’ differ in the UK and US
Guest post: How ‘discourses of delay’ are used to slow climate action
The post Correcting climate ‘misperceptions’ may not boost climate action appeared first on Carbon Brief.
Correcting climate ‘misperceptions’ may not boost climate action
‘Ride the wave of momentum’: Australia announces once-in-a-decade Marine Parks Network review
Factcheck: No, Europe is not having its ‘quietest’ year for wildfires
Correcting climate ‘misperceptions’ may not boost climate action
-
Greenhouse Gases12 months ago
Guest post: Why China is still building new coal – and when it might stop
-
Climate Change12 months ago
Guest post: Why China is still building new coal – and when it might stop
-
Greenhouse Gases2 years ago嘉宾来稿：满足中国增长的用电需求 光伏加储能“比新建煤电更实惠”
-
Climate Change2 years ago嘉宾来稿：满足中国增长的用电需求 光伏加储能“比新建煤电更实惠”
-
Climate Change2 years ago
Bill Discounting Climate Change in Florida’s Energy Policy Awaits DeSantis’ Approval
-
Renewable Energy9 months agoSending Progressive Philanthropist George Soros to Prison?
-
Carbon Footprint2 years agoUS SEC’s Climate Disclosure Rules Spur Renewed Interest in Carbon Credits
-
Greenhouse Gases1 year ago
嘉宾来稿：探究火山喷发如何影响气候预测