Discussion
Started 16 February 2025

Individual willingness to fight climate change and pro-environmental behavior

How individual willingness to fight climate change and individual pro-environmental behavior differ? Is there an umbrella term that includes both?

Most recent answer

Zylfije Tahiri
South East European University
Individual willingness to fight climate change is about a person’s intention to take action or support policies to address the issue, while pro-environmental behavior refers to actual actions like conserving energy or reducing waste. Both concepts fall under the umbrella term "environmental engagement," which includes both attitudes toward environmental issues and the behaviors that follow.
Best,
Zylfije Tahiri
9 Recommendations

Popular replies (1)

Zylfije Tahiri
South East European University
Individual willingness to fight climate change is about a person’s intention to take action or support policies to address the issue, while pro-environmental behavior refers to actual actions like conserving energy or reducing waste. Both concepts fall under the umbrella term "environmental engagement," which includes both attitudes toward environmental issues and the behaviors that follow.
Best,
Zylfije Tahiri
9 Recommendations

All replies (4)

Richard Batasi
Kenyatta University
Yes, individual willingness to fight climate change and pro-environmental behavior can differ. Willingness to fight climate change refers to an individual's attitude or mindset towards taking action to address climate change. This can include beliefs about the severity of the issue, the need for action, and the importance of personal responsibility. Pro-environmental behavior, on the other hand, refers to specific actions that individuals take to reduce their environmental impact, such as recycling, using public transportation, or reducing energy consumption. While there is often a correlation between willingness to fight climate change and pro-environmental behavior, the two are not always aligned. Some individuals may have a strong willingness to fight climate change but may not engage in pro-environmental behaviors due to factors such as lack of knowledge, resources, or motivation. Conversely, some individuals may engage in pro-environmental behaviors without necessarily having a strong willingness to fight climate change.
1 Recommendation
Augusto Pereira
National Institute for Space Research
The willingness to combat climate change and pro-environmental behavior are related concepts but have distinct conceptual and operational differences. The former refers to an individual's motivation, awareness, and perceived urgency of climate action, often shaped by cognitive, emotional, and social factors. The latter represents the tangible expression of this willingness through concrete actions, such as reducing fossil fuel consumption, improving energy efficiency, or adopting sustainable consumption habits. From a meteorological and atmospheric physics perspective, the relationship between intention and action can be likened to the concepts of potential and kinetic energy. The willingness to fight climate change is like potential energy stored within an individual’s cognitive and social framework whether it transforms into real action (kinetic energy) depends on external conditions and driving or inhibiting forces.
Climate change, as a physical phenomenon, results from alterations in radiative balance and atmospheric dynamics, driven by increasing greenhouse gas concentrations. Mitigating these changes requires not just individual pro-environmental actions but a collective effort that surpasses critical thresholds in complex systems where small individual actions can accumulate and reach a tipping point of meaningful impact. A term that could encompass both dimensions is climate engagement, as it includes both the willingness and the concrete actions aimed at mitigating climate change. This engagement can be analyzed across different scales, from individual choices to policy-making and technological innovation, considering the interplay between physical and social processes in the global climate system.
1 Recommendation
Dragan Ugrinov
University Business Academy in Novi Sad, European Faculty "Kallos" Belgrade
Individual readiness to fight climate change and individual pro-environmental behavior are two related but distinct concepts.
  1. Individual readiness to fight climate change: This term refers to an individual’s motivation and willingness to actively engage in the fight against climate change, whether through supporting policies, participating in actions such as protest campaigns or petitions, or investing in initiatives that have a global impact on reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Readiness relates to awareness and personal resolve to act at a collective level to address climate issues.
  2. Individual pro-environmental behavior: This refers to practical actions that an individual takes to reduce their personal environmental impact, such as reducing energy consumption, recycling, using public transportation, cycling, consuming environmentally responsible products, and so on. This behavior focuses on daily activities and lifestyle choices that help preserve ecosystems.
Differences:
  • Readiness to fight refers to motivation and attitudes, i.e., awareness of the need for action on a broader, global scale.
  • Pro-environmental behavior is more practical and specific and relates to personal actions an individual takes to have a positive impact on the environment.
Overarching term:
Although both concepts are related to ecological activism and responsibility, a possible overarching term that includes both would be ecological awareness and activism or environmental responsibility. These terms cover both personal readiness to act (through political or global support) and everyday individual actions aimed at reducing harmful environmental impacts.
Zylfije Tahiri
South East European University
Individual willingness to fight climate change is about a person’s intention to take action or support policies to address the issue, while pro-environmental behavior refers to actual actions like conserving energy or reducing waste. Both concepts fall under the umbrella term "environmental engagement," which includes both attitudes toward environmental issues and the behaviors that follow.
Best,
Zylfije Tahiri
9 Recommendations

Similar questions and discussions

How can environmental protection and biodiversity be improved by using current ecological technologies?
Discussion
2903 replies
  • Dariusz ProkopowiczDariusz Prokopowicz
Due to the current civilization progress in recent decades, acceleration of the development of industry, automotive, urban agglomerations, intensification of agricultural production, etc. and related greenhouse gas emissions, global warming, ozone layer depletion in the atecologicalecologicalmosphere, increase of environmental pollution, growing problem of smog in urban agglomerations, the increase in pollution of the seas and oceans to which unsorted waste is thrown away is cut out as part of the predatory economy of tropical forests in the Amazon and other largest natural forest ecosystems.
In addition, the secondary effect of global warming of the Earth's climate is the increasing, more frequent weather anomalies, including drought, leading to steppe and desertification of areas that were previously natural forest ecosystems or areas exploited by agriculture.
As a result of the above-mentioned processes, every year many species of flora and fauna disappear forever.
As a result, natural biodiversity diminishes, which for millions of years evolved evolutionally on Earth.
In this way the natural resources of the planet Earth are irretrievably in decline.
In view of the above, the issue of environmental protection and biodiversity is one of the most important challenges of humanity in the 21st century.
Classical economics must change towards a green economy based on the strategy of sustainable pro-ecological development.
Therefore, I am asking you for the following query:
How can environmental protection and biodiversity be improved by using current ecological technologies?
Please, answer, comments.
I invite you to the discussion.
I pointed out the high level of relevance of the issue taken up in the above question in the article:
Please respond with what do you think about the issues described in this article?
Best wishes
Dariusz Prokopowicz
The above text is entirely my own work written by me based on my research.
In writing this text, I did not use other sources or automatic text generation systems.
Copyright by Dariusz Prokopowicz
Trump's economics: innovation or disaster?
Discussion
20 replies
  • Stanley WilkinStanley Wilkin
Keeping an open mind in assessing Trump's approach, my take principally on Tariffs and the destruction of the welfare sector:
From my understanding, and memory, there have been two attempts, both successful, to cut American government spending. Once was in the late 1920s, and the other under Clinton. On both occasions, cuts in federal spending were successful and government spending was cut. On both occasions, a few years after came a downturn or recession. The reason for this may be that with government restrictions on national spending private borrowing increased rapidly and caused problems for most of the next decade until the Second World War, which caused an increase in government spending.
Now while this alone may have enabled the wealth growth of the 1950s, the war had damaged or disabled all of America's competitors. America had a free hand to expand.
That is the history, now to the present.
There seems a lack of know, in my view, of how economies function and the idea that cutting welfare will encourage growth is mistaken as by doing so other problems will arise and with the very poor without sufficient money spending overall will decline and there will in addition be far less money around. Trump's government is a business one, including as it does, Musk. But businesses operate within states and are not, obviously, states. Their economics is different. Welfare enables spending even by the very poor, which will positively impact the state's internal economy. Without it, many, indeed millions, will or could function outside of the economy.
Tariffs are a different issue as there is no evidence they will work. Trump seems to believe that the USA is that of his childhood when it could command other economies due to the war and USA technological advances in the following decades. What Trump sees as America having been ripped off by the entire world is simply natural change. The impact of tariffs and counter tariffs could end up seriously damaging Western economies to the benefit of China.

Related Publications

Article
Full-text available
Con este artículo pretendemos contribuir al análisis crítico de la información que conforma -en los países de la Unión Europea, USA, Reino Unido…- la opinión ciudadana acerca de la guerra en Ucrania, intentando dar respuesta a cuestiones clave: ¿En qué medida los relatos de apoyo a la guerra proporcionan un conocimiento veraz, basado en hechos cier...
Got a technical question?
Get high-quality answers from experts.