ArticlePDF Available

Carbon innumeracy


Abstract and Figures

Individuals must have a quantitative understanding of the carbon footprint tied to their everyday decisions to make efficient sustainable decisions. We report research of the innumeracy of individuals as it relates to their carbon footprint. In three studies that varied in terms of scale and sample, respondents estimate the quantity of CO2 released when combusting a gallon of gasoline in comparison to several well-known metrics including food calories and travel distance. Consistently, respondents estimated the quantity of CO2 from gasoline compared to other metrics with significantly less accuracy while exhibiting a tendency to underestimate CO2. Such relative absence of carbon numeracy of even a basic consumption habit may limit the effectiveness of environmental policies and campaigns aimed at changing individual behavior. We discuss several caveats as well as opportunities for policy design that could aid the improvement of people’s quantitative understanding of their carbon footprint.
Content may be subject to copyright.
Carbon innumeracy
Amir Grinstein
*, Evan Kodra
, Stone Chen
, Seth Sheldon
, Ory Zik
1Associate Professor of Marketing, D’Amore-McKim School of Business, Northeastern University,Boston,
MA, United States of America, 2Associate Professor of Marketing, School of Economics and Business
Administration, VU Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 3risQ Inc., Cambridge, MA, United States of America,
4Sheldon Data, Athens, OH, United States of America,, Brookline, MA, United States of
* (AG); (OZ)
Individuals must have a quantitative understanding of the carbon footprint tied to their every-
day decisions to make efficient sustainable decisions. We report research of the innumeracy
of individuals as it relates to their carbon footprint. In three studies that varied in terms of
scale and sample, respondents estimate the quantity of CO
released when combusting a
gallon of gasoline in comparison to several well-known metrics including food calories and
travel distance. Consistently, respondents estimated the quantity of CO
from gasoline com-
pared to other metrics with significantly less accuracy while exhibiting a tendency to under-
estimate CO
. Such relative absence of carbon numeracy of even a basic consumption
habit may limit the effectiveness of environmental policies and campaigns aimed at chang-
ing individual behavior. We discuss several caveats as well as opportunities for policy
design that could aid the improvement of people’s quantitative understanding of their carbon
While political action is already underway in multiple countries in response to urgent calls for
reductions in greenhouse gas emissions such as the widely discussed carbon footprint [1,2,3]
recent political developments in the U.S.[4] create significant uncertainty regarding policies to
combat climate change. Thus, as 58% of Americans worry about climate change [5] and since
consumers and households significantly contribute to greenhouse gas emissions, it is becom-
ing even more important that part of the burden be carried at the individual level [6,7]. How-
ever, individuals are not clear about the relative contribution to greenhouse gas emissions of
their behavior [8]. Metrics such as carbon footprint remain unclear, intangible byproducts of
day-to-day consumer activities, as well as activities that connect to the consumer through com-
plex material and energy supply chains. Such metrics are largely irrelevant for personal deci-
sions by many individuals.
In this research, we measure the degree to which people’s carbon numeracy is tied to their
consumption behaviors. We define carbon numeracy as one’s ability to approximate a correct
value of one’s carbon footprint without resorting to an explicit calculation. Familiar examples
are food calories and ambient temperature, where people can interpret a quantitative signal
PLOS ONE | May 3, 2018 1 / 14
Citation: Grinstein A, Kodra E, Chen S, Sheldon S,
Zik O (2018) Carbon innumeracy. PLoS ONE 13(5):
Editor: Juan J. Loor, University of Illinois, UNITED
Received: June 21, 2017
Accepted: April 10, 2018
Published: May 3, 2018
Copyright: ©2018 Grinstein et al. This is an open
access article distributed under the terms of the
Creative Commons Attribution License, which
permits unrestricted use, distribution, and
reproduction in any medium, provided the original
author and source are credited.
Data Availability Statement: All necessary data
are within the manuscript and Supporting
Information files.
Funding: This study was supported in part by a
research budget provided by Northeastern
University to AG. Additionally, risQ Inc. and
Sheldon Data provided support in the form of
salaries for authors EK, SC, and SS but did not
have any additional role in the study design, data
collection and analysis, decision to publish, or
preparation of the manuscript. The specific roles of
these authors are articulated in the ‘author
contributions’ section.
(e.g., the temperature) to make decisions (e.g., clothing), without performing a calculation [9].
The motivation for our work is the notion that when the belief system and assumptions that
guide climate-related decisions are grounded in physical reality (e.g., in the form of labeling),
decisions are likely to be more effective [10,11]. This requires numeracy. As far as we are
aware, research thus far has not attempted to measure the degree of carbon numeracy of peo-
ple’s consumption behavior. This paper’s main goal is therefore to be the first step toward
addressing this knowledge gap. Specifically, through three studies, this research measures and
analyzes respondents’ ability to estimate the direct carbon emissions of driving a car due to
gasoline consumption. We present a simple test that involves comparing the ability to estimate
the carbon impact of combusting a gallon of gasoline to other daily metrics, such as food calo-
ries in a gallon of whole milk and travel distance. We select gasoline consumption and a gallon
of gas as they reflect one of the simplest and most consistent activities and measures in the
daily life of many people. We believe that the analogy to food calories is especially useful since
calories have been extensively used as a nutrition metric for battling obesity, a role analogous
to carbon footprint in mitigating climate change [12]. First, we report two small-scale surveys
of the general population and university students (studies 1a and 1b, respectively). Next, we
present a large-scale survey that corroborates the initial results among the general population
and addresses multiple constraints of the small-scale studies (study 2).
The rest of this paper is structured as follows. First, we review relevant literature on carbon
numeracy and human decision making. Then we report findings and their implications and
caveats. Finally, we discuss theoretical and policy implications of this work.
Better understanding of the nature of people’s estimation of the carbon footprints of their
behaviors will help policymakers to strengthen greenhouse gas reduction policies and create
more effective communication that is aimed at changing consumer behavior [9,13,14].
Numeracy, estimation error and bias: Theoretical background and
People’s numerical understanding of the environmental consequences of their consumption
behavior is often viewed as critical for more responsible consumption behavior [15]. Essen-
tially, numeracy creates a context for behavior (i.e., “is my environmental impact low or
high?”). Such numerical understanding when grounded in physical reality (e.g., in the form of
labeling) can transform environmental values into actions [10,11]. For example, it can lead to
an effective behavioral change that can promote more energy savings that offer both environ-
mental and economic benefits [16].
However, the numeracy of individuals as it pertains to decision-making domains is prone
to error [17]. In the specific case of understanding the carbon footprint consequences of one’s
consumption behavior, a recent study [9] suggests that people’s ability to quantify and capture
the impact of their actions on the environment is very limited. The study argues that when
making decisions, people typically rely on common systems and quantitative signals (e.g.,
price, temperature, food calories) that are consistent (i.e., accurate) and that are often prac-
ticed. Often, people’s familiarity and suitable approximations of these metrics–their consis-
tency and the fact that they are often practiced–are used to support decisions [17,18]. Such
numeracy about sustainability is, for the most part, apparently absent. In a recent survey of
UK consumers, only 14% stated that they knew their own personal carbon footprint and 89%
thought carbon labeling is confusing [19].
Lack of numeracy about carbon footprint is tied to consumption decisions and has two
consequences. First, lack of intuition at the individual level is likely to be translated to a highly
variable distribution of perceptions and attitudes among people at the aggregate level [20,21].
Carbon innumeracy
PLOS ONE | May 3, 2018 2 / 14
Competing interests: The authors have read the
journal’s policy and have the following conflicts: EK
and SC received support in the form of a salary
from risQ Inc. and SS received support in the form
of a salary from Sheldon Data. This does not alter
our adherence to all the PLOS ONE policies on
sharing data and materials.
This would require policymakers to design multiple interventions that are aimed at different
consumer groups and invest more in educating individuals. Second, many people will tend to
underestimate the carbon implications of their consumption choices. In a survey of American
households, Attari et al. [22] found that the average respondent underestimated potential
usage of energy and water by a factor of nearly three. Similarly, Gardner and Stern [6] reviewed
multiple situations where consumers underestimate energy usage and its consequences. A pos-
sible explanation is that people tend to view themselves and their behavior in a positive light
[23], underestimating the potential negative consequences of their undesirable behavior
[24,25]. This may be especially pronounced in domains related to environmental issues where
moral norms play a role [26].
Within the context of this research, we predict that innumeracy would be evidenced by car-
bon estimations with very large distribution (i.e., error). We further predict that the distribu-
tion will be biased downward, demonstrating clear underestimation of carbon footprint.
These errors and biases in carbon estimation are expected to be much higher than estimations
that suffer less from innumeracy such as food calories or travel distance.
Materials and methods
Ben-Gurion University’s Guilford Glazer School of Business’ Human Subjects Research Com-
mittee has approved the project “Carbon Illiteracy: Demonstrating a Prevalent Lack of Quanti-
tative Environmental Intuition” (AG_05022015). Written informed consent was obtained
from participants in all our studies.
Study plan
We designed and performed three survey-based studies to analyze the current state of people’s
innumeracy about the carbon footprint associated with using one gallon of gasoline, as com-
pared to other metrics that are ubiquitous in daily decisions and consumption (i.e., food calo-
ries, distances) or that are less ubiquitous (i.e., car weight). Further, the choice of one gallon is
motivated by the desire to compare responses for equivalent volumes using a unit that is most
familiar to consumers in the United States, where the studies were conducted. The studies,
complement one another in several ways (a summary of the key characteristics of the studies
appear in Table 1). First, they involve different participants–from the general population as
well as students. A key reason to conduct the study among students (i.e., not only among the
general population) is the fact that the former are considered more pro-environmental [27],
which make their study a conservative test of our predictions. Second, the studies involve
online and in-person data collection efforts to control for the possible influence of external
information on respondents’ estimations. Third, the studies involve different comparisons to
carbon footprint estimation (e.g., comparison with food calories). Fourth, while the two initial
Table 1. The key characteristics of the three studies.
Study Sample size Population Data collection approach Key measures/comparisons
1a 175 General population Online -CO
of 1 gallon of gasoline
-Calories in 1 gallon of whole milk
1b 100 Students Face-to-face -CO
of 1 gallon of gasoline
-Calories in 1 gallon of whole milk
-Travel distance from NYC to LA
2 961 General population Online -CO
of 1 gallon of gasoline
-Calories in 1 gallon of whole milk
-Travel distance from NYC to LA
-Weight of an average family car
Carbon innumeracy
PLOS ONE | May 3, 2018 3 / 14
studies involve relatively limited sample sizes (N<200), the third survey targeted 961 partici-
pants. Finally, the large-scale study addressed various potential methodological concerns of
the initial studies, as discussed below.
S1 Text (Methodological Appendix A) provides the detailed surveys for each of the three
Analytical approach
In each study, every respondents’ estimates were divided by the actual value to obtain the fol-
lowing estimation ratios (study 1a: CO
and milk, study 1b: CO
, milk and distance, study 2:
, milk, distance and car weight):
true CO2
true calories ;Rw¼est:weight
true weight ;and Rd¼est distance
true distance :
From these ratios, two metrics are defined and calculated: estimation error and estimation
We define estimation error as the absolute value of the log
transformed estimation ratios:
jlog10ðRcÞj;jlog10ðRmÞj;jlog10ðRwÞj;and jlog10ðRdÞj:
This definition is justified as follows: a perfect estimate will result in an estimation error of
zero, |log
(1)| = 0, and any underestimate or overestimate will result in a positive number.
The log
transformation aims to help reduce the influence of large outliers in subsequent anal-
ysis. Estimation error defined here provides a measure of the innumeracy of a given respon-
dent regarding any of the studied metrics (CO
, milk calories, distance or car weight).
Estimation bias is defined and calculated by taking the log
of the ratios: log
), but without taking their absolute value. These log
ratios allow us to treat underestimates and overestimates symmetrically. For example, an esti-
mation ratio of 10 (ten times higher than actual) becomes log
(10) = 1 and a ratio of 0.1 (one-
tenth of actual) becomes log
(0.1) = -1. These values are reported in S1 Text (Methodological
Appendix B). The mean biases and associated 95% confidence intervals are reported as a per-
centage of the actual value. Mean biases and their associated confidence intervals are com-
puted by converting back to original units. For example, a mean bias of log
(0.1) = -1 is
reported 10
100% = 10% of the actual value.
In all studies, estimation error and bias are both separately analyzed using a mixed effects
ANOVA model. To determine if there is a difference in the mean estimation error, a mixed-
effects ANOVA model was used. The estimation error was fitted with the factor (CO
, milk
calories, distance or car weight) as a fixed effect and the subject as a random effect. See S1 Text
(Methodological Appendix B) for details.
Study 1a: Online study of the general population
Respondents. The first study involved a survey of N = 175 participants (73 women, mean
age = 35) from the U.S. They were recruited online using Amazon Mechanical Turk–an online
tool used widely to crowd source data from the general population. Specifically, Amazon
Mechanical Turk is a web service that coordinates the supply and demand of different tasks
(including academic studies) that require human intelligence to complete. It is an online labor
market where employees (called workers) are recruited by employers (called requesters) for
the execution of the tasks in exchange for a wage (called a reward) while both workers and
requesters remain anonymous [28].
Carbon innumeracy
PLOS ONE | May 3, 2018 4 / 14
The initial sample for the study involved 208 participants. However, we excluded from the
analysis 33 participants who did not follow the instructions: 22 assessed CO
estimation across
all measurement units when asked to estimate using only a single unit and an additional 11 did
not estimate both CO
and food calories. We note that removing the 33 respondents does not
qualitatively change the nature of the core findings. Data set can be found in S2 Table.
Procedure. We asked respondents to use only their intuition and estimate 1) the amount
of CO
emitted by burning one gallon of gasoline in their car, and 2) the food calories con-
tained in 1 gallon of standard dairy milk. In the case of CO
emissions, we allowed for answers
in U.S. customary units (e.g., pounds) and metric units (e.g., kilograms) to make estimation
easy across American and non-American participants. The actual values are approximately 9
kg of CO
[29], and 2,400 Calories, respectively. Specifically, we asked: “How much CO2 do
you think is emitted in the production/consumption of 1 gallon of standard gasoline in your
car?” and, “How much calories do you think are contained in 1 gallon of standard dairy milk?”
For each respondent, the sequence of these questions was randomized to minimize any
order effects. We also asked about general environmental involvement, based on the Con-
sumer Involvement Scale [30]. The scale is a five-point semantic differential scale that consists
of five adjectives relating to the statement–“I find environmental and ecological issues. . .”:
“not important/important,” “not essential/essential,” “not valuable/valuable,” “not interesting/
interesting,” and “not significant/significant.” Finally, we asked respondents about potential
educational background that might influence their results (e.g., background in sustainability,
chemistry or physics).
Analysis and results. The main finding is that mean estimation error in the case of CO
significantly higher than for calories as determined by mixed-effects ANOVA (see Tables 2
and 3). Specifically, holding all else constant, the mean estimation error for calories in milk is
0.450 (95% confidence interval (CI) of 0.38–0.517) and 1.145 for CO
from gasoline (95% CI
of 0.994–1.295). Secondly, holding all else constant, there is a tendency to underestimate the
amount of CO
from gasoline with a mean bias of -0.750, which translates to 17.7% of the
actual value (95% CI of 11%-28%), similar to that for calories in milk, which holding all else
constant has a mean 44% of the actual value (95% CI of 37–53%).
Importance of environmental issues and potentially relevant educational background were
not factors that had a significant effect on either estimation error or bias. We also report in S1
Table the results in percent bias of the real value for all studies.
Study 1b: Face-to-face study of the student population
In study 1b, we sought to further explore the above observations but also to extend our analysis
in three ways. First, a concern with study 1a is that participants could have consulted external
information during estimation (e.g., online carbon footprint calculators), although they were
explicitly instructed not to. Thus, study 1b adopts an in-person moderated procedure with no
Internet access that eliminates this concern. Second, study 1a involved a general population
sample. In study 1b, we examine whether the findings hold with a sample of university students,
potentially characterized by higher levels of environmental awareness [31]. Third, in study 1a
we compared estimates of CO
in standard gasoline to those of calories in whole milk. One may
argue that respondents could have especially high interest in developing a strong numeracy
about calories because they have a direct personal impact on one’s health. Therefore, in study
1b, apart from a comparison to calories in a gallon of milk, we also prompt participants to esti-
mate a less personal, but nevertheless practiced, metric of travel distance. Travel distances, espe-
cially long ones, are not likely to be familiar to most people, but we might expect respondents to
have relatively higher numeracy about distance in general compared to carbon footprint.
Carbon innumeracy
PLOS ONE | May 3, 2018 5 / 14
Respondents. One hundred student participants were recruited by a research assistant on
the campus of a large American university. Our sample is comprised of students from 22 dif-
ferent majors, attesting to the academic diversity of the students participating in this study.
Data set can be found in S3 Table.
Procedure. As in study 1a, we first asked the respondents to use only their intuition and
estimate both the amount of CO
emitted by burning one gallon of gasoline in their car in one
of the following measurement units–pounds, kilograms, grams or metric tons as well as the
number of calories in one gallon of whole milk. We used the same questions as in study 1a. The
students were then asked to estimate the travel distance from Los Angeles to New York City in
miles or kilometers (approximately 3900 km). We used the same questionnaires as in study 1a
(however, gender and age information were not collected) including one item from Mittal’s
[30] importance of environmental issues scale (“I find environmental and ecological issues. . .
not important/important”) and a question about the student’s major at the university.
Analysis and results. As a starting point, we tested the assumption that the student popu-
lation from study 1b would view environmental topics as more important than the general
population studied in study 1a. A two-sided t-test suggests that the student population rates
environmental importance (EI) significantly higher on average. The mean estimate of EI for
study 1b’s student respondents was 4.46, while the EI for the respondents in study 1a was 4.15
(t = 3.05, p = 0.003).
Similar to the first study, holding all else constant, we find significantly larger estimation
error for CO
than calories or estimates of distance from Los Angeles to New York as deter-
mined by the mixed-effects ANOVA model (p-value <0.001; findings are reported in Tables 1
and 2, as well as Fig 1).
The mean estimation error of CO
emission from burning gasoline is 2.364 (95% CI of
2.062–2.665 and for calories in whole milk is 1.179 (95% CI of 1.095–1.264), corroborating
results from Study 1a. Further, the mean estimation error in kilometers to travel from Los
Angeles to New York City is 0.742 (95% CI of 0.614–0.869).
As with study 1a, there is a significant underestimation tendency for the amount of CO
released from combusted gasoline, with a mean estimation bias of 0.44% of the actual value
(95% CI of 0.22%-0.89%) as well as calories in milk with a mean estimation bias of 6.7% of the
actual value (95% CI of 5.5%-8.1%).
Estimates of carbon from gasoline vary significantly more than estimates of travel distance.
Interestingly though, in contrast to CO
and calories, there is a tendency to overestimate dis-
tance with a mean estimation bias of 250% of the actual value (95% CI of 166%-377%). This
finding is in line with the notion that people overestimate objects or realities that lack visibility
like travel distances [21].
Table 2. Mixed-effects ANOVA outputs for estimation error.
Factor Mean Std. Error DF t-value p-value
Study 1a CO
in gasoline 1.145 0.059 174 19.269 <0.000
Calories -0.695 0.082 174 -8.494 <0.000
Study 1b CO
in gasoline 2.364 0.100 198 23.743 <0.000
Distance -1.622 0.141 198 -11.522 <0.000
Calories -1.184 0.141 198 -8.412 <0.000
Study 2 CO
in gasoline 0.867 0.019 2880 45.933 <0.000
Distance -0.525 0.026 2880 -20.338 <0.000
Calories -0.169 0.026 2880 -6.564 <0.000
Car Weight -0.460 0.026 2880 -17.808 <0.000
Carbon innumeracy
PLOS ONE | May 3, 2018 6 / 14
Study 2: Large-scale online study of the general population
Respondents. Study 2 involved a survey of N = 961 participants (496 women, mean
age~ = 42) from the U.S. As with study 1a, they were recruited online using Amazon Mechani-
cal Turk. The initial sample for the study involved 1,046 participants. However, we excluded
from the analysis 70 participants that did not put an appropriate estimate (e.g., “I don’t know,”
“little,” “5 percent”). An additional 15 were removed for estimating 0 for either pounds of
CO2, calories of milk, distance between NY and LA, and weight of a car. Data set can be found
in S4 Table.
Procedure. We first asked respondents to use only their intuition and estimate both the
amount of CO
emitted by burning one gallon of gasoline in a motor vehicle (to avoid confu-
sion we only asked participants to use pounds; “What quantity of CO2 do you think is emitted
by consuming 1 gallon of standard gasoline when driving a motor vehicle?”), as well as the
number of calories in one gallon of whole milk (in calories; “How many calories do you think
are contained in 1 gallon of whole milk?”), the distance between Los Angeles and New York
City (in miles; “What do you think is the distance between Los Angeles and New York (coast-
to-coast)?”) and another estimation that unlike the previous ones has no direct personal rele-
vance to day-to-day lives of consumers and is less practiced: the weight of an average family
car (in pounds; 1,850 kg [32]; “What do you think is the weight of an average family car in the
U.S.?”). The estimation requests were presented in a random order.
We then included a single item that checked participants’ attention (“You need to check the
third answer in the following question”). All participants successfully passed the attention
check. To examine if results depend on pro-environmental attitudes, we included a single item
about environmental importance (based on Mittal [30]). Finally, to examine if results depend
on political orientation (conservative vs. liberal) we included an additional set of items [33,34].
Demographic questions concluded the survey; these can be found in detail in S1 Text (Meth-
odological Appendix A).
Table 3. Summaries of mean estimation error and bias with 95% CIs (all experiments).
Factor Mean Std. Error Lower Bound Upper Bound
Study 1a CO
in gasoline (bias) -0.75 0.1 -0.95 -0.55
Calories -0.35 0.04 -0.43 -0.27
in gasoline (error) 1.15 0.08 0.99 1.3
Calories 0.45 0.03 0.38 0.52
Study 1b CO
in gasoline (bias) -2.36 0.16 -2.66 -2.05
Distance 0.4 0.09 0.22 0.58
Calories -1.18 0.04 -1.26 -1.09
in gasoline (error) 2.36 0.15 2.06 2.67
Distance 0.74 0.07 0.61 0.87
Calories 1.18 0.04 1.1 1.26
Study 2 CO
in gasoline (bias) -0.58 0.03 -0.64 -0.51
Distance 0.12 0.02 0.09 0.16
Calories -0.62 0.02 -0.66 -0.58
Car weight -0.27 0.02 -0.3 -0.23
in gasoline (error) 0.87 0.02 0.82 0.91
Distance 0.34 0.02 0.31 0.37
Calories 0.7 0.02 0.66 0.74
Car weight 0.41 0.02 0.38 0.44
Carbon innumeracy
PLOS ONE | May 3, 2018 7 / 14
Analysis and results. As with the first two studies, the difference in mean estimation
error was determined with a mixed-effects ANOVA model. The model determined that mean
estimation error was significantly larger than mean estimation error of milk, distance and
car weight (p-values all <0.001; findings are reported in Tables 1and 2, as well as Fig 1).
From largest to smallest, the mean estimation error for each was: 0.867 for CO
from gaso-
line, 0.698 for calories in milk, 0.408 for car weight, and 0.342 for distance from Los Angeles to
New York City.
As with studies 1a and 1b, there is a tendency to underestimate the amount of CO
from a
gallon of gasoline with an estimate of 27% of the actual value (95% CI of 23%-31%) and calo-
ries in a gallon of milk with a mean estimate of 24% of the actual value (95% CI of 22%-26%).
The weight of a car also tends to be underestimated with a mean estimate of 55% of the actual
Fig 1. Results of studies 1a, 1b, and 2 –carbon versus calorie estimations.
Carbon innumeracy
PLOS ONE | May 3, 2018 8 / 14
value (95% CI of 50%-59%). Again, distance in miles from Los Angeles to New York City
tends to be overestimated with a mean estimate of 134% of the actual value (95% CI of 122%-
Fig 2 describes the findings of study 2 in a visual, more simplified manner.
Discussion and conclusions
Results from three studies provide evidence supporting the hypothesis that people have a
higher degree of carbon innumeracy tied to consumption than they have for other more com-
monly practiced and understood metrics like calories and distances (and even more than less
practiced metrics like the weight of an average family car). We define estimation error and
bias measures and analyze those through mixed effect ANOVA models. Results show that on
Fig 2. A simplified visualization of study 2’s results.
Carbon innumeracy
PLOS ONE | May 3, 2018 9 / 14
average respondents consistently estimate the amount of CO
from one gallon of standard gas-
oline significantly less accurately than they are able to estimate the number of calories in a gal-
lon of whole milk, the travel distance from Los Angeles to New York City, or the weight of an
average family car. The higher estimation error may not come as a surprise since, unlike food
calories or distance that are practiced by individuals in everyday life [17], measurements of
are not part of everyday decisions. This innumeracy is also evident in our final survey
where CO
estimates fall short even when compared to respondents’ ability to estimate the
weight of an average family car, even though car weight is not a measure that is practiced
Overall, the results provide evidence that, despite increasing public awareness and discourse
about climate change, environmental impact, and carbon footprinting [5,6] people cannot esti-
mate their carbon footprint associated with the common practice of driving a motor vehicle.
Further, even respondent samples that on average are more pro-environmental (students in in
study 1b) tend to exhibit lower carbon numeracy compared to calories and distance.
We also consistently find a statistically significant tendency to underestimate the amount of
from combusting gasoline. This bias is directionally consistent with prior research of
American households, in which respondents underestimated potential usage of energy by a
factor of nearly three [22] or four [6]. This underestimation bias could be explained by people’s
tendency to underestimate the potential negative consequences of their undesirable behavior
Remaining questions include whether general carbon innumeracy also characterizes
experts and policymakers, not only laymen, and to what extent their carbon numeracy is corre-
lated with the climate efficacy of their decisions. This may be especially valuable in the context
of battling climate change as policymakers and sustainability experts are the ones designing
policies and campaigns that aim to make a change [6,16]. Future research should address this
question rigorously, for example, surveying environmentally savvy participants such as stu-
dents enrolled in a sustainability programs or environmental consultants.
Conclusions and policy implications
We have provided multiple cases of heuristic empirical evidence for carbon innumeracy,
exemplified using a gallon of gasoline as the simplest way of capturing the consumption habit
of using a car.
Our findings point to the need by policymakers, responsible marketers, NGOs, and aca-
demic scholars to remedy the ways in which individual carbon and other environmental foot-
prints are quantified and communicated. One way to interpret Kahneman’s work [17] is that
numeracy (and broadly quantitative intuition) will require both consistency and practice. En-
hancing carbon numeracy may be achieved by multiple, non-mutually exclusive approaches,
which we discuss next.
As a starting point, it is critical that the available carbon information is consistent. For
instance, given the complex sources of energy in the U.S. (e.g., coal, solar, hydro, wind) it is
not often clear how efficient would be an electric car [35]. Practicing an inconsistent signal will
be less efficient in reducing the estimation error and will not contribute to carbon numeracy.
Further efforts by scientists and policy makers should focus on the consistency of carbon foot-
print calculations in various systems, especially those that involve complex, location dependent
systems such as the emissions tied to electricity consumption [36].
As far as practicing carbon footprint, the traditional approach is to create more knowledge
about, and awareness for, carbon footprint and its meaning. For example, creating an educa-
tional campaign that establishes carbon as a metric for environmental impact. Environmental
Carbon innumeracy
PLOS ONE | May 3, 2018 10 / 14
campaigns however are costly and there is limited evidence as to their effectiveness [37]. A dif-
ferent way to implement this approach is to integrate carbon footprint information in consum-
ers’ physical space. For example, providing carbon footprint information on consumer goods
packaging. Prior research suggests this can influence consumers’ decision making significantly
[10,11]. A related example is to implement at various instant feedback mechanisms (e.g.,
energy use indoor digital meters, mobile apps). A prerequisite for an effective implementation
of any policy involving product labeling or other awareness building mechanisms is carbon
numeracy. Our work exposes the gap that we should bridge.
A second approach may be to establish a more intuitive alternative metric than carbon foot-
print, based on preexisting numeracy that rigorously represents carbon emissions as a proxy.
For example, one can conceive of augmenting carbon footprint with “climate points,” “energy
points,” or equivalencies that reflect negative monetary externalities that are equal to or associ-
ated with a kilogram of CO
or the embodied energy of a gallon of gasoline, respectively. This
concept is similar to the way Weight Watchers induced dietary behavior using a points system
to augment calories [38]. While the use of calories leads to various biases [18,39] and it may be
more effective for some populations [40], overall there is a positive, albeit modest, positive
effect of calorie food labeling on food consumption [41]. Essentially, food calories and labeling
can more broadly work by filling an information gap that may have an effect on subsequent
decision making [40].
The advantage of the latter approach is having a metric that accounts for carbon but is less
prone to estimation errors and not as dependent on expensive educational campaigns that are
limited in effectiveness. This approach might be able to establish an environmental parallel of
“calories” to quantify the impact of resource consumption of a given product or service. Such a
metric will be especially valuable as it will enable people to make better environmental deci-
sions when comparing alternative behaviors with environmental impact that carries different
metrics (e.g., installing solar panels vs. eating local food). One promotional approach expected
to be relatively low cost and effective would be to display this type of metric or environmental
informatics in the general marketplace (e.g., near gasoline prices at gas stations; [42]).
Limitations and future research
We highlight several caveats that can be addressed by future research. First, gasoline and milk
were selected because of their simplicity, ubiquity, consistency and similarity in price per vol-
ume, but we did not independently determine whether gasoline and milk are representative of
decisions that involve carbon and calories, respectively.
In addition, considering the issue of consistency, we chose a gallon of gas as it is perhaps
the simplest and most consistent example. Thus, across our studies respondents did not have
to estimate the carbon footprints tied to other products or services that vary in composition.
Other consumption staples such as food, water, and electricity indirectly produce greenhouse
gas consequences that vary by space and time, and are thus less suggestive to our study but
should be included in future studies.
Second, in the current study we examined respondents’ absolute intuitive knowledge about
carbon footprint strictly as it relates to standard gasoline. Future work may study relative
knowledge on carbon footprints, for instance, by asking people to rank by impacts of various
consumption behaviors from low to high on their estimated carbon footprint, as this may be
highly relevant to people’s decision making.
Third, we should point out that our measurement approach was deliberately U.S.-centric
(using gallons for example), but can be expanded to other countries. We nevertheless make
sure to report our findings in metric units to enable generalizability.
Carbon innumeracy
PLOS ONE | May 3, 2018 11 / 14
Fourth, the question about CO
in surveys 1a and 1b asks about the “production/consump-
tion” of 1 gallon of standard gasoline in one’s car. Initially, we considered including the indi-
rect carbon emissions associated with the gallon of gasoline itself (i.e., crude oil extraction, oil
refining, prior to combustion by the driver), but ultimately decided to focus on direct emis-
sions for simplicity. Unfortunately, the artifact was not caught before the surveys were admin-
istered. Given the context and low probability that the respondents would understand the
phrase to be asking about emissions outside of the boundary of a car engine, and the consistent
in results with survey 2, in which the error was addressed, we think that the impact on the
results is minimal.
Finally, future work may find it useful to study more rigorously whether estimation error
and bias also characterize sustainability experts, not only laymen.
Supporting information
S1 Table. The results in percent bias of the real value for all studies.
S2 Table. Data_study1a.
S3 Table. Data_study1b.
S4 Table. Data_study2.
S1 Text. Methodological Appendix: A, B.
The authors are grateful for the research assistance of Shruti Naseri and for helpful suggestions
from Dan Ariely, Michael Toffel, Ron Milo, Ann Kronrod, Auroop Ganguly, Matt Eckelman,
and Steven Scyphers.
Author Contributions
Conceptualization: Ory Zik.
Formal analysis: Evan Kodra, Stone Chen, Seth Sheldon.
Methodology: Stone Chen, Seth Sheldon.
Project administration: Amir Grinstein.
Validation: Evan Kodra.
Visualization: Evan Kodra, Stone Chen.
Writing – original draft: Amir Grinstein, Evan Kodra, Seth Sheldon, Ory Zik.
Writing – review & editing: Stone Chen, Seth Sheldon.
1. Allen MR, Vicente RB, Broome J, Cramer W, Christ R, Churchet JA, et al. IPCC Fifth Assessment Syn-
thesis Report-Climate Change 2014 Synthesis Report. 2014. (available at
Carbon innumeracy
PLOS ONE | May 3, 2018 12 / 14
2. Grant D, Bergstrand K. Running effectiveness of U.S. state policies in reducing CO2 emissions from
power plants. Nature Climate Change. 2014; 4(11): 977–982.
3. Williams JH, DeBenedictis A, Ghanadan R, Mahone A, Moore J, Morrow III WR, et al. The technology
path to deep greenhouse gas emissions cuts by 2050: The pivotal role of electricity. Science. 2012; 335
(6064): 53–59. PMID: 22116030
6. Gardner GT, Stern PC. The short list: The most effective actions US households can take to curb cli-
mate change. Environment:Science and Policy for Sustainable Development. 2008; 50(5): 12–25.
7. Tukker A, Cohen MJ, Hubacek K, Mont O. The impacts of household consumption and options for
change. Journal of Industrial Ecology. 2010; 14(1): 13–30.
8. Whitmarsh L, Seyfang G, O’Neill S. Public engagement with carbon and climate change: To what extent
is the public “carbon capable”? Global Environmental Change. 2011; 21(1): 56–65.
9. Zik O, Kulatilaka N. The sustainability babel fish. Sustainability Science. 2013; 8(2): 295–300.
10. Cohen MA, Vandenbergh MP. The potential role of carbon labeling in a green economy. Energy Eco-
nomics. 2012; 34:S53–S63.
11. Guenther M, Saunders CM, Tait PR. Carbon labeling and consumer attitudes. Carbon Management.
2012; 3(5):445–455.
12. Carels RA, Konrad K, Harper J. Individual differences in food perceptions and calorie estimation: An
examination of dieting status, weight, and gender. Appetite. 2007; 49(2):450–458.
1016/j.appet.2007.02.009 PMID: 17428574
13. Sterman JD, Sweeney LB. Understanding public complacency about climate change: Adults’ mental
models of climate change violate conservation of matter. Climatic Change. 2007; 80:213–238.
14. Pandey D, Agrawal M, Pandey JS. Carbon footprint: Current methods of estimation. Environmental
Monitoring and Assessment. 2011; 178(1):135–160.
15. Kahan DM, Kahan DM, Peters E, Wittlin M, Slovic P. The polarizing impact of science literacy and
numeracy on perceived climate change risks. Nature Climate Change. 2012; 2(10): 732–735.
16. Dietz T. Narrowing the U.S. energy efficiency gap. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
2010; 107(37): 16007–16008.
17. Kahneman D. Thinking,Fast and Slow. 2011. Macmillan.
18. Brown RE, Canning KL, Fung M, Jiandani D, Riddell MC, Macpherson AK, et al. Calorie estimation in
adults differing in body weight class and weight loss status. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exer-
cise. 2016; 48(3): 521–526. PMID: 26469988
19. Gadema Z, Oglethorpe D. The use and usefulness of carbon labelling food: A policy perspective from a
survey of UK supermarket shoppers. Food Policy. 2011; 36(6): 815–822.
20. Caverni JP, Fabre JM, Gonzalez M (Eds.). Cognitive Biases. 1990; Vol. 68. Elsevier.
21. Tversky A, Kahneman D. Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. In Utility,Probability,and
Human Decision Making. 1975; 141–162. Springer Netherlands.
22. Attari SZ, DeKay ML, Davidson CI, De Bruin WB. Public perceptions of energy consumption and sav-
ings. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 2010; 107(37): 16054–16059.
23. Taylor SE, Brow JD. Illusion and well-being: A social psychological perspective on mental health. Psy-
chological Bulletin. 1988; 103: 193–210. PMID: 3283814
24. Dickerson CA, Thibodeau R, Aronson E, Miller D. Using cognitive dissonance to encourage water con-
servation. Journal of Applied Social Psychology. 2003; 22(11): 841–854.
25. Krizan Z, Windschitl PD. The influence of outcome desirability on optimism. Psychology Bulleting.
2007; 133(1): 95–121.
26. Stern PC. Towards a coherent theory of environmentally significant behavior. Journal of Social Issues.
2000; 56(3): 407–424.
27. Shen J, Tatsuyoshi S. Reexamining the relations between socio-demographic characteristics and indi-
vidual environmental concern: Evidence from Shanghai data. Journal of Environmental Psychology.
2008; 28(1):42–50.
28. Paolacci G, Chandler J, Ipeirotis P. Running experiments on Amazon Mechanical Turk. Judgment and
Decision Making. 2010; 5(5): 411–419.
29. Khachatryan H, Joireman J, Casavant K. Relating values and consideration of future and immediate
consequences to consumer preference for biofuels: A three-dimensional social dilemma analysis. Jour-
nal of Environmental Psychology. 2013; 34: 97–108.
Carbon innumeracy
PLOS ONE | May 3, 2018 13 / 14
30. Mittal B. A comparative analysis of four scales of consumer involvement. Psychology and Marketing.
1995; 12(7): 663–682.
31. Diamantopoulos A, Schlegelmilch BB, Sinkovics RR, Bohlen GM. Can socio-demographics still play a
role in profiling green consumers? A review of the evidence and an empirical investigation. Journal of
Business Research. 2003; 56(6): 465–480.
33. Nail PR, McGregor I, Drinkwater AE, Steele GM, Thompson AW. Threat causes liberals to think like
conservatives. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology. 2009; 45(4): 901–907.
34. Kidwell B, Farmer A, Hardesty DM. Getting liberals and conservatives to go green: Political ideology
and congruent appeals. Journal of Consumer Research. 2013; 40(2): 350–367.
35. How Green is Your Electric Car? 2014. The Wall Street Journal, Aug. 29.
36. Kodra E, Sheldon S, Dolen R, Zik O. The North American electric grid as an exchange network: An
approach for evaluating energy resource composition and greenhouse gas mitigation. Environmental
Science and Technology. 2015; 49(22):13692–13698 PMID:
37. Abrahamse W, Steg L, Vlek C, Rothengatter T. A review of intervention studies aimed at household
energy conservation. Journal of Environmental Psychology. 2005; 25(3): 273–291.
39. Chandon P, Wansink B. The biasing health halos of fast-food restaurant health claims: Lower calorie
estimates and higher side-dish consumption intentions. Journal of Consumer Research. 2007; 34
40. Hawkes C, Smith TG, Jewell J, Wardle J, Hammond RA, Friel S, et al. Smart food policies for obesity
prevention. Lancet; 385:2410–2421. PMID:
41. Kiszko KM, Martinez OD, Abrams C, Elbel B. The influence of calorie labeling on food orders and con-
sumption: A review of the literature. Journal of Community Health. 2014; 39(6):1248–1269. https://doi.
org/10.1007/s10900-014-9876-0 PMID: 24760208
42. Ariely D. Eyes off the price. 2008; N.Y.Times.
Carbon innumeracy
PLOS ONE | May 3, 2018 14 / 14

Supplementary resources (5)

... Consumers are often unaware of their carbon footprint and, more specifically, about the impacts of different types of consumption. For example, research has found that consumers are not very accurate when estimating their carbon emissions and tend to underestimate their emissions, particularly for highly energy-consuming activities (e.g., [21,22]. ...
To help decelerate the dramatic climate change consumers have to reduce their carbon emissions. As consumers are often unaware of their carbon footprint in their daily consumption, apps that track individual consumption and report the emissions caused can help consumers control and reduce their carbon footprint. The present article tests whether consumers would be willing to adopt these apps. The paper suggests that expected hedonic, social, and utilitarian benefits drive the intention to adopt carbon footprint tracking apps. However, the impact of the utilitarian benefits, which is operationalized as the technology as solution belief, is moderated by the extent to which consumers perceive transaction costs when using the app, namely their perception of the ease of use and their readiness to share their private data. An empirical study based on survey data supports these assumptions. Implications for policymakers, app designers, and marketers are given.
... Therefore, we suppose that Swedish participants, and people in general, are willing to consider increasing their travel time to reduce the CO 2 emission. A complicating factor is that carbon literacy is low (Grinstein, Kodra, Chen, Sheldon, & Zik, 2018) and most people are arguably not aware of how much this reduction from 99 to 22 kg CO 2 is worth. According to the Swedish Environmental Protection Agency (2019), these CO 2 emissions are in the same order of magnitude as the maximum weekly emission (38 kg) of the long-term goal of 2 tons/year and inhabitant. ...
Full-text available
If human behavior is to become more sustainable, people will have to be willing to sacrifice personal gains and benefits for the sake of sustainability. Decisions will have to involve making tradeoffs between what is good for the self and what is good for sustainability. In the present paper, we studied the psychology of such tradeoffs in the context of a carbon dioxide (CO2) emission versus travel time tradeoff task. The experiment investigated how intrinsic motivational factors (environmental concern), extrinsic motivational information (a normative message) and extrinsic motivation-neutral information (anchoring points) influence these tradeoffs. The results revealed that extrinsic factors interact in their effects on tradeoffs such that participants were willing to travel for a longer time for the benefit of less CO2 emissions when they were externally motivated by a normative message, but only when this motivational emphasis was combined with a high anchoring point. Furthermore, this interaction was particularly strong in participants with high environmental concern. We conclude that extrinsic and intrinsic motivational factors interact in their effect on making people willing to accept personal losses in exchange for sustainability gains and that these motivational factors may have to be combined with further extrinsic information to influence decisions.
... Most people have hard time estimating their carbon footprint (Grinstein et al. 2018), and it is probably not too far-fetched to assume that most people do not know the per-capita emissions required to meet the 1.5C goal. However, while carbon numeracy is important it is not sufficient to incentivize people to significantly reduce their carbon emissions. ...
Conference Paper
Full-text available
Sustainability in 2030 will be very much determined by the path we choose to take now. The current path was challenged this summer by John Elkington’s recall of the term ‘Triple Bottom Line’ (TBL), which he coined in 1994. Elkington (2018) made the case that while the concept was valuable in helping many companies rethink how they do business it did not succeed to serve as a catalyst for system transformation, as he was hoping for. “To truly shift the needle, however, we need a new wave of TBL innovation and deployment,” he writes (Elkington, 2018b). Indeed, TBL was instrumental in shaping business thinking about sustainability issues in the last couple of decades, helping create a sandbox in which most corporations operate now to address their social and environmental impacts. While this sandbox was fresh and promising in the 90s, offering companies new ways to shift from business-as-usual practices, it is growingly becoming a quicksand, where companies get stuck with a sustainability-as-usual mindset that puts our future in danger. This sandbox pushed companies to listen to their stakeholders, not just their shareholders, and take notice of sustainability issues, but didn’t provide them (and us) clear benchmarks articulating what ‘good enough’ actually means. Furthermore, there was no clear sense of urgency in this sandbox. Even if we had a sense that we’re flying towards the mountain as Elkington (2018a) puts it, the underlying assumption was that it’s far enough and we still have time to change course. This may explain perhaps why the sandbox tolerated incrementalism and inconsistent action. Now we have two options in front of us. One is to keep working on improving the sustainability-as-usual sandbox, assuming that given the systemic constraints (e.g. markets driven by short-termism and shareholder primacy) of implementing a more radical sustainability agenda, this route is still our best hope. The second option is to design a new sandbox, one that may offer new approaches and strategies to addressing the most critical sustainability issues we face. I believe that while a new sandbox is not a guarantee for success, staying within the current one is a recipe for failure. One reason is time, or the lack of it, especially when it comes to climate change. We are at a point where “winning slowly is the same as loosing” (McKibben, 2017), and it seems growingly unlikely that we can win fast enough with the current sustainability-as-usual mindset. Therefore, inspired by John Elkington’s TBL recall, I’m launching an effort to explore a new path to 2030 and beyond. Entitled Sandbox Zero, this will be a space of exploration, serious play and inquiry, looking to design a new paradigm of sustainability thinking, one that is grounded in a clear sense of urgency and focuses on creating human-centered solutions that are both radical and practical in order to make a difference in time. Sandbox Zero will take a designerly approach to consider the opportunities and challenges around the implementation of new business models, policies, technologies and strategies aimed to support a sustainable future. In the paper I will present some of the initial work created in sandbox Zero, including propositions considering sustainability reporting (Godelnik, 2018a) and the implementation of the Paris Agreement (Godelnik, 2018b), as well as the work of Parsons students exploring how to develop a new roadmap that moves away from sustainability-as-usual.
Full-text available
As a result of the environmental issues, different variables have been studied in relation to environmental concern and pro-environmental behavior. Among these are the connection to nature and emotions. In a first study (n = 95), pride and guilt were found to be emotions which can be explained by the perceived environmental impact of those rather than the behavior itself. In a second study, it was observed that pride and guilt play a mediating role in the relationship between connectedness to nature and pro-environmental behavioral intention (n = 244). On the other hand, in the relationship between love for nature and behavioral intention, pride, but not guilt, played a mediating role (n = 253). Thus, the importance of fostering both pride and guilt in attaining higher levels of environmentally conscious behavior, as well as of considering people's perceptions of the impact of their behaviors on the environment, is highlighted.
Full-text available
Rebound effects on the consumer level occur when consumers’ realized greenhouse gas emission savings caused by behaviors that might be beneficial to the environment are lower than their potential greenhouse gas emission savings because the savings are offset by behavioral adjustments. While previous literature mainly studied the economic mechanisms of such rebound effects, research has largely neglected the moral-psychological mechanisms. A comprehensive conceptualization of rebound effects on the consumer level can help fill this void and stimulate more empirical research in this relevant area. To this end, the paper introduces three focal dimensions of rebound effects on the consumer level: mechanism of rebound effects, product category, and consumption context. Based on this conceptualization, and integrating assumptions from the theory of moral licensing, the theory of categorization, and the construal level theory, this paper further refines the conceptualization of the moral component as an explanatory factor for rebound effects and highlights that the moral-psychological mechanisms of indirect rebound effects (i.e., rebound effects that occur across different product categories or consumption contexts) are more complex and diverse than the economic mechanisms. The paper outlines promising directions for future studies considering the different quantification and characteristics of economic and moral currencies that explain rebound effects on the consumer level and the strategic categorization of products and consumption contexts.
Despite people’s concern for the environment, there are psychological barriers that make it difficult to adopt a pro-environmental lifestyle, including difficulties in estimating the environmental impact of behaviours. In a first study (n = 374), we see that, when estimating the environmental impact of our own behaviours, we believe that pro-environmental actions can offset the environmental impact of those that are harmful to the environment. In addition, we believe that others have a greater impact. A second study (n = 497) finds that people who believe they have a lower impact on the environment than others and less than should be deemed acceptable display less intent to behave proenvironmentally. These findings highlight the difficulty people face in knowing the environmental consequences of their own behaviour, as well as the importance of perceptions regarding others’ behaviours in explaining the intent to behave proenvironmentally.
Full-text available
The advent of easily accessible technology, e-commerce, online streaming, and social networking platforms has led to massive amounts of data being stored and processed every second. The IT infrastructures needed to support this digital age consume a large amount of energy and have a negative impact on the environment. There have been several different efforts to estimate the carbon footprint of the internet, but there is no proven exact method for it. Therefore, the goals of this paper are, first—to critically review the carbon emission calculation methods and compare the results, and second—to publicize the environmental impact of our daily simple habit of internet usage. We calculated the carbon footprint of the most popular four online services (TikTok, Facebook, Netflix, and YouTube) by using top-cited methods such those from Obringer, the Shift Project, Andrae, and Hintemann and Hinterholze. When comparing the emitted carbon dioxide, the weighted average of online video streaming usage per day is 51 times more than 14 h of an airplane ride. Netflix generates the highest CO2 emissions among the four applications due to its high-resolution video delivery and its number of users.
This paper examines the role of entrepreneurs in advancing sustainable lifestyles (SLs) to address climate change and social inequity. It is based on empirical study of eight U.S.-based sustainable entrepreneurs, focused on reducing material consumption. While business has a key role to play, many large companies are unwilling to promote SLs as this is contrary to their current business models which are focused on growing consumption and sales. This presents an opportunity for entrepreneurial companies with innovative business models who are passionate about sustainability and social impact, and better positioned to take risks and innovate. The research examined emerging business models for advancing SLs, key success factors and challenges reported by the entrepreneurs, the social and environmental impacts of their actions, and the future opportunities for scaling up such practices. The study found that entrepreneurs are well positioned to address simultaneously environmental and social issues, however, they lack resources to effectively measure these impacts to demonstrate an overall positive benefit and strengthen their value proposition. Promoting green attributes alone is not enough to change the behavior of most consumers. It is critically important to emphasize other benefits such as a product/service quality, time or cost savings, or social impact. Social media, formal and informal sustainability networks, IT, sustainability policies, and consumer awareness are key to developing viable business models and competitive strategies that are difficult to replicate. The study found that sustainable entrepreneurs often face “costly” sustainability actions and lack the power to change „the rules of the game“; for this they need to collaborate with other key stakeholders, including NGOs, policy makers, and progressive companies. Based on the research findings the author proposes a new framework for the role of sustainable entrepreneurs as civic and political actors who not only offer innovative products and services, but help educate and influence key stakeholders, develop informal sustainability ecosystem, and thus create momentum for policy changes.
Full-text available
Misunderstandings in the relative efficacy of pro-environmental behaviors may have important consequences for climate mitigation efforts. In this study, we evaluate the ability to perceive the carbon footprint associated with individual actions, known as “carbon numeracy,” in 965 members of the North American public using ranking and tradeoff questions. The questions are designed to independently assess the role of knowledge, ability to do tradeoffs, and basic numeracy skills in determining carbon numeracy. We report multiple lines of evidence suggesting that people underestimate greenhouse gas emissions associated with air travel and, to a lesser extent, meat consumption. They are also largely incapable of making tradeoffs between different actions (e.g., the number of hamburgers that would be equivalent to a trans-Atlantic flight in terms of climate impact). Concern for climate change, political orientation, and education were not significant predictors of accuracy in making tradeoffs, but basic numeracy was linked with increased accuracy. The results suggest that further education may be necessary to improve carbon numeracy by providing the public with a basic hierarchy of actions according to carbon reduction efficacy. Consumers seeking to balance their carbon budgets may benefit from external aids (e.g., carbon labels associated with actions) to guide emission-related decision-making.
Full-text available
Prevention of obesity requires policies that work. In this Series paper, we propose a new way to understand how food policies could be made to work more effectively for obesity prevention. Our approach draws on evidence from a range of disciplines (psychology, economics, and public health nutrition) to develop a theory of change to understand how food policies work. We focus on one of the key determinants of obesity: diet. The evidence we review suggests that the interaction between human food preferences and the environment in which those preferences are learned, expressed, and reassessed has a central role. We identify four mechanisms through which food policies can affect diet: providing an enabling environment for learning of healthy preferences, overcoming barriers to the expression of healthy preferences, encouraging people to reassess existing unhealthy preferences at the point-of-purchase, and stimulating a food-systems response. We explore how actions in three specific policy areas (school settings, economic instruments, and nutrition labelling) work through these mechanisms, and draw implications for more effective policy design. We find that effective food-policy actions are those that lead to positive changes to food, social, and information environments and the systems that underpin them. Effective food-policy actions are tailored to the preference, behavioural, socioeconomic, and demographic characteristics of the people they seek to support, are designed to work through the mechanisms through which they have greatest effect, and are implemented as part of a combination of mutually reinforcing actions. Moving forward, priorities should include comprehensive policy actions that create an enabling environment for infants and children to learn healthy food preferences and targeted actions that enable disadvantaged populations to overcome barriers to meeting healthy preferences. Policy assessments should be carefully designed on the basis of a theory of change, using indicators of progress along the various pathways towards the long-term goal of reducing obesity rates. Copyright © 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Full-text available
The authors develop a conceptual model of how the congruence of political ideology and persuasive appeals enhances sustainable behaviors. In study 1, persuasive appeals consistent with individualizing and binding moral foundations were developed to enhance liberal and conservative recycling. In study 2, individualizing and binding appeals were tested on actual recycling behavior using a longitudinal field study to demonstrate the effectiveness of messages congruent with the moral foundations of liberals and conservatives. Study 3 demonstrated that enhanced fluency represents the underlying psychological process that mediates the relationship between message congruence and intentions. Moreover, study 3 established that spillover effects resulting from increased intentions to engage in sustainable disposition behavior enhance intentions to engage in sustainable acquisition and consumption behaviors. Finally, study 4 ruled out potential message confounds to demonstrate the robustness of the findings. Practical implications for marketers and public policy officials interested in increasing sustainable behaviors are offered.
Using a complex network framework, the North American electric grid is modeled as a dynamic, equilibrium-based supply chain of more than 100 interconnected Power Control Areas (PCAs) in the contiguous United States, Canada, and Northern Mexico. Monthly generation and yearly inter-PCA exchange data reported by PCAs are used to estimate a directed network topology. Variables including electricity, as well as primary fuels, technologies, and greenhouse gas emissions associated with power generation can be traced through the network, providing energy source composition statistics for power consumers at a given location. Results show opportunities for more precise measurement by consumers of emissions occurring on their behalf at power plants. Specifically, we show a larger range of possible factors (~0 to 1.3 kgCO2/kWh) as compared to the range provided by the EPA's eGRID analysis (~0.4 to 1 kgCO2/kWh). We also show that 66 - 73% of the variance in PCA-level estimated emissions savings is the result of PCA-to-PCA differences that are not captured by the larger eGRID subregions. The increased precision could bolster development of effective greenhouse gas reporting and mitigation policies. This study also highlights the need for improvements in the consistency and spatio-temporal resolution of PCA-level generation and exchange data reporting.
Purpose: Ability to accurately estimate calories is important for weight management, yet few studies have investigated whether individuals can accurately estimate calories during exercise, or in a meal. The objective of this study was to determine if accuracy of estimation of moderate or vigorous exercise energy expenditure and calories in food is associated with body weight class or weight loss status. Methods: Fifty-eight adults who were either normal weight (NW) or overweight (OW), and either attempting (WL) or not attempting weight loss (noWL), exercised on a treadmill at a moderate (60% HRmax) and a vigorous intensity (75% HRmax) for 25 minutes. Subsequently, participants estimated the number of calories they expended through exercise, and created a meal that they believed to be calorically equivalent to the exercise energy expenditure. Results: The mean difference between estimated and measured calories in exercise and food did not differ within or between groups following moderate exercise. Following vigorous exercise, OW-noWL overestimated energy expenditure by 72%, and overestimated the calories in their food by 37% (P<0.05). OW-noWL also significantly overestimated exercise energy expenditure compared to all other groups (P<0.05), and significantly overestimated calories in food compared to both WL groups (P<0.05). However, among all groups there was a considerable range of over and underestimation (-280 kcal to +702 kcal), as reflected by the large and statistically significant absolute error in calorie estimation of exercise and food. Conclusion: There was a wide range of under and overestimation of calories during exercise and in a meal. Error in calorie estimation may be greater in overweight adults who are not attempting weight loss.
Background: There is growing pressure in some of New Zealand’s export markets for product information on sustainability credentials and on carbon emissions with several schemes under development worldwide. The aim of this study is to assess in two key markets consumer attitudes, knowledge and preferences towards sustainability; including carbon emissions information on food products. Method: Focus groups and surveys in the UK and Japan. Results: This study finds evidence that consumers in both countries desire labels that display sustainability credentials. Differences were observed between countries in terms of perceived knowledge about specific issues. Similar preferences for environmental product features were observed. Conclusion: The information gained from this study may support producers’ and manufacturers’ labeling policy and practices.
President Obama's landmark initiative to reduce the CO2 emissions of existing power plants, the nation's largest source of greenhouse gas (GHG) pollutants, depends heavily on states and their ability to devise policies that meet the goals set by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Under the EPA's proposed Clean Power Plan, states will be responsible for cutting power plants' carbon pollution 30% from 2005 levels by 2030. States have already adopted several policies to reduce the electricity sector's climate impact. Some of these policies focus on reducing power plants' CO2 emissions, and others address this outcome in a more roundabout fashion by encouraging energy efficiency and renewable energy(1). However, it remains unclear which, if any, of these direct and indirect strategies actually mitigate plants' emissions because scholars have yet to test their effects using plant-level emission data. Here we use a newly released data source to determine whether states' policies significantly shape individual power plants' CO2 emissions. Findings reveal that certain types of direct strategy (emission caps and GHG targets) and indirect ones (public benefit funds and electric decoupling) lower plants' emissions and thus are viable building blocks of a federal climate regime.
Obesity is a challenging public health problem that affects millions of Americans. Increasingly policy makers are seeking environmental and policy-based solutions to combat and prevent its serious health effects. Calorie labeling mandates, including the provision in the 2010 Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act that is set to begin in 2014, have been one of the most popular and most studied approaches. This review examines 31 studies published from January 1, 2007 through July 19, 2013. It builds on Harnack and French's 2008 review and assesses the evidence on the effectiveness of calorie labeling at the point of purchase. We find that, while there are some positive results reported from studies examining the effects of calorie labeling, overall the best designed studies (real world studies, with a comparison group) show that calorie labels do not have the desired effect in reducing total calories ordered at the population level. Moving forward, researchers should consider novel, more effective ways of presenting nutrition information, while keeping a focus on particular subgroups that may be differentially affected by nutrition policies.
Seeming public apathy over climate change is often attributed to a deficit in comprehension. The public knows too little science, it is claimed, to understand the evidence or avoid being misled. Widespread limits on technical reasoning aggravate the problem by forcing citizens to use unreliable cognitive heuristics to assess risk. An empirical study found no support for this position. Members of the public with the highest degrees of science literacy and technical reasoning capacity were not the most concerned about climate change. Rather, they were the ones among whom cultural polarization was greatest. This result suggests that public divisions over climate change stem not from the public’s incomprehension of science but from a distinctive conflict of interest: between the personal interest individuals have in forming beliefs in line with those held by others with whom they share close ties and the collective one they all share in making use of the best available science to promote common welfare.
Over the past several years, labeling schemes that focus on a wide range of environmental and social metrics have proliferated. Although little empirical evidence has been generated with respect to carbon footprint labels, much can be learned from our experience with similar product labels. We first review the theory and evidence on the influence of product labeling on consumer and firm behavior. Next, we consider the role of governments and nongovernmental organizations, concluding that global, multistakeholder organizations have a critical part to play in setting protocols and standards. We argue that it is important to consider the entire life cycle of a product being labeled and develop an international standard for measurement and reporting. Finally, we examine the potential impact of carbon product labeling, discussing methodological and trade challenges and proposing a framework for choosing products best suited for labeling.