New research suggests that trying to change people's climate habits won't hurt support for big picture solutions.
Climate campaigners have long debated whether promoting small, eco-friendly choices, like cycling to work or avoiding plastic straws, might detract from the push for the sweeping policies needed to tackle climate change.
A new cross-cultural study , led by Dr Omid Ghasemi from the UNSW Institute for Climate Risk & Response , suggests that concern may be overblown.
The researchers found that encouraging individual climate actions-such as recycling or reducing energy use-did not erode public support for government-led interventions.
"For years, climate communicators worried that if we focus too much on personal behaviour, we risk diverting energy and attention away from the systemic changes that really matter," says Dr Ghasemi.
"There's also a concern that small, eco-friendly habits allow people to justify more damaging behaviours or believe progress is being made when we urgently need better big picture policy. But our research suggests that this isn't happening."
The team surveyed and ran experiments with more than 1200 people in total, including Australian university students and a broader sample of the Iranian and Australian public.
Dr Ghasemi says Iran and Australia were chosen for the study because they're very different in terms of culture, politics, economy, and how exposed they are to climate risks.
"Iran's governance and economic conditions present different challenges for carrying out large-scale climate initiatives," says Dr Ghasemi.
"These challenges can make it harder for the country to support big policy changes, which might lead people to focus more on personal actions instead.
"By comparing a Western democracy like Australia with a country like Iran, we could see how people in very different settings think about personal versus government-led climate action."
Study participants were divided into groups and shown different climate messages: one focused on government policies, and the other on individual action, while a control group was shown either a balanced mix or an unrelated science quiz.
The participants then answered questions about the effectiveness of different solutions, their level of support for government action, and whether they saw personal and government actions as being in conflict.
Across all groups, people continued to show strong support for systemic climate action-or the big picture, government-led solutions-no matter how many messages they saw about individual actions.
"Iranian participants especially viewed systemic solutions as the main player in tackling climate change, which points to some cultural difference in how we view government responsibility," says Dr Ghasemi.
The researchers also ran a survey on whether the number of times someone encountered climate information on individual solutions in their daily life was associated with less support for government-led initiatives.
These daily life interactions did not detract from overall support for big picture solutions among Iranian and Australian participants.
"Even more interestingly, Australian students tended to actually show stronger support for systemic change if they were exposed to more individual climate actions," Dr Ghasemi says.
"The general Australian population, on average, rated personal pro climate actions as moderate substitutes for systemic change, which suggests they believe that individual solutions 'somewhat' reduce the need for systemic solutions.
"However, they still showed strong support for systemic solutions regardless of their belief about whether their individual actions complement or contradict their support for more big picture climate policies."
Dr Ghasemi says the findings challenge the long-standing "crowding-out" hypothesis-the idea that personal climate efforts can reduce enthusiasm for systemic reform.
"Past studies have been mixed, possibly because of differences in how the experiments were designed," Dr Ghasemi explains.
"Our results suggest that rather than competing, individual and systemic actions might complement each other."
The research, he says, highlights how individual behaviours can act as social signals, creating "bottom-up" pressure for governments and institutions to act.
However, climate communicators should be careful against overstating the power of personal choices.
"It's critical to communicate the true scale of individual actions," he says. "If they're framed as a substitute for systemic policies, that could risk reducing public support for bigger reforms."
But, Dr Ghasemi argues, drawing a hard line between personal responsibility and systemic change is counterproductive.
"The success of systemic policies often depends on individual behaviour," he says.
"Our evidence points to a synergistic relationship.
"For policymakers, this means adopting a more integrated approach-one that values both big picture reforms and the role of small, everyday actions.
"Australia's gambling reform is a great example of how combining individual-level tools -like monthly activity statements with system-wide policies such as banning gambling providers from offering credit-can have a big impact.
"Behavioural scientists, like Professor Ben Newell , played a key role in designing these complementary interventions.
"Also, since people often assume others aren't as interested in climate action, when they change their habits, like recycling more or cutting down on energy use, it sends a message.
"It shows us that caring is more common than we thought, which can help build momentum for bigger, system-wide changes.
"There's no need to pit the individual against the system, when we know from research that climate campaigns can be most effective when they both work hand in hand."
