Plastic action or distraction? As climate change bears down, reduce plastic polution call not wasted

Climate change, pollution, and overfishing are just a few problems that must be addressed to maintain a healthy blue planet. Everyone must get involved – but it’s easy to feel overwhelmed and unsure where to start.

Of course, we can start with the obvious—reducing, reusing, and recycling. Yet, given the scale of the challenge, these small, relatively simple steps are not enough. So, how can we encourage people to do more?

There is controversy about the best approach. Some argue focusing on easy actions is distracting and can lead people to overestimate their positive impact, reducing the chance they will do more.

However, our new research found that promoting small and relatively easy actions, such as reducing plastic use, can be a useful entry point for engaging in other, potentially more effective actions related to climate change.

The plastic distraction debate

Marine plastic pollution is set to quadruple by 2050, and efforts to reduce it have received considerable attention. Australia is making significant progress in this arena.

For example, last year, scientists discovered that the amount of plastic litter on Australian coasts had reduced by 30% since 2012-13. Seven out of eight Australian states and territories have also committed to banning single-use plastics.

Yet, some scientists are concerned all this fuss about plastic distracts us from addressing the more pressing issue of climate change, which is degrading marine ecosystems at an alarming rate and making oceans hotter than ever.

For example, without an urgent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions, coral reefs, including our Great Barrier Reef, could lose more than 90% of their coral cover within the next decade.

Australia is behind when it comes to climate action, and Many Australians are unsure which actions to take. For example, a 2020 study asked more than 4,000 Australians what actions were needed to help the Great Barrier Reef. The most common response (25.6%) involved reducing plastic pollution. Only 4.1% of people mentioned a specific action to mitigate climate change.

‘Spillover’ behaviour

We ran an experiment to test whether we could shift this preference for action on plastic into action on climate change.

Our experiment was based on a theory known as “behavioural spillover.” This theory assumes that the actions we take in the present influence the actions we take in the future.

For example, deciding to go to the gym in the morning may influence what you eat in the afternoon.

Some experts argue that focusing on reducing plastic use—a relatively simple action—can help build momentum and open the door for other environmental actions in the future. This is known as positive spillover.

Conversely, those in the “plastic distraction” camp argue if people reduce their plastic use, they might feel they have done enough and become less likely to engage in additional actions. This is known as negative spillover.

Experimenting with spillover from plastic to climate

To test whether we could encourage spillover behaviour in the context of the Great Barrier Reef, we conducted an online experiment with a representative sample of 581 Australians.

Participants were randomly allocated to one of three experimental or control groups. The first group received information about plastic pollution on the reef and prompts to remind them of their efforts to tackle the problem in the past week (a “behaviour primer”). The second group received the reef plastic information only. The third group received information about the reef and climate change. The control group received general information about World Heritage sites, with no call to action or mention of the Great Barrier Reef.

Participants were then asked whether they would likely take various climate actions, such as reducing personal greenhouse gas emissions and talking to others about climate change. They also had the opportunity to “click” on a few actions embedded within the survey, such as signing an online petition for climate action.

Compared to the control group, those with information about plastic pollution were more willing to engage in climate actions, particularly when reminded of positive past behaviours. Conversely, those provided with information about climate change showed no significant difference.

Plastic messages also had a stronger positive effect on climate action for those who were politically conservative than for those who were more politically progressive.

But the approach didn’t work for everyone. We repeated the experiment with 572 self-identified ocean advocates, many of whom were already engaged with marine conservation issues. Talking about plastic and their past efforts made this audience less likely to engage with climate action compared to the control group.