Climate Change – Donanto Foundation

When Decisions Get Hacked

Introduction

Let’s focus on what unites us for a change, shall we? Climate change is a transatlantic headache – big, messy, and guaranteed to spark arguments at dinner parties. Europeans love a good regulation, preferably wrapped in a 300-page report and debated over espresso. Americans, on the other hand, prefer innovation and market-driven solutions, often with a side of “we’ll fix it with technology.” Yet, despite these cultural quirks, both sides wrestle with the same fundamental dilemma: How do we make real progress without torpedoing economies? How do we keep people on board without triggering social media outrage? And most importantly, how do we stop talking about solutions and actually implement them before Miami turns into Venice?

Hacking Humanity, One Nudge at a Time

Our most crucial decisions – be it in courtrooms or at climate summits – are vulnerable to tiny, well-timed nudges. Dozens of studies reveal that small, almost imperceptible changes can alter opinions as swiftly as a viral tweet. A study on 1,112 parole decisions found that judges were dramatically more likely to grant parole after their coffee break and lunch – suggesting that even critical legal outcomes can be influenced by something as simple as hunger. If justice can be swayed by a sandwich break, what does that say about our ability to make sound decisions on something as complex as climate policy? Imagine a policy proposal on CO₂ pricing facing the same kind of arbitrary fate, its success dependent not on scientific merit but on the timing of the vote or the mood of the electorate. In both Europe and the U.S., this hackable nature of decision-making forces us to ask: are we really making informed choices, or are we just following the well-timed taps on our shoulders? And if so, how can we use this approach to get us where we need to be?

Here is a recent example from my own research: I noticed in a number of surveys with thousands of Americans and Europeans that whenever low-impact measures are presented alongside high-impact ones, the duds tend to dominate attention – regardless of their actual effectiveness. This cognitive trap dilutes focus and weakens outcomes. Therefore, the smart move is to leave the low-impact fluff off the menu entirely – because if it’s on the table, it steals the spotlight.

A Side of Meat: Appetite, Underestimation, and Transatlantic Taste

One facet of our climate conundrum is that we sometimes just deny reality. My corresponding example comes served with a generous helping of irony – meat consumption. My surveys with more than 3,000 respondents indicate that both Americans and Germans dramatically underestimate how much meat we actually eat, but there is still a difference: Germans eat 77% more meat than they think, while Americans eat close to 50% more. In Europe, this underestimation might be a nod to a more measured approach, as if to say, “Yes, we consume, but we consume with restraint.” Across the Atlantic, however, the unspoken truth is that the U.S. may be feasting on burgers with an almost celebratory abandon. This disparity not only provides fodder for humorous banter at dinner parties but also highlights a deeper cultural divergence: while Europeans might engage in polite self-deprecation about portion sizes, Americans often have a robust, unapologetic appetite that spills over into their approach to policy and law.

Facts, Figures, and the Illusion of Knowledge

One might think that more information equals better decisions, but it’s not the sheer volume of climate facts that matters – it’s understanding the effectiveness of the measures we propose. That is one of the key insights of a new multinational study with more than 40,000 respondents. Whether it’s a CO₂ price mechanism paired with transfer payments or a complex legal reform, the key lies in knowing what works. The study showed that there was only a limited difference between the U.S. and Europe regarding this point. Now take a second and consider the last pieces of information you saw on climate issues. My bet is that, most likely, you were fed facts on the climate crisis as opposed to explanations on effective policies.

Fairness: The Unwritten Law in Policy and Precedent

At the heart of effective policy – be it environmental or legal – is a deep-seated sense of fairness. Unfortunately, only about a third of respondents in high-income countries like the U.S. and Europe consider a carbon tax with cash transfers to be fair! The most important factor in all countries (surveyed in the study mentioned above) that encourages climate-friendly behavior adoption is “The well-off also changing their behavior”! So, even amidst ideological clashes, both Europe and America ultimately converge on the idea that a policy perceived as unjust is doomed from the start. Whether you’re drafting a judicial decision or a climate policy, fairness isn’t optional – it’s the foundation upon which trust and acceptance are built. However, this is just one aspect of what makes a climate policy effective.

Cutting the Fluff: Focusing on What Truly Works

Imagine wading through 1,500 governmental climate measures only to find that a mere 63 are truly effective. That’s the arduous work done by a team of researchers led by the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, using an incredibly sophisticated machine-learning based approach. The takeaway here is strikingly clear: only very few policies were effective. In both legal and climate arenas, it’s about trimming away the excess and focusing on what works. Rather than indulging in an overload of well-intentioned but largely ineffective initiatives, both American and European policymakers could benefit from a more discerning approach.

Bundling: The Secret Sauce of Policy Success

According to the study, successful state actions often come in tailor-made bundles. Think of it as the policy equivalent of a perfectly crafted cocktail: each ingredient, from strict emission regulations to economic incentives, plays a crucial role in delivering a satisfying punch. Both, in Europe, as well as across the Atlantic, while there are certainly attempts at such integration, the process sometimes feels more like an improvisational jazz session than a rehearsed symphony. The lesson? Whether in law or climate policy, crafting a winning strategy is less about isolated acts and more about the harmony of a well-curated ensemble.

The Transatlantic Tango: Differences and Similarities

The transatlantic divide resembles an elaborate dance, where each side steps to a different beat yet shares the same stage. The Europeans waltz through policy debates with meticulous precision and overengineering (Green Deal, CSRD, etc.). Their American counterparts, on the other hand, often prefer a more freestyle approach – bold, brash, and occasionally a tad chaotic. Despite these stylistic differences, both continents are united by a common thread: an unwavering commitment to addressing the climate crisis, even if the methods vary – and even if public perception is at times different.

Reflections on Hackable Decisions and the Future of Policy

If there’s one thing to take away from this whirlwind tour of transatlantic policy, it’s that our most vital decisions are not immune to manipulation. Whether it’s the nuanced interplay of nudges in a judge’s decision-making process or the subtle persuasion embedded in climate communication, we are all, in some ways, victims of a hackable human nature. And yet, this vulnerability also presents an opportunity. By understanding the levers that drive behavior – be it fairness, effective communication, or the clever bundling of initiatives – we can design systems that not only mitigate the risks but also harness our collective potential for positive change.

Looking forward, the challenge for both European and American policymakers is to embrace these insights without losing sight of what makes their approaches unique. In either case, the goal remains the same: to turn our hackable human nature from a liability into a strength.

So, let’s stop serving climate side salads and start dishing out the main course. If Brussels obsesses over straws and Boston ignores heat pumps, we’re all just rearranging deck chairs – real progress demands focus on what cuts carbon at scale.

(This article was initially published in the Transatlantic Law Journal, Volume 3, Issue 4, p. 145ff. My thanks go to the editors for allowing me to post it here!)

Which personal action has the strongest impact on reducing the CO2 footprint of an average American or German? Turns out this question is surprisingly difficult to answer for most of us. And what are the next best five or ten things we should do to cut CO2? There is surprisingly little guidance out there. Because of that, I fear that we may not manage to cut emissions as much as we have to. That’s why Carsten and I did the legwork for you!

I have to admit that Greta got to me. Perhaps because I also have a daughter some consider to be on the spectrum as well (remember Greta’s hate speech at the UN?…“how dare you”…we get this regularly when we ask our daughter to lay the table). So what does a management consultant do if he wants to take personal action on CO2? Look for a concise, quantitative, prioritized list of key drivers that he can select from (since CO2 footprints differ by country, we looked for German information). There is a ton of information out there, but it is usually in one of the following categories:

The “Everything-under-the-sun” list gives you too many items and does not prioritize even though the effects may differ by an order of magnitude.
The “Energy saver” list has useful personal actions but focuses only on one aspect of your life, usually heating and/or electricity.
The Calculator enables you to get to the bottom of your very own personal profile and simulate in great detail what effect individual actions would have. Classic German over-engineering that only a tiny group of zealots will ever use.
The “Kill-yourself-and-your-family” list is very close to what we had in mind, but lists as the most important driver “Have one fewer child”. Seriously?! This is as factually correct as saying that if you kill yourself right now, you will achieve the biggest possible CO2 saving. Needless to say, including this lever in the infographic is a very dumb idea because it creates a backlash and destroys good intentions.

But thanks to all these lists and useful calculators, we were able to come up with the following overview quickly. It is still work-in-progress, not perfect at all, and sometimes we have conflicting data points, but hey, it’s a start.

We have grouped the actions into

what we can start doing today — in other words, actions that don’t take too much effort, like fuel-efficient driving
what takes more planning and preparation, like reducing the number of flights you take or switching to green electricity
what may take considerable investments, like switching to modern heating and insulating your home better.

As a vegetarian household with top-notch heating and insulation, with an electric car, green electricity, and no daily car commute, I can check off many actions on that list. However, some drivers were new to me, like washing clothes in cold water. The good news is that if I implement all these levers, I will achieve about 75% of the reduction target defined by the government for 2030! How cool is that?!

And now comes the bad news.

We asked 1500 Americans and 1500 Germans to select from a list of seven personal actions the one that has the strongest impact on reducing the CO2 footprint of an average person. Here comes the list:

Energy-efficient heating/cooling/insulation
Avoid one return trip by aircraft per year
Eat less red meat
Fuel-efficient driving
Buy local and seasonal produce
Unplug unused electronics to stop standby
No more plastic bags

We presented the list to respondents in a randomized order, but the list above is in descending order of impact. For example, in Germany, the impact of energy-efficient heating & insulation on our CO2 footprint is a whopping 250 times bigger than stopping to use plastic bags.

Guess which action was selected most often in Germany? “No more plastic bags”! Seriously?!

Here is the drama in all its gory details:

We were hoping that this is due to Germany’s unique obsession with recycling trash since the 1980s. But “no more plastic bags” actually made it to number 2 on the list in the US as well, very close behind fuel-efficient driving. Here is the comparison between both countries:

It is difficult to say who is more clueless because both countries have their specific blind spots: That “one flight less per year” comes out so low in the US is just as ridiculous as the fact that meat consumption is not seen as a source of CO2 in Germany.

I wish I had taken the survey myself before doing the math on the actual drivers. I am certain I had my fair share of ignorance! For example, I grossly overestimated the effect of having no daily commute to work.

But we are not here to poke and pry, but rather to drive action! So now that I know all the numbers, I have pledged to substantially reduce my flights!