Understanding and responding to the evolving politics in climate can be challenging. Where do we fit in and how do our own choices really affect the global challenges we are facing? These urgent and daunting questions have a tendency to overwhelm us. To help us unpack the value of engaging in climate mitigation and finding perspective on how we can engage people around the world to be part of the transition needed, we turn to a Woman We Admire: Lorraine Whitmarsh. 

As we continue to explore how people are the heart of transition, we shared a meaningful conversation with Lorraine Whitmarsh who helps us feel safe in maintaining an optimistic view when facing the challenges of climate change. Lorraine founded and now directs the Centre for Climate Change and Social Transformations (CAST) based at the University of Bath in the United Kingdom. Her work as an environmental psychologist, specialising in perceptions and behaviour in relation to climate change, has positioned her as a lead author for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)’s Sixth Assessment Report and soon to be Lead Author to Chapter 8 for the Seventh Assessment Report. She regularly advises governmental and other organisations on low-carbon behaviour change and climate change communication and is a founder-member of the international Climate Crisis Advisory Group. Her research projects have included studies of diet change, travel behaviours, energy and water demand, waste reduction, low-carbon technology adoption, societal transitions, engagement methods, climate anxiety, and responses to climate change.  

We recognise and celebrate the ways that Lorraine Whitmarsh is a leader, shaping how we can rethink the impact and power of behaviour. In our conversation reflected on the recent report issued by the Hot or Cool Institute: A Climate for Sufficiency 1.5-Degree Lifestyles (2025 Update), Lorraine shares how innovative social research is changing how we understand the impacts of climate change and the opportunities to embrace an empowered and active climate positive lifestyle. Lorraine’s contribution is important and valuable, helping the collective effort become more sustainable. 

Reflections on the power of behaviour to mitigate climate change 

MedWaves: Thank you so much for sitting with us. Can you share with us a little bit about your role with the IPCC, and how you see social research as an innovative tool to help understand not only what is happening in climate change, but our role and how we could address our collective wellbeing?  

I was in Working Group II for the Sixth Assessment Report of the IPCC on the Europe chapter, and there we were looking at the impact and adaptation options in relation to climate change, particularly within Europe. My role was to think about the social and behavioral aspects of that as well as thinking about the mental health impacts of climate change. I’ve just recently joined the Working Group III for the seventh assessment report of the IPCC, which is looking at mitigation, so reducing emissions again and bringing in social and behavioral sciences to think about demand side change; how we change patterns of how we use energy resources across sectors of society. 

MedWaves: That’s really interesting because I always had this feeling that there was something missing, which is the social science perspective and clearly understanding how we behave as individuals and how that connects to the collective effort to address climate change. So it makes a big difference that now not only is that idea more central, it’s actually being understood as valuable in terms of being part of the IPCC research. 

Yes, and it’s interesting the IPCC has made a lot of effort to increase the diversity of authors over the years and to ensure that there’s a good mix of people from different backgrounds. As part of that, we’ve definitely seen a strengthening of social and behavioral sciences and a recognition that actually some of the really difficult challenges in tackling climate change really are about people. And so we need the social sciences to be a central part of that. 

MedWaves: In the recent A Climate for Sufficiency 1.5-Degree Lifestyles (2025 Update) report, we learn about the power of lifestyle choices. This is something that you know quite well. These types of reports connect with the general public to be more aware of how much our individual lifestyle choices actually affect the global challenge we share. One of the basic foundations of the report is that lifestyle, or the patterns of behaviour around climate are shaped by many factors, such as infrastructures and systems and institutions and things that are sort of outside of our individual choices in a way. I’m curious to hear your thoughts on how we reconcile the interest or desire to want to be more sustainable in our lifestyles with the powers that sort of shape these systems that are almost beyond what we can even sometimes conceptualize that seem to favor profit over nature.  

Yes, you’re right. I think the report is great at trying to capture the need for system change as well as understanding lifestyles in that context. And we in CAST, the Center for Climate Change and Social Transformations, we see that basically individual and system change are two sides of the same coin. That’s the way we describe it. So absolutely, individuals are constrained by options that are dictated in many ways by the systems in which they live and the physical social infrastructures. But it is only through individual actions that those systems will change. The way we think about that is that individuals have many roles. We are consumers so we can buy products and through consumer choices that we make, we can send signals to businesses that there is demand for green services and products, for example. And we are also citizens, so we can vote and protest and influence political structures and call for ambitious climate action through that role. As investors, we can invest our money in green savings and investments to do good. We can also take action in our communities and workplaces.

One of the simplest things we can do is have a conversation about climate change just to raise the visibility of the issue and challenge the culture of silence around climate change and to try to normalise climate action. Through all of those different roles we have, there are things we can do to start to influence the structures around us even though our own choices day to day, lifestyle choices may be constrained, we can influence the structures that can enable those choices to be greener in the longer term. So there’s lots that we can do.   

I think the report is also really helpful at highlighting some of the innovations that are needed within societal and political decision-making structures to allow the public to have a stronger voice in decision making. As a result, we can challenge what you pointed out about the sort of vested interests of  prioritising profit over nature. If we have stronger influence of citizens within decision making at a national and international level through things like citizens assemblies and deliberative processes, that is one way in which we can challenge vested interests and the prioritisation of economic interests over environment and indeed, wellbeing, social equality and those things that really matter to people. It is that sort of institutional change that can start to redress that imbalance. 

MedWaves: I appreciate that you are helping us break out of thinking only in terms of ‘right and wrong’, or ‘you do it or you don’t do it’. This is an opportunity to really stretch ourselves to embrace that there are different parts of ourselves that can become active. And I think that that’s really helpful and it takes the pressure off of having to be a perfect consumer or a perfect citizen and recognise that we can be all these different parts and that we can engage ourselves in our behavior. You had an interesting paper, Climate change and wealth understanding and improving the carbon capability of the wealthiest people in the UK. So my question is when we talk about lifestyle changes, how do we make sure that we are really making this conversation accessible to people no matter where they are in that spectrum of poverty to wealth? 

You’re right to point out that people’s capabilities to change are very diverse as well as the size of their carbon footprints. People with the lowest carbon footprint may not need to reduce their emissions very much, whereas certainly those on the highest income levels will tend to have the biggest carbon footprint. So they need to change the most. It may be partly income, but also, where you live, urban versus rural, the amount of influence that you have, the type of job you have, whether you have a disability, all of these things will make a difference in terms of the capabilities and influence that you have. 

Nevertheless, because we like to think about people having multiple different roles, as I mentioned, it does highlight that actually, while it may seem that because I have a very low income, I can’t afford to buy an electric vehicle or a heat pump, it doesn’t necessarily mean that there aren’t things that you can do. And in fact, your carbon footprint is lower anyway, so you don’t need to do as much. I think what we found in our paper was that people with the biggest carbon footprints and highest income are also taking some actions already. So they are more likely to be adopting green technologies that tend to come with a price premium. They may be more likely to buy electric vehicles and heat pumps, for example. They also are resistant to change in some areas, particularly travel. So where there isn’t a technological solution, those groups might be quite resistant to change as in reducing the amount of flying they do, for example. Yet outside of the consumption role, they’re often doing things within the professional space. So they might be advocating for change within the businesses that they are running or even within the communities and other organisations that they’re part of. They often have a lot of influence, so they’re able to champion green action and call for climate action in those spaces. It’s kind of a mixed picture, but certainly we recognise that actually the size of the carbon footprint isn’t the only thing that dictates the carbon capability that people have. There are other spaces in which people can change.  

Part of your question was about sort of engaging with different groups. And I think it’s important as well to think about the sort of wider co-benefits of climate action. So for people, particularly at the lowest end of the income spectrum, they are more likely to be preoccupied with just making ends meet and paying their energy bills and having enough money for food. The way we can encourage them to embrace climate action is to highlight the connections with those benefits. So actually, if we insulate people’s homes effectively. In the UK, for example, we have some of the least insulated homes in Europe, so we have very energy inefficient homes, and so heating your home for people on the lowest end of the income spectrum is going to take up a big chunk of their bills. But if you can insulate people’s homes, their energy bills will decrease, and their emissions will go down as well. So there are lots of things like that. Adopting a plant-based diet is healthy as well as good for the planet. The more we can align climate policies to achieve those benefits and communicate those wider co benefits, the more we’re likely to be able to engage a wider spectrum of people. 

MedWaves: We know that human-generated carbon emissions are a major driver of climate change: in this report we learn that the global average lifestyle carbon footprint across 25 countries is more than six times the 1.5°C-aligned target for 2035. Clearly, there is a rather dangerous disconnect between global commitments and actual experiences. What can we do to trigger accountability?  

I think this relates a bit to what we were already saying around the structural drivers of overconsumption. I think the challenge is to try to communicate the huge changes that we need to make. So in the UK, there is a need for nearly 90% reduction in our carbon footprint, and at similar levels for many developed countries, over the next decade. For this, we have to radically change our lifestyles. But it is essential to communicate that in a way that is not threatening to individuals or disempowering or just feels like it’s an impossible target and recognising that actually this is a structural problem. And so not placing all the responsibility on individuals, so it comes back to recognising that actually people, everybody has a role to play. But if we’re not perfect, that’s because it is really difficult to take action on climate change in many ways. The odds are against us because the system is kind of set up to be quite high consumption, high emission.  

So I think part of this is communicating the need and the scale of change in ways that show that actually we all have to do this together and really recognising that governments in particular have to be the ones to implement some pretty significant changes in regulations, economic measures, infrastructure, and change to enable people to change their lifestyles to help call for that change. So it’s not that we have to sacrifice anything. It’s about trying to champion change through these different roles.  

Another part of it, though, is also to challenge the misperception that increasing consumption increases happiness and wellbeing. Because we know that actually, after a certain level of income increases, people’s kind of wellbeing often flattens out. Once your basic needs are met, your basic material needs, then actually income beyond that level doesn’t contribute to increasing your wellbeing. In fact, in some cases it may even reduce your wellbeing. We know that materialism generally goes counter to people’s psychological wellbeing.  

The things that fundamentally make us happy and fulfilled are things like social connections. They’re things like having some freedom and autonomy and ability to make choices. And they are about feeling able to do things and having some kind of abilities and potentially creative contributions. These are things that fundamentally make us happy and consumption and buying stuff doesn’t meet those psychological needs. So while advertising and marketing perpetuate the myth of consumption that the more we buy the happier we’ll be, that’s a false dream.

I think it’s flagged in the report and it’s definitely something we’ve called for is having regulations on advertising so that certainly the highest emitting products and services are regulated. For example, these sorts of things which are extremely high polluting activities that actually the things that are advertised are things that are not so high emissions. So I think that’s a part of how we can challenge the myth of consumption as well as helping to restructure society by thinking about the kind of cultural norms, the ways we can educate children to spend time in nature and value nature connection and so on. I think recognising that going green isn’t about sacrifice. Actually, potentially, it’s about making us happier. And we’ve ,for example, that people who are taking more climate action across lots of different countries are happier. They report being happier. So I think the more we can tell people that, the more we can counter this myth of consumption. 

MedWaves: The report ultimately delivers an optimistic view that although a lot has to change; change is possible. I feel that if we’re talking about behavior change, we’re talking about perception. We’re talking about the way we communicate and the opportunity to become happier. It’s not the same thing as looking for the three trillion dollars that is a finance gap. Does your work in the social sciences and understanding the ability of people to embrace new perceptions and take on new lifestyles help you to feel optimistic?  

I think so. Sometimes working in the area of climate change, it can be hard to be optimistic, but actually, generally I find myself being quite optimistic because we are working in the area of climate solutions and  a lot of the case studies and examples and policies that we are looking at are really hopeful ones that not only tackle climate change, but also tend to improve people’s quality of life and wellbeing.  

Where I see the most optimism is generally at the local level. So while it seems like year after year COP meetings don’t necessarily end up in a sort of going in a direction that we would really hope, there’s so much going on at the community and the municipality level with people just getting on with it because they’re realising there are co benefits such as cleaner air, safer streets, and being able to get to work quickly. These are all things that we want to do anyway, and we can do it in a way that reduces our emissions. That’s where I see a lot of causes for optimism.  

We have a good evidence base of what works. We’re still testing interventions to really refine them. But actually, there’s already loads of evidence regarding how to change behavior in ways that absolutely don’t compromise wellbeing but improve it. There are things that could be implemented quickly and easily. So I see lots of reasons for optimism, even though there’s definitely some structural, difficult things that need to change; the finance gaps you’ve mentioned and so on. But things are starting to move in the right direction. 

MedWaves: Why is the empowerment of women particularly important in maintaining sustainable lifestyles for the planet? We understand that women bear a lot of responsibility and vulnerability with the negative impacts of climate change, and we see women bearing those impacts sort of disproportionately to men. In terms of embracing and empowering this kind of lifestyle change, what do you see as the role of women and gender in that way? 

I think you’re right to flag the importance of gender because women and men experience and shape climate change in very different ways. This is something that is embodied in the UNFCCC, and it’s recognised in the evidence base. We know that women, alongside other minority groups, tend to be more vulnerable to climate change impacts, but also that they have different roles and responsibilities in day-to-day life. This means that in many ways they’re well placed to actually implement some of the critical changes needed to tackle climate change. We also know that generally women tend to be more aware and concerned about climate change than men.   

There’s something called the ‘white male effect’, which is that powerful groups in society, for example white men, are more likely to oppose regulatory policies to tackle climate change because they threaten the status quo. And we know that climate skepticism is much higher amongst white men than women or people of color. So it’s absolutely critical that we have more diversity within decision making on climate change.  

We know from other areas, in terms of business leadership for example, that firms that have more diverse boards perform better. So it’s not just morally good, actually, the quality of decisions tends to be better when you involve more diverse groups you involve with different perspectives. And so you factor in different kinds of outlooks and the quality of decision improves. I would sort of say it’s critical to listen to women. They have some unique perspectives, but also they help to challenge the status quo and to kind of open up the space for more radical ways of thinking around climate change. 

MedWaves: The role that women may play in changing lifestyles also extends to parenting. Of course, not every woman is in a family but those who are, are uniquely placed to influence behavior change not just within herself, but within her family.  

Yes I agree. We also wrote a paper looking at parenthood, and we flag exactly what you’ve just described in that a really important role that many people have is as parents. And through that role, they can talk to their children about the responsibility to look after the environment and to think about climate change. Even in their day-to-day choices in terms of provisioning for their family, there are things parents can do to ensure that they’re not compromising environmental health and the health and well being of their family. It’s a powerful role that probably is not one that many people would necessarily intuitively think of because they would think more about the consumer role just switching off lights or not driving, etc.. But actually, parents play a hugely influential role providing a unique perspective on the future as well. The more you can think about the kind of the legacy that you’re leaving the next generation and subsequent generation, so that’s also quite an important connection to the future through your children. 

MedWaves: Speaking of legacy, what is a proud moment in your career and what changes have you seen in social norms around women in leadership? 

I think in terms of proud moments, I think it is setting up CAST, which is the research center that I lead and that we started six and a half years ago. So in 2019, pre-Covid, the world was different. But it was also shortly after the IPCC’s 1.5 degree report was published. There was a sudden awakening in terms of, oh, we’ve only got about a decade in which to make some of these really radical changes. And if we don’t, it’s bad news. So there was a kind of rapid upturn in recognising the importance of social science in particular as part of those radical changes that needed to happen.  

That was the sort of world that we were in when we set up CAST, and we got the funding and brought together some amazing people. My colleagues are just absolutely fantastic, so energetic and passionate and knowledgeable. To be able to have a bit of a critical mass to work on the social and behavioral transformations needed for climate change, it has been a nice kind of platform and sort of springboard to be involved in lots of other things. So I think for me, it’s helped open doors and for colleagues in the centre as well. Being part of that has been really exciting.  

Now there are so many women in leadership positions in the climate space, it’s just fantastic to see. I guess when I was starting my career twenty something years ago that definitely wasn’t the case. So things have changed quite a lot over the past couple of decades. And yeah, it just seems almost normal. I think to see kind of women making these fantastic decisions in leadership, in leadership roles. 

MedWaves: Are there any women in the field of climate that you admire? 

There are so many! I suppose Christiana Figueres, literally one of our leaders who implemented global architecture for climate and has radically transformed what’s happening in climate change. So I guess she’d be in the shortlist, but then I was thinking, but this is happening at all levels. And actually, some of the people who really inspire me are youth activists and people who are setting up grassroots initiatives. Clover Hogan is somebody I’ve met a few times and who just always blows me away by how knowledgeable and passionate and charismatic she is. She is a youth activist that set up Force of Nature which is like a youth nonprofit to help mobilise climate action. She’s done so much internationally within boardrooms. She’s everywhere. So she is a force for change.  

There are local groups that I think are amazing. Katie Cross is another woman who I just really admire for her energy. She set up a charity called Pledgeball which is basically getting sports fans to pledge to take climate action and to try to connect more widely with sports to be more sustainable. She is just one of the most energetic, amazing people I’ve ever met. That’s just like a tiny, short list, but so many. 

MedWaves: Thank you for these answers and thank you for being a woman that we admire. You have helped us to understand some of the intricacies of the 1.5 report through the important work that you’re doing. There is no underestimating how valuable what you’re doing is contributing to helping connect and communicate the value of lifestyle and behavior change to address climate change, locally and globally. So, thank you so much. 

********************

Want to dive deeper into the A Climate for Sufficiency: 1.5-Degree Lifestyles (2025 Update) report? Check out this article by Alessandro Galli, Research Director at the Hot or Cool Institute.

********************

Receive our news and updates directly to your inbox! Sign up for our Newsletter!