"Our decisions are in reality largely guided by automatic responses, emotions, habits, social norms and implicit representations of 'success' or 'comfort'," explains Christian Petit, a member of the executive board of swisscleantech.
At the time of writing these lines, a heat dome had been in place for several days over Western Europe, and notably over Switzerland. Temperatures reached levels never seen for a month of May, up to 15 degrees above seasonal normals. Combined with a winter and spring drought, as well as the return of El Niño in the Pacific, this situation worries meteorologists as well as many farmers. The summer will be long…
Farther from home, in India, intense heat has been raging for several weeks. Combined with humidity levels much higher than ours, it pushes organisms to the limit of survivability and deaths are mounting. We are already in the opening pages of Kim Stanley Robinson’s book "The Ministry for the Future".
At a time when scientific reports are accumulating and the effects of climate disruption are becoming increasingly tangible in our daily lives, one question remains particularly troubling to me: "Why is humanity changing so slowly when it now knows the risks it faces?"
The answer lies in the recent and first report of the IpBC/GIECo – a kind of "IPCC of behaviors". It reveals that the main obstacle is not the lack of information, but the very complexity of human psychology and social systems. Indeed, we sometimes tend to think, myself first, that human beings are rational and that, when faced with demonstrated dangers, they will collectively change their behavior. However, the behavioral sciences, too rarely consulted on this subject, tell us exactly the opposite.
Our decisions are in reality largely guided by automatisms, emotions, habits, social norms and implicit representations of "success" or "comfort". The human brain spontaneously favors the short term, immediate safety and the maintenance of routines. Faced with diffuse, complex and sometimes anxiety-inducing threats, many prefer to avoid the subject, minimize the problem or postpone action.
To this finding is added another major difficulty, which lies in our collective imagination: for decades, progress has been equated with the principle of material growth and consumption. This vision is fostered by the sciences of marketing, which never cease to convince us that satisfying our needs will bring us a form of happiness.
In such a cultural framework, the concepts of sobriety or moderation appear as regression rather than a desirable project. So much so that these words have become almost inaudible to some of our political personnel, who see in them a risk of degrowth synonymous with unemployment and worsening public deficits.
The report also highlights the major role of emotions. Eco-anxiety, for example, can push some to act, but it often leads others to paralysis or denial when they feel powerless. Likewise, companies and institutions remain prisoners of implicit representations according to which financial performance takes precedence over any other consideration. The problem is therefore not only individual: it is also cultural, economic and organizational.
How to get out of this inertia? The report outlines several strong avenues. First, stop believing that scientific information alone will suffice. Behaviors change more when solutions become concrete, simple, socially valued and compatible with everyday aspirations. Behavioral sciences show in particular the importance of "choice architectures": making sustainable behaviors easier, more attractive and more natural than polluting alternatives.
A current and concrete example lies in the shift from thermal mobility to all-electric. Almost all drivers of electric vehicles I meet say they will never go back. The same goes for me.
Yet, despite this unanimity of tone, many motorists continue to repeat the same arguments for inaction: electric cars would be too expensive, take too long to charge, charging stations too rare, range too limited, etc. Why does the marketing of electric mobility not manage more to highlight the positive experience lived by its users? How to change the discourse in order to spark desire and make this future of mobility more desirable?
These two questions, still unanswered, show how necessary and urgent it is to (re)build a positive collective imagination around the transition. As long as ecology is perceived as a set of imposed sacrifices, it will encounter massive resistance. Conversely, if it becomes synonymous with quality of life, health, social connection, meaning and security, the dynamics of change should finally accelerate.
In this respect, the approach of some green parties, who often insist on measures perceived as punitive — like recently reducing speeds on the motorway or multiplying 30 km/h zones in the city — seems to me counterproductive. Yet there are so many assets in an environmentally respectful society that it should be possible for political parties to create a much more desirable imagination than the one they propose today.
The report emphasizes the importance of emotional and cooperative education from the youngest age. Experiments conducted in some Nordic countries show that developing empathy, cooperation and critical thinking strengthens individuals' ability to engage for the common good. Our education system is certainly torn by multiple expectations emanating from society, parents and teachers. But isn't our connection to the environment also built from a very young age?
To conclude, the authors advocate a systemic approach: citizens will not sustainably change their behaviors if infrastructure, economic norms and political signals continue to encourage the opposite. A deep reflection must be carried out on our public policies which, in some cases, favor subsidies that end up benefiting people who would not have needed them anyway.
The price signal should better reflect the real cost of our consumption patterns, by increasing the cost of the most environmentally damaging uses and favoring sustainable uses as well as circular behaviors. Likewise, advertising should help move us from an ownership economy to an economy of use and sharing.
The real climate challenge is therefore not solely technological. It is deeply human. Understanding our fears, our biases, our imaginaries and our resistances becomes as essential as developing renewable energies or reducing emissions. The ecological transition will not be won only in laboratories or at international summits: it will be played out in daily behaviors, collective cultures and the ability of our societies to redefine what they consider a "successful life".
This article has been automatically translated using AI. If you notice any errors, please don't hesitate to contact us.
Interview with Caroline Schweighofer, Senior Segment & Product Manager at Romande Energie.
An Environmental Alliance (WWF, Greenpeace, Birdlife, etc) rejects the two proposals put forward by Paysage Libre. Paysage Libre describes this as a “political maneuver” linked to the current debates on nuclear energy.
In 2026, Venturelab celebrates twenty years of commitment to Swiss start-ups and innovation. It is an opportunity to look back, with its co-founder Jordi Montserrat, on the evolution of an ecosystem in which cleantechs have gradually established themselves as one of the most dynamic sectors.
"Climate risks must imperatively be taken into account in the development of future adaptation policies, so that we can all be duly protected," says Adèle Thorens Goumaz.
Already a member or subscriber? Simply enter your email address to receive instant access to the article. Enjoy!