Hi all,
Many people believe that technology will solve the climate crisis. The World Economic Forum, for example, asserts that “we must invent our way out of climate change”. While technological innovation is critical, this line of thinking suffers from a blind spot as it ignores the social and political landscape surrounding the problem. Jared Furuta and Patricia Bromley outline three myths that underpin this tech-first way of thinking.
Myth #1: Environmental solutions emerge as a natural response to environmental problems.
It is common to think that as environmental problems worsen, ambitious action automatically arises to counter them. As we see more severe droughts and wildfires globally, we might expect more support for climate change policies. But research in sociology and political science suggests that this is not the case (McAdam, 2017). The “London Fog” of the 19th and 20th centuries is a great example of an environmental problem that existed for a long time without reform. During that time, smog blanketed the entire city, and that was normalized, a part of everyday urban life. It wasn’t until 1956, when political conditions became favourable, that action was taken, and the Clean Air Act was passed in the United Kingdom.
As is the case with individual behaviors, the presence of the climate crisis alone is not sufficient to mobilize people. Reforms require organization, political opportunities, and compelling narratives to succeed.
Myth #2: When policy appears, meaningful change will follow.
Countries and organizations often adopt policies for reasons that are misaligned with the underlying problem. It is frequently the case that these policies are adopted to follow established social norms, which provides legitimacy. But this too often means that policies are adopted symbolically, creating the appearance of a solution without any real change happening. This phenomenon is known as “loose coupling”. Sometimes, loose coupling involves intentional “greenwashing,” but other times, actors may simply not be able to implement or enforce policies. A good example of loose coupling is airline carbon offsets. Companies frequently allow passengers to “offset” the carbon emissions from their flights, but there is limited evidence that these policies actually reduce carbon emissions.
Myth #3: Scale is a silver bullet.
There is a prevalent belief that solutions will be more effective when scaled. If the problem is global, as is the case with climate change, then the solution must be to apply new technologies and policies to everyone, everywhere. However, solutions that work in one local context do not necessarily work in another, even when they exist in the same country. Further, research suggests that large-scale reforms can cause backlash when they interfere with people’s values or ways of life (Furuta & Bromley, 2025). Examples of this include the Yellow Vest protests in France that responded to a proposed fuel tax hike in 2018 and a strong push against carbon pricing taxes in Canada that resulted in their partial repeal in 2025.
Policies and technologies spark resistance if they disrupt current practices, challenge identities, or are mismatched with local conditions. Scale can amplify all of this.
To read more about these myths, including what can be done to address them, click on the Behavioral Scientist’s article here.
Many people believe that technology will solve the climate crisis. The World Economic Forum, for example, asserts that “we must invent our way out of climate change”. While technological innovation is critical, this line of thinking suffers from a blind spot as it ignores the social and political landscape surrounding the problem. Jared Furuta and Patricia Bromley outline three myths that underpin this tech-first way of thinking.
Myth #1: Environmental solutions emerge as a natural response to environmental problems.
It is common to think that as environmental problems worsen, ambitious action automatically arises to counter them. As we see more severe droughts and wildfires globally, we might expect more support for climate change policies. But research in sociology and political science suggests that this is not the case (McAdam, 2017). The “London Fog” of the 19th and 20th centuries is a great example of an environmental problem that existed for a long time without reform. During that time, smog blanketed the entire city, and that was normalized, a part of everyday urban life. It wasn’t until 1956, when political conditions became favourable, that action was taken, and the Clean Air Act was passed in the United Kingdom.
As is the case with individual behaviors, the presence of the climate crisis alone is not sufficient to mobilize people. Reforms require organization, political opportunities, and compelling narratives to succeed.
Myth #2: When policy appears, meaningful change will follow.
Countries and organizations often adopt policies for reasons that are misaligned with the underlying problem. It is frequently the case that these policies are adopted to follow established social norms, which provides legitimacy. But this too often means that policies are adopted symbolically, creating the appearance of a solution without any real change happening. This phenomenon is known as “loose coupling”. Sometimes, loose coupling involves intentional “greenwashing,” but other times, actors may simply not be able to implement or enforce policies. A good example of loose coupling is airline carbon offsets. Companies frequently allow passengers to “offset” the carbon emissions from their flights, but there is limited evidence that these policies actually reduce carbon emissions.
Myth #3: Scale is a silver bullet.
There is a prevalent belief that solutions will be more effective when scaled. If the problem is global, as is the case with climate change, then the solution must be to apply new technologies and policies to everyone, everywhere. However, solutions that work in one local context do not necessarily work in another, even when they exist in the same country. Further, research suggests that large-scale reforms can cause backlash when they interfere with people’s values or ways of life (Furuta & Bromley, 2025). Examples of this include the Yellow Vest protests in France that responded to a proposed fuel tax hike in 2018 and a strong push against carbon pricing taxes in Canada that resulted in their partial repeal in 2025.
Policies and technologies spark resistance if they disrupt current practices, challenge identities, or are mismatched with local conditions. Scale can amplify all of this.
To read more about these myths, including what can be done to address them, click on the Behavioral Scientist’s article here.
