Are We Overestimating the Benefits of Emission Reduction Measures

When people evaluate the environmental impact of both "environmentally" and "non-environmentally" friendly objects, actions, or behavior, their judgement of the total set in combination is lower than the sum of the individual components. The current communication is a personal perspective article that proposes a human cognitive framework that is adopted during evaluations, which consequently results in wrong reasoning and the reinforcement of misconceptions. The framework gives plausible interpretation of the following: (1) "compensatory green beliefs"-the belief that environmentally harmful behavior can be compensated for by friendly actions; (2) the "negative footprint illusion"-the belief that introducing environmentally friendly objects to a set of conventional objects (e.g., energy efficient products or measures) will reduce the environmental impact of the total set; and (3) "rebound effects"-sustainability interventions increase unsustainable behavior directly or indirectly. In this regard, the framework herein proposes that many seemingly different environmentally harmful behaviors may sprout from a common cause, known as the averaging bias. This may have implications for the success of sustainability interventions, or how people are influenced by the marketing of "environmentally friendly" measures or products and policymaking.