Abstract
This paper compares the carbon footprint effects of a voluntary real lab with those of the involuntary “real lab” provided by the lockdowns during the recent Corona crisis. In a voluntary real lab situation, 100 private households in Berlin (Germany) have tried to reduce their personal carbon footprints over 1 year (2018). The households have been equipped with a weekly carbon tracker, calculating their CO2e1 footprint in the domains housing energy, mobility on ground, air travel, food, other consumption, and public consumption. The households have been informed by various channels and supported by a network of “green” local enterprises and NGOs. It was also possible for them to make use of in-home energy advisors, identifying easy-to-accomplish saving potential. On average, the households managed to reduce their footprint by 11%, with individual savings of up to 40%. One of the major problems the households have been experiencing was refraining from air travel, e.g., by substituting it by train l. Others identified road safety as a major problem when switching from cars to bikes. With an annual reduction of 10%, carbon neutrality could be reached in or even before 2050. But political decisions are needed in order to change the collective boundary conditions. In 2020, Germany–as many other countries–has experienced a COVID-19 lockdown with substantial restrictions to all kinds of consumption activities (flying, international travel, consumption activities in the public etc.). This work compares the CO2 reduction effects of these two “real labs,” a voluntary and an imposed one, and ask what the relative quantitative effects are. Following that comparison, it reflect upon the similarities and differences of voluntary and imposed situations, and what there can be learned for the implementation of policies for more sustainable production and consumption patterns.
Highlights
Due to its huge environmental impact on the planetary ecosystems and flows, humankind has entered the era of the Anthropocene (Steffen et al, 2011)
This especially holds for public transport (55.8%) and traveling abroad (49.5%), which supports the measured CO2 effects on the ground transport and aviation sectors. This motive of fear is the dominant one when it comes to the hospitality sector (43.3%), offline shopping (41.9%) or personal services (39.1%). These results show that the confinement justification—preventing the further spread of the virus—has been accepted by many people and was the dominant motive behind behavioral changes during lockdown
While the traditionally environmentalist “core” milieus of Social Ecologicals and Liberal Intellectuals have experienced relatively little proenvironmental push impulses, and traditionally-oriented lowstatus milieus tend to bounce back once restrictions are removed, modern milieus across the horizontal range of society can imagine switching to longer-lasting behavioral changes. This finding aligns with the analysis provided in sections An Example of Voluntary Carbon Footprint Reduction: The KliB Real Lab Project and An Involuntary Carbon Footprint Reduction Experiment: CO2 Effects Of the Corona Crisis of this paper
Summary
Due to its huge environmental impact on the planetary ecosystems and flows, humankind has entered the era of the Anthropocene (Steffen et al, 2011). In order to contain the spreading of the virus, governments around the world have issued policies of confinement that, in the end, did reduce private and economic activity levels and related emissions significantly Corona, it can be state, has been a stress test for the world’s health systems and societies at large, it can be regarded as a huge laboratory for behavioral change—and some unintended environmental benefits coming along with it. The following sectors have been covered: home energy (electricity, heating), mobility (differentiated according to ground mobility and aviation), food, other consumption, and public energy use (the latter was not altered during the project as it cannot be directly influenced by individuals) To help these households to reduce their footprint, different interventions accompanied the real lab: 1. This feedback can be considered the first intervention tool, as it provided households with a first feedback on their behavior
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
