From smoking to sustainability: What climate strategy can learn from public health

For years, we've treated sustainability as a knowledge problem. If people just understood the climate crisis – the graphs, melting ice caps and emissions charts – they'd change.

But behaviour doesn't work that way and we've seen it before.

Take smoking. In the 1980s, everyone was aware that it was detrimental to their health but research cites that it was smoking policies and bans that had real impact – numbers dropped because the world around smokers changed quietly, structurally and persistently.

There was no more lighting up on aeroplanes or smoking in bars. Cigarettes became expensive, stigmatized and inconvenient. Meanwhile, social norms shifted and public policies kicked in. Quitting wasn't then about becoming a better person, it was about adapting to a new environment.

That's exactly the playbook sustainability needs now.

Despite growing awareness of climate risks, global greenhouse gas emissions hit record highs in 2023. A 2022 Pew survey found that majorities in most countries consider climate change a serious threat to their nation's future. Yet behavioural change, especially in food, transport and energy use, lags far behind.

This is the paradox we must confront: awareness does not equal action and information alone is insufficient.

That's why a shift in strategy is urgent. We must stop relying on guilt and start focusing on systemic design – policies, infrastructure and cultural signals that make sustainable choices easy, affordable and automatic.

The United Kingdom's Behavioural Insights Team offers a helpful model: EAST i.e. make a behaviour "easy," "attractive," "social" and "timely." The premise behind it is to make the "right" thing the easiest thing to do rather than telling people what they should do.

A powerful case can be seen in Greener by Default. By simply making plant-based meals the default option rather than the special request, it significantly boosted uptake.

In a randomized controlled trial conducted at six university events, this switch increased plant-based selections by 43 percentage points, reducing environmental impacts by 45% – all while preserving choice.

At NYC Health + Hospitals, the programme served over 1.2 million plant-based meals between March 2022 and March 2024. Satisfaction rates exceeded 90% and the initiative cut food-related carbon emissions by 36%, saving approximately $500,000 in costs.

This is a system change in action – not by shaming people but by changing the default option.

Humans aren't wired to respond to charts. We respond to stories.

From childhood, stories shape our understanding of the world – what's good, what's normal and what's possible. Our beliefs about farming, for instance, aren't built on agricultural reports – they come from the tale of "Uncle Joe's happy farm" that we heard in books, cartoons and classrooms.

Psychologists have shown that narratives are more persuasive than facts. In one study, people were more likely to act when shown a story about a single identifiable person than overwhelming statistics.

Another meta-analysis of climate communication found that story-based messages triggered stronger emotional engagement and pro-environmental intent than data-heavy counterparts.

Yet, the dominant climate narrative today is not a story; it's a warning. And it's framed around guilt, sacrifice and shame.

As Bob Eccles argued in Forbes, the United States needs a new narrative amid such divergent perceptions and differing understandings of the crisis's urgency. That narrative should be grounded in hope, innovation and national pride. Climate action should feel like progress rather than punishment, offering a chance to build cleaner cities, stronger farms and healthier lives.

Ultimately, we need a story people can see themselves in.

Few sectors are more powerful or more personal than the food industry.

What we eat is deeply connected to our identity, tradition and emotions. It's also a major lever for climate action: food systems account for over one-third of global greenhouse gas emissions. Yet, most food-related climate messaging still focuses on what to give up.

Instead, we need to design food environments that make climate-smart choices intuitive, tasty and culturally relevant. Some examples already underway:

Evidence shows us that data alone did not make plastic straws disappear but rather, after cafés provided an alternative. The same can be said of oat milk; while it has a lower carbon footprint, it gained popularity once it became easier to purchase and reached the right price point.

Behaviour is downstream of design. The most impactful thing we can do isn't to convince people to care more but to build systems that make better choices easier, cheaper and more joyful.

These are systems that reward low-emission lifestyles, nudge people toward sustainable meals and normalize pride rather than shame in acting for the planet.