- Story
Climate change: tackling symptoms rather than causes?
04.09.2026 In the wake of a scorching summer, Switzerland is discussing climate adaptation. However, tackling the root causes seems to be less of a priority. Behavioural economist Sabrina Stöckli explains why.
Key points at a glance
- The discourse around climate change focusses on how to adapt to heat waves. Tackling the root causes, i.e. reducing greenhouse gas emissions, receives less attention.
- Insights from the field of behavioural economics explain why. Climate adaptation is more concrete and immediate, and people’s own contributions and the benefits they bring are more tangible.
- However, economic mechanisms also have the potential to promote climate mitigation. This is the case, for example, when heat waves lead to higher prices or when adaptation is no longer an option.
Air conditioning, water strategy, siesta culture: In the wake of the record-breaking summer 2026, there has been no shortage of ideas on how Switzerland can prepare for similar episodes in the future. In contrast, a peculiar silence has prevailed, especially in the early stages of the discussion on how to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. A recent study by ETH Zurich shows that preventing global warming is significantly more cost-effective than adapting later on to the consequences of inaction.
Prof. Dr Sabrina Stöckli is a behavioural economist at Bern University of Applied Sciences. Her research focusses on topics at the intersection of sustainability and consumer behaviour, and analyses current developments.
It seems that we focus more on how to adapt to climate change than on reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Why is that?
Last summer, we all faced the need for climate adaptation. Hot weather affects us directly, making us want to take action. In other words, adaptation is more concrete and immediate than addressing the root causes. In contrast, when it comes to reducing greenhouse gas emissions, the costs are felt today, whereas the benefits are difficult to quantify as they lie in the future.
About the interviewee
Sabrina Stöckli has been a professor of social marketing at Bern University of Applied Sciences since March 2025. Her research and teaching focus on the fields of consumer psychology, behavioural change and social marketing in the context of health and environmental behaviours.
In particular, her research addresses how and why people change their behaviour and how such changes can be encouraged through targeted interventions, designed for example to reduce food waste or to promote environmentally friendly and healthy dietary choices.
Does that mean the time horizon is a factor?
Yes. Current, immediate impacts carry more psychological weight than potential future benefits. The effects of adaptation can be felt immediately, whereas the reduction of greenhouse gases is achieved through a number of steps and behaviours. This complexity makes it harder to see the benefits and to use them as a direct incentive to encourage a specific behaviour.
When I purchase an air conditioner, I reap personal benefits. Whereas when I opt against flying, I make a choice that is beneficial to the wider community. How does that affect motivation?
With air conditioning, the benefits are immediate and personal: I pay, therefore I cool down. However, when it comes to mitigating greenhouse gas emissions, I bear the costs, while everyone benefits, including those who contribute very little themselves. It’s the classic free-rider problem: Why should I go without when others don’t? Furthermore, the personal impact of these efforts is often less immediately apparent, which further diminishes motivation.
For some time now, the climate movement has drawn significant attention, occasionally through controversial actions and strong rhetoric. How should we communicate on climate mitigation in order to win people over?
It’s harder than it sounds. Many approaches have already been tested, from moral appeals to positive visions of the future. Climate mitigation implies addressing issues such as costs, trade-offs and distribution. Self-efficacy certainly remains a key factor: People need to feel that their actions make a difference. An effective climate narrative should not instil fear or give false hope, but rather credibly demonstrate where action actually makes a difference.
The options for adapting to climate change are limited. A striking example of this is the disruption of supply chains caused by the drought along the Rhine River. Will economic pressure ultimately contribute more to climate mitigation than all the appeals combined?
I believe that economic incentives and concrete damages can certainly exert more direct pressure than moral appeals. When the effects of climate change directly impact prices, harvests or supply chains, the problem becomes tangible for many people. However, this will not automatically lead to greater climate mitigation. The pressure could actually result in yet more adaptation. A key factor is whether climate mitigation is perceived as economically and personally beneficial, rather than merely as a moral obligation.
