According to a recent study by the US National Academy of Sciences, the general population is misinformed about the daily activities that have the biggest impact on the climate. In an era where consumer behavior and climate impacts are becoming more intertwined, the findings have ramifications not only for policymakers but also for insurers who are struggling with risk assessments. Swiss Re has already estimated that carriers will pay US$145 billion in climate-related claims this year; if nothing changes, those expenses will keep going up every year.
Participants in the study were asked to assess a variety of lifestyle decisions based on their influence on the climate, ranging from flying to recycling. The findings were alarming: most respondents overestimated the importance of lower-impact behaviors while failing to recognize the most carbon-intensive behaviors.
According to Madalina Vlasceanu, a professor of environmental social sciences at Stanford University and co-author of the report, “people overassign impact to actually pretty low-impact actions like recycling and underestimate the actual carbon impact of behaviors much more carbon intensive, like flying or eating meat.”
According to the data, the best individual actions are avoiding air travel, choosing not to possess pets, and obtaining electricity from renewable sources. However, people also recognized these the least.
In contrast, the climatic benefits of recycling, changing lightbulbs, and modifying washing habits were consistently overestimated. The bottle is being recycled, as you can see. That is evident. On the other hand, carbon emissions are not visible to the naked eye. Jiaying Zhao, a psychology and sustainability specialist at the University of British Columbia, told the Associated Press, “That is why we do not associate emissions with flying.”
The impact of home dogs was perhaps the most unexpected finding for the respondents. Dogs were specifically targeted due of their dependence on meals high in meat. “Pets and carbon emissions are just not associated. People do not understand that connection,” Zhao clarified.
The main source of climate change for dogs is the manufacture of their meat-based diet, which emits over 64 million tons of CO2 a year in the US alone—an amount equal to 13.6 million automobiles’ worth of emissions.
“Underlying risk is steadily rising in regions susceptible to natural disasters, as well as with economic and population expansion and urban development. Furthermore, losses for some weather hazards and places are being exacerbated by the effects of climate change, according to a recent analysis from Swiss Re.
Being misunderstood by those who are genuinely causing the issue is that risk.
Vlasceanu attributes part of the problem to marketing, which prioritizes recycling initiatives above air travel and animal husbandry. Additionally, cognitive biases come into play: routine activities like recycling are “heavier” on the mind than infrequent ones like flying.
The uncertainty is further exacerbated by the existence of deceptive corporate messaging. Climate scientist Brenda Ekwurzel of the Union of Concerned Scientists said, “There has been a lot of purposeful misunderstanding out there to support policies that are truly out of date.”
Lessons for insurance
For insurers, the study highlights a paradox: while climate change is driven by large-scale forces, individual choices collectively matter – and public misperception shapes both political will and consumer behaviour.
Air travel is a case in point. A single return flight from New York to Los Angeles produces more than 1,300 pounds of emissions per passenger, according to the International Civil Aviation Organization. That is comparable to a year without meat consumption or three months without a car. Yet many still regard it as a minor indulgence rather than a carbon-heavy act.
Such blind spots can distort how households perceive climate risk, influencing demand for products such as travel cover, pet insurance, or renewable energy incentives.
The researchers found that interventions do help. Once participants were shown the true rankings of actions, many shifted their intentions towards higher-impact changes. “People do learn from these interventions,” Vlasceanu noted. “After learning, they are more willing to commit to actually more impactful actions.”
For the insurance sector, this suggests an opportunity to integrate climate literacy into client engagement, whether through underwriting conversations, product design, or broader corporate responsibility campaigns. Insurers, after all, sit at the intersection of consumer behaviour and climate consequence.
