Although there appears to be clarity about what states must do to reduce emissions while protecting human well-being, action is lacking. The UN Emissions Gap Report 2024 highlights a disparity between rhetoric and reality. Governments are far from agreeing on the measures needed to avoid the most severe forecasted impacts.
Rather than heeding scientific guidance, many countries are continuing to raise their emissions. Even the COP30 held in Belem fell short in placing limits to the expansion of fossil fuel industries.
Despite common objections to calls for sacrifice to confront climate change and ecological collapse, evidence indicates that people in high-income countries favour environmental protection over economic growth—meaning, when forced to choose, they would prioritise the environment over their finances.
Research also suggests that when individuals and groups can tolerate tensions and differences and acknowledge the legitimacy of other perspectives—for example, through relational listening—they can engage more productively in deliberation about the content and direction of desirable futures.
Deliberation is therefore a central element of the transition to living within planetary limits. Instability and the absence of a shared vision can indeed be among the major barriers to advancing post-growth policies and initiatives.
Attention to acceptance matters as political measures that interfere with citizens’ lives to curb popular but unsustainable behaviours depend on public support.
Increasing public acceptance requires granting citizens’ viewpoints a substantially larger role in modern politics. Especially in climate policy, blaming or shaming individuals is pretty useless unless the underlying structural causes are tackled.
Debates about transitioning to sustainable societies are often heated because of fears over who might lose their livelihood or who should bear the burden of rising fuel costs. Growing national income inequalities driven by global capital flows intensify these tensions.
At the same time, there appears to be a mismatch between what people believe is happening and what they care about, and how they actually act—how they engage in politics, whom they vote for, or whether they vote at all.
For example, a logger in Finland might oppose forest conservation efforts while also being anxious about climate change, since he witnesses forests being damaged by invasive species that thrive during warmer summers.
Research into public attitudes toward post-growth suggests that people with lower education and income levels may be more supportive of the redistributive elements or social-justice framing of environmental policies.
By contrast, those who are better off—though they may otherwise favour post-growth—tend to resist redistributive measures and collective economic approaches. This creates a dilemma for efforts to broaden support for post-growth: the measures needed to build a wider movement are likely to be opposed by well-off, and therefore more powerful, segments of society.
Thinking about how to move towards post-growth futures, therefore, requires the input of people to work on the contested issue of whether to prioritise the economy or the environment. Such a shift requires getting in touch with what truly matters. It is as much a psychological task as it is political. And to unravel our psychology, we must access our emotions.
One such profession that works with emotions is the artist.