Mr. Niedrist, what in our evolutionary makeup might explain why we remain so sluggish despite knowing about climate change?

Georg Niedrist: Humans are evolutionarily equipped to tackle short-term problems, not long-term ones. Our brains respond to immediate threats, not to abstract scenarios. If I put my hand on a hot stove, the pain is instant – and I learn from it. One major reason for our inertia is the disconnect between cause and effect: we act today without feeling the consequences. They’re diffuse, stretched out over decades, and spread across the entire planet. With the ozone hole, the consequence was clear: skin cancer. With global heating, the effects remain abstract at first. Many people shrug and say you just won’t be able to go skiing anymore  –but in reality, we’re talking about losing the very foundations of our lives: habitat, agriculture, water. That in turn, would inevitably create conflict, because we’ll have to make do with less.  

On top of that, the climate crisis confronts us with fear, loss, and the prospect of giving things up – and we respond by being overwhelmed and defensive. Habit and comfort reinforce this. People dislike changing their behavior, especially when it’s been ingrained over years. Recently, I’ve even noticed a kind of defiance: whether it’s heat pumps or electric cars, many resist any change on principle, because they associate it with a particular political camp – “green,” “left” – even when the change would actually benefit them financially.

Sociologist Jens Beckert (right) and biologist Georg Niedrist in conversation at the headquarters of Eurac Research

Credit: Eurac Research | Annelie Bortolotti

Mr. Beckert, you’ve devoted an entire book to this very question. In it, you describe capitalism as a central part of the problem. Why is this system in particular so poorly equipped for climate action?

Jens Beckert: As a social scientist, you see the problem less in individual psychology and more in the structures that shape our actions. Our society is formed by institutions and cultural patterns – economic, political, and social systems that are intertwined and create specific incentives.

In a capitalist economy, companies invest only when they can expect a profit. Growth is the system’s basic condition – and growth always entails resource consumption. As long as environmental costs remain external to market calculations, we will continue to overstrain the planet.

Then there’s politics: election cycles that reshuffle the cards every four years are built around short-term wins. But climate policy requires investments – costs incurred now – whose benefits will become visible only generations later. You can’t win elections with that. And we’re reminded of this every day: we live within infrastructures that make sustainable behavior difficult. Take Bolzano, for example – if you live outside the city, you need a car. That’s not an individual failure; it’s a consequence of the systems we inhabit.

“Growth is the system’s basic condition – and growth always entails resource consumption.“

Jens Beckert

People often say we simply need to communicate better and “bring people along.” How far does that approach really get us?

Beckert: I’ve always been skeptical of statements like: “The situation is serious, but if we all pull ourselves together now, we can do it.” It’s a pedagogical instinct – we don’t want to discourage people – but in my view it’s fundamentally wrong. We need honest communication. Only then can we respond sensibly and ask: where can we start? Where might we not solve the problem, but at least make some progress?

Niedrist: That’s exactly the dilemma I face as a scientist. I have to communicate facts, and those facts are overwhelmingly negative. But I also know that people intuitively react to such messages with rejection. I find myself in a difficult position: I must be honest and direct, yet I still hope to contribute positively and constructively to society. Finding that balance, I think, will be the ultimate challenge for science communication in the coming years.

One catchy way to raise awareness of the consequences of our own actions is the carbon footprint. But Mr. Beckert, you say there’s more behind it?

Beckert: Yes – it’s also a deliberately chosen strategy by industry to frame climate change as a matter of individual moral failure. The concept of the carbon footprint was popularized by an American advertizing agency commissioned by BP. By doing so, responsibility is shifted onto individuals – “well, just don’t fly so much!” The oil industry actively promoted this narrative because it distracts from structural issues. Instead of discussing the urgent need to abolish subsidies for fossil fuels and create incentives for a transition to renewables, we end up talking about personal guilt.

That said, as an indicator, the carbon footprint still has educational value. It vividly illustrates how extremely high CO₂ consumption is among upper-income groups and the super-rich, and how unevenly emissions are distributed across the world.

“Behind the rising demand for energy are deeply human drives: comparison, ambition, unrestricted mobility, the desire to stand out.“

Georg Niedrist

If CO₂ emissions rise with prosperity – does that mean economic growth and climate protection are fundamentally incompatible?

Beckert: Societies become wealthy by consuming large amounts of energy – and as long as that energy is fossil, prosperity automatically means high emissions. Wealth is therefore tightly linked to CO₂ output. The desire for comfort runs through all social classes: some want to catch up; others want to maintain their status. As long as social status is defined through consumption, ever-increasing energy use is built into the system. The only way out is to decouple consumption from emissions – through renewable energy, not merely through efficiency. How a society might function without integrating itself through consumption remains completely open, which is why current efforts focus on transforming energy systems rather than reducing energy use through restraint.

Niedrist: At the same time, rising CO₂ emissions also show that many people are better off. It’s not about “evil rich people,” but about the connection between growing prosperity and rising energy demand. Behind this are deeply human drives: comparison, ambition, unrestricted mobility, the desire to stand out. These forces have made us successful as a species – and have now driven us into crisis.

Mr. Beckert, you argue that the problem is not “human,” but historical. What do you mean by that?

Beckert: Our current patterns of consumption are the result of a long historical process. For centuries, there were rules that limited the pursuit of status – dress codes, social barriers. Only the modern economic system and, in a sense, democracy, with its promise of prosperity for all, unleashed this drive. Our economy depends on us constantly wanting more. That’s why it would be wrong to see this as an anthropological constant – it is a product of our institutions.

Does that mean we need new forms of boundaries?

Niedrist: Mathematically speaking, if we wanted to preserve even a chance of limiting warming to 1.5°C, we’d now need a global emergency brake on the scale of the COVID pandemic. That’s not realistic. But after 80 years of almost unlimited freedom, we are now entering a phase in which we have to recognize that the planet itself sets the limits. In principle, it’s simple: the more effort we make now, the fewer constraints future generations will face. If we continue without boundaries, our children and grandchildren will confront far more severe restrictions. This is a decision we have to make as a society – because the laws of nature are not negotiable.

Mr. Niedrist, you also work on your family’s farm. How strong is the willingness to change in your community – and where do you see the biggest obstacles?

Niedrist: Interest varies a lot depending on what people produce. In viticulture, where climate directly determines quality, awareness is high. In livestock farming, the impacts are felt less immediately, so the level of concern is lower. Beyond that, agriculture tends to see itself primarily as a victim: “We have to adapt,” people say – but taking responsibility for emissions is still rare.

One example: in Caldaro/Kaltern, a storage reservoir is planned in a beech forest – a necessary adaptation measure. But removing the forest will release CO₂, which in turn exacerbates the very climate impacts agriculture is struggling with. There are many such goal conflicts. And they make clear that solutions are often more complicated in practice than they appear at first glance, especially in agriculture.

Credit: Eurac Research | Annelie Bortolotti

You both argue for stronger focus on climate adaptation. Isn’t that already an admission of failure?

Beckert: Adaptation isn’t a sign of failure – it’s a sign of realism. It means taking the changed world seriously. If we have to prepare for 2.5 or even 3 degrees of warming, then the question now is how we deal with the consequences – in cities, agriculture, infrastructure, and social protection. Adaptation is smart policy.

Niedrist: I completely agree. Adaptation can also open new economic opportunities. But for wealthy regions in Central Europe, I see the biggest challenges in social adaptation. When resources become scarce, the social climate becomes harsher. We will have to confront difficult questions about resource distribution, migration, and ultimately how we safeguard democracy.

Many people hope that technology will save us. Do you see that as a necessary source of hope – or as a dangerous illusion?

Beckert: I call that magical thinking: the idea that technology can substitute for social change. But every technology has limits – ecological, economic, social. Carbon removal technology is in its infancy: expensive, inefficient, and with uncertain scalability. Believing it can solve the problem simply shifts responsibility. That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t invest in climate innovations; it just means we must not let them distract us from cutting emissions now.

Niedrist: Technology is absolutely essential – to prevent further emissions, to adapt to impacts, and to remove CO₂ from the atmosphere. But it must not serve as an excuse to neglect other crucial steps, such as changes in behaviour.

Given all this, how do you personally maintain the balance between realism and resignation?

Beckert: I’m a realist. I don’t believe we will meet the climate targets we’ve set. But for me, that doesn’t lead to resignation – it leads to asking what options remain under these conditions. We certainly need to devote much more attention to adaptation – not only to technical infrastructure, but also to how we protect societies. There is room for political action, and majorities can shift. In that sense, it’s a call to keep trying – we simply have to continue the work.

Niedrist: I agree. The climate system includes many tipping points that influence one another. But according to what we know today, there is no single moment at which everything collapses and humanity goes extinct. Every decision matters; every tenth of a degree of avoided warming helps preserve resources. That alone makes it worth continuing.

Jens Beckert

Jens Beckert is Director of the Max Planck Institute for the Study of Societies in Cologne and Professor of Sociology at the University of Cologne. After studying and completing his doctorate in Berlin and New York, he habilitated at the Free University of Berlin in 2003. Teaching and research stays have taken him to Princeton, Harvard, and Paris, among other places. He has received numerous awards for his work in economic and social sociology, including the Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz Prize in 2018. His current book, “Verkaufte Zukunft” (Suhrkamp, 2024), analyzes why the fight against climate change is in danger of failing due to short-sighted interests and structures. In mid-November, Jens Beckert was invited by the Center for Advanced Studies to take part in a panel discussion at Eurac Research on the topic "How We Sold Our Future: The Failure to Fight Climate Change. Future lost? Why the fight against climate change is at risk of failing.”

Georg Niedrist

Georg Niedrist is a biologist at the Institute for Alpine Environment at Eurac Research, where he studies the effects of the climate crisis on alpine ecosystems and agriculture. Although he has been researching the interplay between climate, environment, and agriculture for almost 20 years, he too has only gradually realized the magnitude of the climate crisis. Since then, he has been trying to keep interest in the topic high and his carbon footprint low with a mixture of realism and optimism.