A global experiment with more than 7,500 participants suggests that when people have more resources, they tend to protect themselves from climate impacts instead of funding shared emission cuts. Researchers warn this “private solution trap” could slow global progress and leave poorer communities more exposed.
When it comes to climate change, doing more to protect yourself can sometimes mean doing less to protect everyone else.
A new international study, involving 7,504 people from 34 countries and published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, finds that people with greater resources are more likely to choose local, private protections from climate damage rather than invest in shared efforts to cut greenhouse gas emissions. That pattern, the researchers say, creates a “private solution trap” that can weaken global climate action and deepen inequality.
The work, which included contributions from University of Bologna economists Giorgio Dini and Alessandro Tavoni, used a large online experiment to explore how people decide between private and public responses to a shared climate threat.
The study speaks directly to a core challenge in real-world climate talks, according to Tavoni, a professor of environmental economics at the University of Bologna.
“One of the central issues in climate negotiations is how to distribute the economic effort required from different countries to limit global warming,” he said in a news release.
In the experiment, participants were placed in groups of four. Two players were assigned the role of wealthier countries, with more money to spend, and two represented poorer countries with fewer resources.
Each person then had to decide how to allocate their funds between two options:
– A public solution, representing global action to reduce emissions and avoid climate catastrophe for everyone in the group.
– A private solution, representing local protections that could shield the individual from harm even if the global problem was not fully solved.
If the group failed to invest enough in the public solution, a simulated catastrophe occurred and players risked losing their earnings. Private investments could help protect individuals, but they did nothing to fix the underlying, shared problem.
The results were stark.
“Participants who were assigned more resources at the beginning of the game invested in private solutions twice as often as those who started with fewer resources, and contributed proportionally less to the shared investment in the public solution,” Tavoni added.
In other words, the better-off players were more likely to spend on their own safety and less likely to help fund the collective fix. That left poorer players more exposed to the simulated disaster and made it harder for the group as a whole to reach the public investment target needed to avoid catastrophe.
Tavoni described the pattern as a serious warning for global climate policy.
“This is a genuine private solution trap, one that slows progress towards a global response and puts countries with fewer resources and more vulnerable citizens at greater risk,” he said.
The study’s design echoes real-world choices. Public solutions to climate change include policies and investments that cut emissions for everyone, such as clean energy infrastructure, public transit, or international climate finance. Private solutions include measures like flood defenses for specific neighborhoods, air conditioning, or private insurance that help individuals or communities cope with impacts without reducing the overall problem.
Both types of action are needed, but the research suggests that when wealthier countries or individuals lean too heavily on private protections, they may feel less pressure to support ambitious, shared emission cuts. That can leave poorer countries and vulnerable communities facing greater climate risks with fewer resources to adapt.
The experiment also revealed cultural patterns. Participants from countries that place more emphasis on hierarchy and merit tended to favor private solutions, while those from societies that value community and fairness more strongly were more inclined to support shared public responses.
Yet, over time, the tendency to slide toward private options appeared widespread.
“Despite these cultural differences, in the long run everyone tends to fall into the private solution trap,” Tavoni added.
There was, however, a hopeful twist. The researchers found that when groups moved quickly and decisively to fund the public solution early on, they were more likely to avoid catastrophe. Strong, early cooperation on the shared investment reduced the appeal of private options and helped keep everyone safer.
Tavoni highlighted this as a key lesson for climate policy.
“There is, however, one encouraging sign: groups that invested quickly and cohesively in the public solution often succeeded in reaching the common goal, thereby discouraging private alternatives,” he said.
The authors suggest that similar dynamics could play out at the international level. Mechanisms such as climate clubs — groups of countries that agree to move faster and more ambitiously on climate action — or investment compensation schemes that reward early, coordinated efforts could help countries escape the private solution trap.
For students, policymakers and citizens, the study underscores a central tension in the climate crisis: it is often easier and more immediately rewarding to protect oneself than to invest in a shared solution. But if wealthier actors rely too heavily on private fixes, the global problem worsens and the most vulnerable pay the highest price.
The research points to a different path: rapid, collective investment in public climate solutions that reduce emissions and risks for everyone, making private workarounds less necessary. What happens next, the authors suggest, will depend on whether countries choose to compete for safety or cooperate for a safer planet.
Source: Università di Bologna