How to make a guy compost in 10 days

November 4th, 2025

Written by: Margaret Gardner

Have you ever heard the saying, “the first step towards getting better is admitting you have a problem”? Well, climate change is humanity’s collective problem, one that most Americans have woken up to¹. Yet we often struggle to take the next step and actually live in ways that do the least harm to the planet. Most of us can probably think of a few changes we could make to be more environmentally friendly. But why does it often feel so hard to implement these changes? Why don’t our behaviors always reflect our nature-loving, science-understanding values? Consider, if you will, my boyfriend, who is a highly compassionate and intelligent man and yet does not use the free composting service in his apartment building. How can climate scientists convince people like him who know climate change is a problem to make the everyday choices needed to fight it? Thankfully, neuroscientists studying decision-making are starting to uncover what neurological and psychological processes are involved in eco-friendly behavior and how to encourage them. It’s a new field with a lot left to learn, but could it be enough to convince one man to compost? Let’s find out.

Why isn’t it easy to be green?

There are many reasons why it can be hard to make the environmentally friendly decision, even when you know what it is. Often, the thing that’s better for the environment is expensive (buying local produce at the farmer’s market), difficult (biking instead of driving), or just no fun (not buying the cute new sweater you don’t really need). These are valid challenges, but so are all the death and destruction climate change has and will continue to cause². So why do our brains tend to prioritize the former? The answer is a series of common shortcuts our brains use to make quick decisions, called cognitive biases, that sometimes lead to irrational choices^3,4. The most relevant of these is delay discounting, or people’s tendency to overvalue immediate gains/losses (like paying more for clean energy) over bigger, future outcomes (like massive coastal flooding) (Figure 1)^3,5. This may be because when the consequences of our actions happen far in the future (or in another part of the world), we feel less agency over them⁵; basically, I know composting is good for the planet, but it’s hard to get myself to go all the way to the collection site when I don’t actually see the benefits with my own eyes.

Another factor that makes people feel less empowered to make eco-friendly choices is feeling trapped in a hierarchy, like a company or unequal society, that doesn’t seem to prioritize the environment⁵ (Figure 2). Why bother composting when billionaires are just taking joyrides into space?

Another cognitive bias that can discourage environmentally-friendly behavior is normalcy bias, or the belief that things will stay pretty much the same³ (Figure 3). We can know all the facts and figures about climate change and the havoc it will wreak on the globe, but our subconscious still thinks that tomorrow will be like today and yesterday. Like delay discounting, this can make it harder to truly understand the dire stakes of climate change and makes taking sustainable actions feel less essential.

When gray matter acts “green”

Despite these cognitive biases, many people do make eco-friendly choices. So, what’s happening in the brain when someone chooses sustainability, and what kinds of situations encourage sustainable behavior? One promising way of studying this is by using MRI to take images of the living brain, which offer a window into mental processes that people themselves might not be conscious of^4,6.

In these studies, climate-conscious behavior is often assessed using computer games where participants decide whether to share resources with each other and/or with future “generations” of players⁵. For example, players might be able to fish from a virtual pond; catching more fish would be better for them but leave less for future players. One such neuroimaging study found that players who make more sustainable choices (i.e. leave more fish for future players) had greater thickness in two areas of the brain that scientists think are responsible for self-control and imagining other people’s perspectives ⁵. Another study found that this region had stronger connections with a region called the temporo-parietal junction (TPJ) in people who behaved sustainably, and that this connection was associated with how much players reported considering future generations’ perspectives⁵. In other words, this suggests that people who had stronger connectivity between the dorsal prefrontal cortex and TPJ had an easier time picturing how their behavior would impact future generations and thus made more sustainable choices.

In fact, applying a temporary electrical current to cause activity in the TPJ while the participant played a resource-sharing video game was shown to increase sustainable behavior⁵. Unfortunately, it’s not practical to apply electricity to everyone’s TPJ anytime they have to decide whether to use a plastic grocery bag. But neuroimaging studies like this one do highlight how regions involved in perspective-taking, social functioning, reward and self-control are likely crucial to supporting eco-friendly behavior⁵. While there are limitations to this approach, this kind of neuroscience-first approach has shown promise in anti-smoking campaigns^4,7 and advertising for energy-efficient products⁸. So, the question then becomes, how can we encourage these mental processes, so people are more likely to behave in environmentally friendly ways?

Selling sustainability

Again, we know that just presenting the doom-and-gloom facts of climate change isn’t always enough to change people’s everyday behaviors⁸. Instead, some climate activists are taking lessons from neuromarketing, which uses neuroscience to try to understand and optimize how advertisements impact people’s purchases, by letting neuroimaging and psychological principles determine how best to promote sustainable behavior^3,4,8. Some promising strategies seek to reduce delay discounting and increase people’s sense of agency by making the consequences of one’s behaviors more immediate. This can involve immediate gains, like reward programs for eco-friendly choices, or making future losses feel more immediate, like simulating future climate catastrophes via virtual reality^4,5.

Likely, though, different strategies will be needed for different people and scenarios^3,5. For example, one neuroimaging study found that framing sustainable behavior as the norm (e.g. “All of your friends compost”) increased brain activation more strongly than messages promising rewards (e.g. “If you use less water than your neighbors, you’ll get a discount on your bill”) or pleasure (e.g. “You’ll feel good about yourself if you recycle”)⁹. However, another study found that among people who are very materialistic, emphasizing personal benefits (e.g. “Reusable water bottles are better for you”) over helping others (e.g. “Reusable water bottles are better for the ocean”) promotes more sustainable behavior¹⁰. Thus, just like how advertisements are targeted to certain populations, the most effective climate-activism campaigns must be tailored to people with varying cultural values, resources, and cognitive biases.

In this together

This article – and the neuroscience literature – has focused mostly on encouraging everyday people like my boyfriend to reduce their personal carbon emissions. That’s not to say that not making the most eco-friendly decisions 100% of the time means you’re a bad person. The truth is, the world is in a bad place, and it will take a lot of individual and collective action to avert disaster. Meanwhile, the institutions and governments that can either encourage or undermine those actions are also made up of individuals with the same cognitive biases as the rest of us. Thus, understanding the neuroscience of sustainable decision-making will be critical in encouraging environmentally friendly choices at every level of society⁸. While other fields certainly have their roles to play in mitigating the climate crisis, neuroscience is uniquely poised to bridge the gap between knowing the right thing and doing it, helping us make decisions that align with our values and protect the planet we love.

And I know you’re wondering: did my boyfriend start to compost? As mentioned above, framing eco-friendly behavior as the societal norm was more effective than promising internal or external rewards. My case study revealed that a related strategy of “sharing a rough draft of an article in which you (lovingly) call out the person’s unsustainable behavior and remind them that it’s driven by understandable but irrational cognitive biases” can be effective. So, in some cases, maybe “peer pressure for good” is acceptable – but remember, the most effective strategy depends on the person and situation. Maybe start small. The next time you or a loved one is about to toss their coffee grounds in the trash, actively remind yourself that the inconvenience emptying another bin is objectively much less bad than hurricanes and droughts, and choose the compost instead.

Feeling inspired? Check out these resources:

• “Actions for a healthy planet” recommended by the United Nations: https://www.un.org/en/actnow/ten-actions
• “Climate Justice Organizations” list curated by the Bentely University Library: https://libguides.bentley.edu/ClimateJustice/Organizations 
• A list of high-impact climate-activist organizations, curated by Vox: https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/2019/12/2/20976180/climate-change-best-charities-effective-philanthropy

References

1.             Tyson BK and A. How Americans View Climate Change and Policies to Address the Issue. Pew Research Center. December 9, 2024. Accessed October 27, 2025. https://www.pewresearch.org/science/2024/12/09/how-americans-view-climate-change-and-policies-to-address-the-issue/

2.             Climate change. Accessed October 27, 2025. https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/climate-change-and-health

3.             Korteling JohanE (Hans), Paradies GL, Sassen-van Meer JP. Cognitive bias and how to improve sustainable decision making. Front Psychol. 2023;14:1129835. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1129835

4.             Doell KC, Berman MG, Bratman GN, et al. Leveraging neuroscience for climate change research. Nat Clim Change. 2023;13(12):1288-1297. doi:10.1038/s41558-023-01857-4

5.             Villa R, Scattolin M, Ponsi G. Neurocognitive Mechanisms Underlying Environmental Behavior: The Reciprocal Influence of Reward-Based Decision-Making and the Sense of Agency. Topoi. 2025;44(4):1095-1110. doi:10.1007/s11245-025-10192-6

6.             Todorova B, Steininger MO, Lamm C, Doell KC. Neuroscience and climate action: intersecting pathways for brain and planetary health. Curr Opin Behav Sci. 2025;63:101522. doi:10.1016/j.cobeha.2025.101522

7.             Leeuwis N, van Bommel T, Alimardani M. A framework for application of consumer neuroscience in pro-environmental behavior change interventions. Front Hum Neurosci. 2022;16. doi:10.3389/fnhum.2022.886600

8.             Richelli L, Arioli M, Canessa N. Neurosustainability: A Scoping Review on the Neuro-Cognitive Bases of Sustainable Decision-Making. Brain Sci. 2025;15(7):NA-NA. doi:10.3390/brainsci15070678

9.             Casado-Aranda LA, Özer İ, Rodriguez-Sanchez C, Sánchez-Fernández J, Sancho-Esper F, Sellers-Rubio R. Neural bases of goal-frame theory: Assessing the nature and persuasion of normative, hedonic, and gain environmental messages. J Environ Psychol. 2025;105:102667. doi:10.1016/j.jenvp.2025.102667

10.          Ryoo Y, Sung Y, Chechelnytska I. What makes materialistic consumers more ethical? Self-benefit vs. other-benefit appeals. J Bus Res. 2020;110:173-183. doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2020.01.019

Cover photo by Priyanka Singh on Unsplash