Behavioral science for climate action
People will help the planet if you ask them properly.
We run experiments on the moments where a good intention stalls: a checkout page, a pre-ticked box, a prompt that arrives at the wrong time. We find the small changes that work, and hand the evidence to the companies and policymakers big enough to use it.
Try it yourself
Same booking step, redesigned. Twice as many people gave.
We rebuilt the donation step in three major airlines’ booking flows and tested each version against the airline’s own live design. Participants were holding real bonus money they were free to keep. Flip the switch to see both versions from the flag-carrier study.
Add to your trip
Make a contribution to our climate programme
Enter an amount to add to your booking total.
$of travellers donated real money with the airline's current design.
An ask with no image, no social proof, and no suggested amount: the flow travellers actually meet today.
Flag-carrier study, n = 467. Participants held a real bonus payment and chose to keep it or give it. Fisher’s exact p < 0.001.
We have two kinds of evidence and they are not worth the same. Separately from the airline work, an online study with no money at stake found 69% chose to add a conservation contribution and 75% preferred the platform that asked. That tells you people like the idea. It does not tell you what they would do at a real checkout, which is what the airline studies above measured, because there the money was theirs to lose.
Both studies, with methods and limitations →What it’s worth
Three carriers reach 74 million passengers a year.
a year to conservation if those three carriers shipped the redesigned flow, using only what people did when the money was real.
Rising toward $110M a year if the high-anchor effects hold in production.
How to read that number
This is an illustration, not a forecast. We measured three airlines separately and added the three answers together, converting currencies at assumed rates. The higher figure rests on two things we have not shown: that the effect survives at full scale, and that suggesting larger amounts brings in real money the way it did in the hypothetical study. Running the redesign as a live test inside a real booking flow is what would settle it.
Per-carrier figures and the assumptions behind them →Where it’s going
A major European tour operator’s sustainability team reviewed these results and is taking the redesign in-house to develop it further and test it internally.
A booking flow that actually changes is what we are trying to produce, more than a paper someone cites. The operator is one of the three carriers in the study and stays unnamed under our partner agreement.
One method, two programs
Most people want to help. We just need to create the right moment.
Persuading people to care is rarely the hard part. The hard part is what happens next. A traveller who would happily give something is shown a donation box nobody ever tested. A household that spent thousands on solar panels loses output for years, because no independent person ever tells them what the dirt on the glass is costing. The willingness was already there in both cases.
Both programs do the same job. We take information that is technically public and practically useless, and turn it into something a person or a company can act on: airline climate performance out of the disclosures airlines already file, rooftop solar losses out of aerial photographs anyone can download. We publish the method with the result so people can check our arithmetic.
Latest research
Giving doubled even when the money was real.
The team
Lawyers, climate scientists, and engineers on the same problem
Samantha Vroomen, J.D.
Cofounder & Legal Counsel
Craig Fellers, Ph.D.
Cofounder & Research Lead
Stefan Omelchenco, Ph.D.
Researcher & Climate Scientist
Hunter Delaney
Behavioral Data Analyst
Joshua Ramirez
Researcher & Tools Developer
Cameron Gordon
Engineering & Product Lead