As climate policy needs to address all feasible ways to reduce carbon emissions, there is an increasing focus on demand-side solutions. Studies of household carbon footprints have allocated emissions during production to the consumption of the produced goods, and provided an understanding of what products and consumer actions cause significant emissions. Social scientists have investigated how attitudes, social norms, and structural factors shape salient behavior. Yet, there is often a disconnect as emission reductions through individual actions in the important domains of housing and mobility are challenging to attain due to lock-ins and structural constraints. Furthermore, most behavioral research focuses on actions that are easy to trace but of limited consequence as a share of total emissions. Here we study specific alternative consumption patterns seeking both to understand the behavioral and structural factors that determine those patterns and to quantify their effect on carbon footprints. We do so utilizing a survey on consumer behavioral, attitudinal, contextual and socio-demographic factors in four different regions in the EU. Some differences occur in terms of the driving forces behind behaviors and their carbon intensities. Based on observed differences in mobility carbon footprints across households, we find that the key determining element to reduced emissions is settlement density, while car ownership, rising income and long distances are associated with higher mobility footprints. For housing, our results indicate that changes in dwelling standards and larger household sizes may reduce energy needs and the reliance on fossil fuels. However, there remains a strong need for incentives to reduce the carbon intensity of heating and air travel. We discuss combined effects and the role of policy in overcoming structural barriers in domains where consumers as individuals have limited agency.

BackgroundHypothalamic–pituitary–adrenal (HPA) axis functioning has been implicated in the development of stress‐related psychiatric diagnoses and response to adverse life experiences. This study aimed to investigate the association between genetic and epigenetics in HPA axis and response to cognitive behavior therapy (CBT).MethodsChildren with anxiety disorders were recruited into the Genes for Treatment project (GxT, N = 1,152). Polymorphisms of FKBP5 and GR were analyzed for association with response to CBT. Percentage DNA methylation at the FKBP5 and GR promoter regions was measured before and after CBT in a subset (n = 98). Linear mixed effect models were used to investigate the relationship between genotype, DNA methylation, and change in primary anxiety disorder severity (treatment response).ResultsTreatment response was not associated with FKBP5 and GR polymorphisms, or pretreatment percentage DNA methylation. However, change in FKBP5 DNA methylation was nominally significantly associated with treatment response. Participants who demonstrated the greatest reduction in severity decreased in percentage DNA methylation during treatment, whereas those with little/no reduction in severity increased in percentage DNA methylation. This effect was driven by those with one or more FKBP5 risk alleles, with no association seen in those with no FKBP5 risk alleles. No significant association was found between GR methylation and response.ConclusionsAllele‐specific change in FKBP5 methylation was associated with treatment response. This is the largest study to date investigating the role of HPA axis related genes in response to a psychological therapy. Furthermore, this is the first study to demonstrate that DNA methylation changes may be associated with response to psychological therapies in a genotype‐dependent manner.

Scientists and policymakers recognize the need to address consumption and lifestyles in order to reconcile environmental and development agendas. Sustainability-oriented grassroots initiatives emerge bottom-up to create opportunities for sustainable lifestyles; yet no prior assessment has ascertained the efficacy of their members to reduce carbon footprints (CF) and enhance well-being. We compare the CF of non-members and members of grassroots initiatives in the domains of food, clothing, housing and transport. We further compare the groups by testing the influence of socio-economic variables that are typically associated with both footprint and well-being. Here we show that grassroots initiative members have 16% lower total carbon footprint, and 43% and 86% lower carbon footprints for food and clothing respectively, compared to their "non-member" regional socio-demographic counterparts. We find a higher adoption of some energy-saving behaviors for initiative members such as greater active travel distance and lower indoor temperatures in the winter, yet no significant differences in the CF of housing and transport. Interestingly, increases in income are not associated with increases in the total CF of members, while the influence of income is confirmed for the CF of the total sample. Instead, factors such as age, household size, and gender better explain the variation in the domain-specific CFs of initiative members. Finally, members show higher life satisfaction compared to non-members and are 11-13% more likely to evaluate their life positively. Our results suggest that initiative members uncover lifestyle features that not only enable lower emissions, but also reconcile emissions with income and well-being.

BackgroundWe previously reported an association between 5HTTLPR genotype and outcome following cognitive–behavioural therapy (CBT) in child anxiety (Cohort 1). Children homozygous for the low-expression short-allele showed more positive outcomes. Other similar studies have produced mixed results, with most reporting no association between genotype and CBT outcome.AimsTo replicate the association between 5HTTLPR and CBT outcome in child anxiety from the Genes for Treatment study (GxT Cohort 2, n = 829).MethodLogistic and linear mixed effects models were used to examine the relationship between 5HTTLPR and CBT outcomes. Mega-analyses using both cohorts were performed.ResultsThere was no significant effect of 5HTTLPR on CBT outcomes in Cohort 2. Mega-analyses identified a significant association between 5HTTLPR and remission from all anxiety disorders at follow-up (odds ratio 0.45, P = 0.014), but not primary anxiety disorder outcomes.ConclusionsThe association between 5HTTLPR genotype and CBT outcome did not replicate. Short-allele homozygotes showed more positive treatment outcomes, but with small, non-significant effects. Future studies would benefit from utilising whole genome approaches and large, homogenous samples.

Scientists and policymakers recognize the need to address consumption and lifestyles in order to reconcile environmental and development agendas. Sustainability-oriented grassroots initiatives emerge bottom-up to createopportunities for sustainable lifestyles; yet no prior assessment has ascertained the efficacy of their members to reduce carbon footprints (CF) and enhance well-being. We compare the CF of non-members and members ofgrassroots initiatives in the domains of food, clothing, housing and transport. We further compare the groups bytesting the influence of socio-economic variables that are typically associated with both footprint and well-being.Here we show that grassroots initiative members have 16% lower total carbon footprint, and 43% and 86%lower carbon footprints for food and clothing respectively, compared to their “non-member” regional sociodemographic counterparts. We find a higher adoption of some energy-saving behaviors for initiative memberssuch as greater active travel distance and lower indoor temperatures in the winter, yet no significant differencesin the CF of housing and transport. Interestingly, increases in income are not associated with increases in thetotal CF of members, while the influence of income is confirmed for the CF of the total sample. Instead, factorssuch as age, household size, and gender better explain the variation in the domain-specific CFs of initiativemembers. Finally, members show higher life satisfaction compared to non-members and are 11–13% more likelyto evaluate their life positively. Our results suggest that initiative members uncover lifestyle features that notonly enable lower emissions, but also reconcile emissions with income and well-being.