It is easy to feel small in the face of an issue as big as climate change. Seeing it at a planetary scale makes it almost impossible to grasp. According to the Climate Action Tracker, we are on track for a 2.9°C degree of global warming by 2100, yet it becomes hard to understand how significant that is when we experience such temperature fluctuations on a daily basis. The way we talk about the issue makes it seem both present, yet far away; it is both everywhere and nowhere at the same time.
But when we talk about the causes of climate change, it is common to find that the conversation narrows rapidly to the individual. The narrative asks you — what you can do to fight climate change and blames you for everyday activities, activities that can barely be avoided because of the system we were born into. We were given market based solutions under the premise of changes in our consumptive habits, such as changing our light bulbs and switching to electric vehicles. A culture that equates environmentalism and consumerism puts an overemphasis on the individual, shaming us for how unhelpful we have been in this battle. It may even blame those who do not even have a choice to begin with as advocating for lifestyle changes often comes from a position of privilege. In impoverished areas where food is hard to come by, processed meat may be the most accessible and affordable option compared to fresh fruits or vegetables (also known as food deserts, start reading about it here). Low income neighbourhoods, which usually have fewer access to public transportation and is often located far from city centers, will force one to commute with their private vehicles.
Insignificance in causing climate change
In reality, the average global citizen is statistically insignificant to causing climate change. Referring to the Oxfam confederation report in 2015, the richest 10% (having a net worth of at least $68,800 per adult of the world population is responsible for almost half of the total lifestyle or consumption emissions, while the poorest 50% is only responsible for 10% of the emissions. The same report also displayed how consumption emissions are highly dependent on where you live. The emissions of citizens in developing countries in the G20 are far lower than those of their counterparts (same income percentile within their own country) in rich OECD countries. To paint the picture, MIT researchers estimated that a homeless person in the United States, who eats in soup kitchens and sleeps in homeless shelters, has an annual carbon footprint twice as large as the global average.
The largest contributions to climate change are systemic, such as energy and land use, which are largely out of reach from the individual. The 90 biggest industrial carbon producers were responsible for ~43% of the observed rise of atmospheric carbon dioxide, and are estimated to contribute to ~29–35% of the global mean surface temperature and ~11–14% of the global sea level rise since 1980 to 2010. Eighty three of those companies are fossil-fuel corporations, who have been fully aware of their own impact but have consciously chosen to neglect it.
An investigation by InsideClimate revealed that Exxon Mobil (the fifth largest producer of industrial emissions in 2017 have been aware of the effects of their business to climate change since 1977, 11 years before it became a public issue as indicated by the establishment of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Leaked memos showed that Exxon’s own scientific team concluded that carbon dioxide from the combustion of fossil fuel is the most likely source of global warming and climate modification. Exxon is not alone. Representatives of fossil fuel companies including BP, Chevron, Peabody Energy, and Shell attended dozens of congressional hearings discussing the effect of carbon emissions on the climate. Regardless of their knowledge, they chose to invest millions of dollars on climate denial and campaigns of confusion, as they had realized that their products would not stay profitable once the world understood its risks. They funded think tanks and researchers to undermine climate science, mobilize grassroots organizations to spread doubts, and lobby politicians to delay, control, or block policies to tackle climate change.
Even after all of this, these companies have the audacity to assign the responsibility of climate change to the general public. For example, in 2004, BP launched an award winning campaign to encourage individuals to calculate their personal carbon footprint using a calculator that they themselves develop. They redirected the public from something intangible, such as invisible greenhouse gases, to something that is tangible: their own footprint. They wanted to take themselves away from the equation and leave you to feel bad about yourself.
A false dichotomy
It is pretty clear by now that you are not the reason why the climate is changing; but you, nonetheless, are a part of that emission statistic. Emissions directly produced from the operations of oil, gas, and coal companies only amount to 10% of fossil fuel emissions, while 90% are from their products ; products that we all demand and use. We see these companies as being in the driver’s seat about transforming the carbon economy, but some of the responsibility ought to fall on us. But then again, it’s not like we had a choice. We live in such a fossil-fuel dependent society that almost 80% of the global energy consumption, from our transportation, electricity, to the production of everyday products, comes from non-renewable resources.
The dilemma between focusing on individual efforts (controlling what we can directly control) and collective action (eliminating systemic challenges) is a false dichotomy. Your personal choices are a part of an endless feedback loop with the system, and so the two were never mutually exclusive to begin with; instead they complement each other. The sheer magnitude of the influence of corporations should shift the focus to our institutions and systemic change; but when individuals supplement these efforts with substantial and sustained actions, they have the ability to inspire new social norms that can spearhead further changes and help cover gaps in our policies.
Collective action
Tackling this issue would definitely require top-down change. Eliminating instruments that support fossil fuels such as subsidies, regulatory preferences, as well as other tax-payer funded costs that benefit their development; and dismantling the energy system by replacing it with renewable sources will directly affect the most influential sector in climate change. Moreover, individual choices will matter most when the economic system can provide environmental options for everyone, not just for the affluent or the few.
The lack of structural change has come from the absence of political will, not deficiencies in our resources. Democracies have a tendency towards short-term returns over long-term interests. As economies become globalized and competition becomes more fierce, this tendency is exacerbated and prolonged, widening the gap between protecting the short-term interests of key stakeholders and long-term needs of the wider community. This is especially troubling for issues like climate change, which requires short-term outlays to ensure long-term positive outcomes. But there is a long track record of democratic systems being able to quickly divert resources and make broader sacrifices when compelled to achieve long-term political and strategic goals, specifically ones that trigger national defence needs (such as wars).
Finding the triggers that would stimulate systems to perform these changes is what is important. Governments need to elevate opportunities and challenges into the national narrative, one that populations can easily connect to and be inspired by, and launch direct initiatives to gather public support and willingness to ‘sacrifice’ resources for the national interest. Public buy-ins can be generated through information campaigns and transparent conversations between citizens and governments to allow better understanding of the necessary trade-offs. To contribute to this collective action, we have to participate in and initiate these conversations; create the demand by being well-informed and hold our institutions and corporations accountable using the available channels. Electing better leaders that are aligned with long-term sustainability is a powerful tool to deliver this message.
Individual action
Nevertheless, personal choices do matter. While any notable impact depends on its cumulative effect, it begins by understanding the effectiveness of a single person’s behavior change. A paper published by researchers from Lund University pointed out four lifestyle choices that reduce your carbon footprint the most, namely: having one fewer child (56.6 tonnes of CO2-equivalent (tCO2e) emissions reduction per year for the average developed country), living car-free (2.4 tCO2e saved per year), avoiding airplane travel (1.6 tCO2e saved per roundtrip transatlantic flight), and eating a plant-based diet (0.8 tCO2e saved per year). Considering that the global average carbon footprint per capita is 4 tCO2e, these changes will contribute greatly in creating a lifestyle that approaches the 2.1 tonnes per capita emission budget necessary to meet the 2°C warming target by 2050. While these choices may not be for everyone, especially for those who cannot afford to even consider them, these options are indeed available and actionable.
Individual acts of conservation may seem negligible compared to the megatons of carbon annually emitted by a single corporation, but they matter in some other ways. Best said by Richard Heede, the co-founder of the Climate Accountability Institute, “They do matter! They matter financially. They matter morally. They matter symbolically.” Conservation efforts, especially those that require sacrifice, can become a gateway to advocacy. It convinces us of our own commitment and propels us forward into further actions, actions that spread across the people. It is not enough to tell people they should conserve, people have to see what others do. For instance, a 2017 survey () revealed that among respondents who knew someone who has given up flying for the environment, half of them say they fly less themselves because of this example. Moreover, businesses pay attention to these changes to stand out from competitors and create a better image for their consumers. One example of this phenomenon in recent memory is the 2018 anti-plastic straw movement, where we had companies as big as Starbucks and Mcdonalds pledge to reduce their plastic use in their chains globally. Lastly, our politicians would notice as well. When we perform personal changes, we would show real support for policies aimed at creating change. These efforts may not achieve our climate goals, but it can convince politicians to pass laws that will.
A ticking deadline
This upcoming decade will become the crossroads of humanity. The Climate Clock displays a clear message: we only have about 7 years to burn through our “carbon budget,” the amount of carbon that can still be released into the atmosphere at the current rate of emissions to limit global warming to the safest threshold of 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels and prevent the most disastrous effects of climate change. It is no longer the time for you as an individual to feel small and insignificant; nor is it the time for you to avoid public advocacy under the fear of being labeled a hypocrite. Let nothing undermine your efforts as an individual and as a collective, as the worst thing we can do about climate change is if we were to do nothing.
Penulis: A. Ghifari Ammar
Editor: Roes Ebara & Rama Vandika
Ilustrasi: Firli Wulansari
