Do Our Sustainable Actions Matter?

In recent years, it seems as if a collective epiphany has gripped humanity’s heartstrings, giving rise to a resounding call for climate advocacy and urgent pleas for more people to adopt eco-friendly lifestyles. Individuals have been encouraged to partake in several sustainable practices such as composting, taking public transportation, and converting to veganism, all with the intention of saving the planet from environmental calamity. Furthermore, research reveals that those who engage in actions they perceive to be environmentally friendly have a better self-image (Venhoeven, et al.). Personally committed to reducing my carbon footprint, I can sheepishly attest to experiencing an increase in self-esteem when partaking in sustainable actions, like riding my bike to school everyday.

While often during my pursuit of sustainable endeavors I can ignore the chilling fears of anxiety, sometimes I can’t help but feel my rib cages close in and my nerves freeze cold along my arms. Pressure starts to leak through my ears, and the question I spite the most rears its ugly head:

“Does

any

of

this

matter?”

As much as it terrifies me, I believe it is a valid concern–how can the actions of one individual help truly mitigate the effects of climate change? Many environmental activists answer this query by stating that individual sustainable actions can inspire others, creating a domino effect of environmentally friendly pursuits. But even if there were millions of sustainable individuals all working together to offset climate change, could that alone solve the climate crisis?

According to the Carbon Majors Report, a mere 100 corporations are responsible for 71% of the world’s total greenhouse gas emissions. When the largest perpetrators of carbon emissions are so few in number, is it truly the responsibility of the public to mitigate climate change, or can the issue be better addressed with large-scale, international efforts to reduce the rate of consumption of these large corporations? Can individuals like you or me play any substantial role in the daunting task of saving Mother Earth?

The debate over who really is to blame for climate change, and, therefore, who should pay ‘reparations’ for the climate damage that they have caused is ongoing and spans over a multitude of perspectives which I will debrief in this article. Firstly, many, myself included, argue that the real fault of climate change lies not on the consumer, but on corporations, since they emit the largest quantity of greenhouse gasses. Therefore, within this view, real, momentous action that has tangible impact on reducing carbon emissions is the duty of the aforementioned companies. This perspective rests on the belief that the perpetrator of a crime, assuming that harming natural resources and damaging the environment constitutes the “crime” of ecocide, is endowed with the responsibility of paying ‘retribution’ to make amends for said crime.

Therefore, according to the belief that the real fault of climate change rests on businesses, the expectation that the public has the responsibility to solve climate change by pursuing more sustainable practices is unfair. Rather, the duty of offsetting climate change is that of the market that produces carbon emissions at such a large scale.

Alternatively, others argue that the sole reason why companies emit such an exorbitant amount of greenhouse gasses is to meet the growing demand for consumer goods by the general public. According to the simple supply-and-demand model of Laissez-Faire capitalism, if there was a lowered demand for goods from the public, then companies would stop emitting such large quantities of greenhouse gasses to produce those goods. Therefore, within the framework of this argument, the real perpetrators of climate change are the consumers that demand such large quantities of goods.

However, the argument that the duty to mitigate climate change rests on the consumer, not the producer, is also flawed because it ignores the longstanding history of businesses utilizing propaganda to stroke the flames of consumerist culture. In other words, companies are efficacious at creating a demand for products where none existed prior. In his 1928 novel Propaganda, Edward Bernays articulates the need for businesses to create a demand from consumers as such:

“Today supply must actively seek to create its correlating demand… [and] cannot afford to wait until the public asks for its product; it must maintain constant touch; through advertising and propaganda… to assure itself the continuous demand which alone makes its costly plant profitable.”(Bernays)

Bernays’ words demonstrate corporations’ shrewd manipulation of the public’s desires in order to ensure that their products remain profitable. Thus the argument that the fault of the carbon emissions of a company ultimately lies on the consumer is highly disingenuous and intentionally disregards the actions of corporations that have heavily contributed to the creation of the consumption-focused culture of today’s people.

Of course, this is not to say that the public is entirely absolved of its contributions to worsening carbon emissions. At the end of the day, while propaganda is historically proven to be highly effective at manipulating the public, it is still the individual that chooses whether to buy or not to buy. However, to entirely disregard capitalist propaganda when discussing consumerist culture is a misrepresentation of the role of the public in carbon emissions and consuming natural resources.

The damaging effects of the argument that climate change is entirely the fault of the consumer can be further explored with a socio-economic lens. According to the perspective that it is the duty of the public to buy fewer products from companies that emit excessive amounts of greenhouse gasses, all people are at fault for buying from these companies. Within the framework of this argument, since nearly everyone is ‘guilty’ for supporting companies that harm the environment, all people must ‘atone’ for their anti-environment crimes by buying sustainably.

However, going green is nearly an impossible task for people of low economic status because sustainable products are, by and large, costlier than their environmentally damaging yet cheap counterparts. While buying sustainable products can be a reasonable goal to achieve for more affluent consumers, it is an unreasonable and unfair expectation to place on poorer consumers. This analysis of the ‘fault of the consumer’ argument demonstrates that the notion that consumers must create a larger demand for sustainable products ignores the vast majority of people that simply cannot afford to buy green products. If the most affordable, easily accessible products that are necessary for survival are also not sustainable, do poorer consumers really have any choice in the matter?

Conclusively, I believe it is reasonable to assert that while the public plays some role in the calamity of climate change, tangible solutions to climate change come about by placing larger restrictions on the consumption and production of corporations. The pursuit of conserving the environment has led to the creation of policies such as the European Union’s Emissions Trading System, which have demonstrated some positive change in reducing greenhouse gas emissions by corporations. However, since such policies could simply “lead to the relocation of emissions-intensive activities abroad” (Muûls), international cooperation is necessary for these policies to have a tangible impact on mitigating climate change.

What role does individual action play in this issue? I believe that the most important role that the public can play in offsetting climate change is through advocacy; a public that can come to a consensus that climate change is an issue that direly needs to be addressed has the powerful capability to demand their governments to represent their true interests. A truly democratic government is maintained through the actions of individuals: the people of a nation must actively participate in educating themselves on issues such as climate change and vote in elections to ensure that their elected representatives can represent its interests.

The feelings of helplessness in the face of an issue as massive as climate change are palpable and experienced by millions around the world, and they can persuade the public into believing that their actions have no true impact in mitigating anthropogenic environmental harm. However, I believe that an educated populus can use the means of democracy to demand for crucial issues such as climate change to be addressed.

It certainly feels unfair at times–if corporations are the largest perpetrators of greenhouse gas emissions, why are we expected to advocate to place restrictions on their wrongdoings? It is certainly an imbalance of power, but it is precisely within such challenges that the strength of collective, democratic action can tip the scale in favor of a more sustainable world. If we play our cards right, we can catalyze transformative shifts to usher in equity in the face of injustice.

Citations

Bernays, Edward. Propaganda. Ig Publishing, 1928.

Cohen, Steve. "The Role of Individual Responsibility in the Transition to Environmental Sustainability." Columbia Climate School, 10 May 2021, news.climate.columbia.edu/2021/05/10/the-role-of-individual-responsibility-in-the-transition-to-environmental-sustainability/.

Griffin, Paul. "CDP Carbon Majors Report 2017." The Carbon Majors Database, Jul. 2017, cdn.cdp.net/cdp-production/cms/reports/documents/000/002/327/original/Carbon-Majors-Report-2017.pdf.

Higgs, Kerryn. "A Brief History of Consumer Culture." The MIT Press Reader, 11 Jan. 2021, thereader.mitpress.mit.edu/a-brief-history-of-consumer-culture/.

Kramer, Ronald C. "Carbon Criminals, Climate Crimes." Rutgers University Press, 1 Nov. 2020, https://clcjbooks.rutgers.edu/books/carbon-criminals-climate-crimes/#:~:text=Although%20there%20has%20been%20no,%2C%20war%20crimes%2C%20and%20genocide.

Krosofsky, Andrew. "The Cost of Environmentalism: Why Sustainable Products Are More Expensive." GreenMatters, 27 Aug. 2021, www.greenmatters.com/p/are-sustainable-products-more-expensive.

Muûls, Mirabelle. "How Are Climate Change Policies Affecting Firms’ Competitiveness?" Economics Observatory, 9 Nov. 2022, www.economicsobservatory.com/how-are-climate-change-policies-affecting-firms-competitiveness.

Venhoeven, Leonie A., et al. "Why Acting Environmentally-Friendly Feels Good: Exploring the Role of Self-Image." National Library of Medicine, 24 Nov. 2016, www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5121119/.

Waugh, Chris, and Oldfield, Elizabeth. "Corporations Vs. Consumers: Who Is Really To Blame For Climate Change?" The University of Manchester, 7 Jul. 2022, https://sites.manchester.ac.uk/global-social-challenges/2022/07/07/corporations-vs-consumers-who-is-really-to-blame-for-climate-change/.

Image:

Reynolds, Annika. "Explainer: What Is the Right to a Healthy Environment and Why Is It Important?" Women's Agenda, 12 Oct. 2021, womensagenda.com.au/latest/explainer-what-is-the-right-to-a-healthy-environment-and-why-is-it-important/.