# The Illusion of Individual Responsibility in Climate Change
Written on
It was 2005 when BP, one of the largest oil corporations globally, aired an advertisement questioning the public about their carbon footprints. This marketing initiative introduced the first online carbon footprint calculator, popularizing the concept. BP asserted its ambition to cut carbon emissions by 4 million tonnes over the next four years, suggesting that collective action was necessary for this goal.
However, this call for shared accountability ignited backlash, especially given that BP was embroiled in multiple lawsuits during the same timeframe. These lawsuits included allegations of dumping hazardous oil in Alaska (up to 267,000 gallons—far exceeding any emissions an individual might produce in their lifetime) and illegal air pollution over an eight-year span. Nevertheless, the advertisement succeeded in shifting focus, leading to a surge in climate action solutions that emphasized personal consumption while letting major offenders evade scrutiny.
As David Wallace-Wells articulates in his book, The Uninhabitable Earth, “Conscious consumption and wellness are both cop-outs, arising from the basic promise extended by neoliberalism: that consumer choices can be a substitute for political action.”
What is Neoliberalism?
Neoliberalism, which gained traction in the 1980s under global figures like Reagan and Thatcher, is characterized by a belief in free-market capitalism as the most efficient way to allocate societal resources. The notion of the free market, first proposed by economist Friedrich Hayek, posits that supply and demand will reach an equilibrium when left without government intervention.
In essence, neoliberalism grants the capital class full autonomy over their enterprises, free from government or union pressures. This reduction in government oversight enables corporate leaders to violate environmental regulations, as their interests are often aligned with profit over planet. The neoliberal perspective suggests that consumers are at liberty to choose from various products and brands, implying that popular brands thrive while less favored ones fade away, thus creating an ostensibly efficient market.
How Free Are We Really?
The discourse around free will is not new, with theologians and philosophers debating human autonomy for centuries. However, what about the neoliberal promise of consumer choice?
Today’s shopping environments are saturated with labels boasting 100% recyclability, and the shift from plastic bags to 30p paper alternatives suggests an increase in eco-friendly options. This scenario implies that we bear responsibility for selecting products that reduce our carbon footprints, leading to the eventual phasing out of environmentally harmful goods. Is this truly how it works—the survival of the fittest?
A prevalent marketing strategy is greenwashing, aptly defined by the NRDC as making deceptive claims about a product's environmental benefits.
Coca-Cola stands out as a leading example of this practice, having marketed its products as being made from 100% recycled plastics since 2021. While consumers may feel inclined to choose Coca-Cola over other brands to mitigate carbon emissions, the company has consistently ranked as the top producer of plastic waste, simultaneously depleting water supplies in communities facing scarcity. For instance, a Channel 4 documentary highlighted that Coca-Cola’s bottling plant in Malawi utilizes between 1,000 to 2,000 cubic meters of water monthly (see the YouTube link above).
Often, consumer options boil down to selecting the lesser of two evils. This decision hinges on how well a brand can market itself as a responsible choice. By appealing to consumers' ethical sensibilities, Coca-Cola manages to maintain its reputation despite being a major polluter. A 2023 survey found that 62% of 2,414 American adults regularly seek sustainable products, yet Coca-Cola has set a new record as the #1 plastic polluter, with a staggering 33,820 tons of waste—its highest count since the initiative began.
Changing Whose Carbon Footprint?
We frequently hear advice like “bike to work,” “adopt a vegan diet,” or “reduce consumption” as solutions for climate change. The global shame surrounding improper recycling is palpable. But are these lifestyle adjustments truly effective or even feasible on a large scale? Many developing countries lack pedestrian-friendly infrastructure and public transport options, forcing individuals to rely on cars for efficient travel. This lack of access to greener transportation often correlates with urban poverty. Data from 2019 indicates that only half of the world’s urban populace can conveniently access public transport. Furthermore, a 2021 study revealed that 71.6% of low-income workers in the USA primarily use personal vehicles.
A UN report from 2022 stated that over 1 billion individuals live in slums and informal settlements, facing severe deprivation. Ironically, many of these individuals understand the concepts of 'reuse' and 'recycle' far better than Western consumers preoccupied with their carbon footprints.
The Meat of the Matter
Wealthier nations dominate global meat consumption, with the USA and Australia averaging over 120 kg of meat per person in 2020. Given the growing availability of vegan options, advocating for reduced meat consumption in affluent countries is not unreasonable. Animal agriculture contributes 11% to 17% of global carbon emissions, according to the Breakthrough Institute.
Yet, rather than holding the meat industry accountable for intensive farming and fishing practices, the onus is placed back on individuals to alter their behaviors. Although a rise in veganism may increase the demand for plant-based products, significant reductions in carbon emissions from animal agriculture require government intervention, such as taxation of the meat industry. Currently, analysis by The Guardian indicates that livestock farmers in the EU receive 1,200 times more public funding than plant-based alternatives, while in the US, this figure is 800 times greater.
The suggestion to “buy less stuff” can be quite patronizing, especially for those living paycheck to paycheck, who aren’t indulging in extravagant shopping sprees or private jets. Such views ignore the plight of working-class individuals employed in factories that discharge illegal pollutants while earning meager wages. Until these class disparities are addressed, rising temperatures will persist.
So What Can We Do?
It is beneficial to contemplate how personal actions contribute to emissions and strive for achievable goals to mitigate them. However, individual efforts alone will not result in a significant decrease in global carbon emissions. Beyond lifestyle changes, we must exert political pressure on our governments to adopt effective climate strategies and cease funding climate-damaging industries. Only through political action—how we vote—can we halt destructive projects and promote renewable energy.
Exceeding the Paris Agreement's 2-degree limit would lead to increased natural disasters and water insecurity, disproportionately impacting vulnerable communities. The next time you fret over your carbon footprint, consider the footprints of the top 100 corporations. Recall that BP advertisement: they shifted the blame, and we were all deceived. While it's important to act responsibly as consumers, don’t delude yourself into believing that these actions alone will 'save the world.'