Reckoning with the looming ecological catastrophe is an ongoing battle, but something we too often go about alone. A recent climate report indicates that while progress has been made, changes are falling short of the goal to keep warming under 1.5 degrees Celsius, emphasizing the need for aggressive decarbonization efforts.
In an attempt to convince people that immediate change is achievable, mainstream environmentalism has twisted the rhetoric of climate change toward the individual: “do your part;” “limit your consumption;” “buy reusable straws!” While this language may motivate some people to live a greener lifestyle, it perversely presents the climate crisis as a problem that can only be solved if the individual does their best. If you buy organic produce, drive a Prius and don’t turn on your AC during the summer, you can comfort yourself with the knowledge that you are not a part of the problem.
More importantly, however, this individualistic rhetoric distracts us from the reality of the crisis: only widespread mobilization can address climate change. Convincing people to change their consumption habits is not an effective blueprint for reform. It may reduce the carbon footprint of certain populations — especially the wealthy — but still fails to hold the true culprit accountable: the fossil fuel industry Prominent think tanks like The Brookings Institution support this lifestyle strategy, which places the burden onto the consumer rather than on the systems, institutions and corporations which continue to utilize fossil fuels for the production of energy and goods.
Many environmentalists endorse lifestyle-focused reforms. The UK-based Take the Jump Campaign outlines six changes people can make to their behaviors to reduce their net impact on the world, one of them being to buy no more than three new items of clothing per year. While this can be a commendable choice, it distracts from the clothing manufacturers themselves. Prominent clothing companies like Urban Outfitters, H&M and Nike routinely burn and destroy unsold merchandise to maintain their prestige and illusion of scarcity. Yes, adjusting how and where we spend our money is important, but it pales in comparison to the greed and complete disregard for the health of the environment that is perpetuated by so many industries.
Individualizing our approaches to climate change is not only illogical, but also a lie propagated by the fossil fuel industry itself. In 2004, British Petroleum (BP), with the help of top-dollar marketing consultants, launched a $100 million ad campaign to create the idea of a personal “carbon footprint.” In doing so, they twisted the language of the climate crisis to focus on the habits of the consumer entirely. More recently, BP unveiled a carbon calculator function on their website so people could see how their actions contributed to climate change, thus convincing them that their behavior is the problem, not the companies who are drilling into the Earth for highly polluting fuels.
Corporate propaganda campaigns like BP’s have been incredibly successful. Many people are fixating on sustainability, and how they should be more green. This reasoning is the result of a free-market mindset which views the consumer as the driving force of pollution, rather than the companies who produce their goods. By this logic, billions of consumers and their daily choices cause climate change; if people were to simply avoid driving gas-powered cars and buying cheap plastic, the market would adapt to reflect their preferences.
Not only does this glorified notion of a people-driven market defy the money-loving logic of capitalism, but climate-conscious alternatives are not an option for many people. Millions of working class people are forced to choose the most affordable option, which is almost never green. People default to purchasing used, inefficient cars, plastic-packaged food and non-organic produce because they are the goods they can afford. Consumer-oriented climate rhetoric vilifies people for living within their means and distracts from the fact that such products are many people’s only option because our economic system protects capital, not the environment.
Take the fertilizer industry. The production of ammonia-based fertilizers accounts for more than 20% of all agricultural emissions. The industry relies heavily on polluting natural gasses for a cheap source of hydrogen, even though greener, but more expensive, alternatives have existed for some time. Nutrien, one of the world’s largest producers of these fertilizers, reported over $1 billion in profits in 2021. On top of this, farmers, who are increasingly dependent on fertilizers due to the deterioration of cropland, continue to pay high prices for fertilizers while companies’ profits soar. Making an adjustment to climate-conscious solutions is well within their means, but such a change will not occur organically within a system that prioritizes value before all else.
Motivating individual change detracts from efforts to mobilize collective action and leaves out those who do not have the economic freedom to alter their lifestyle in a performance of environmental virtue signaling. When people frame climate change as an issue that each of us can impact individually, it limits the time, attention and emphasis we place on organizing our communities. Strong, effective regulatory action is necessary to mitigate the climate crisis, but that action can only occur when we shift our focus away from ourselves, and toward the corporations which profit from ecological destruction.
Carson Kindred (23Ox, 25C) is from Minneapolis, Minnesota.
