top of page
Writer's picturePeder Tellefsdal

What's the Role of the Individual in Saving the Planet?



Recently, I had a conversation with a friend about the role of the individual in saving the planet. How much should we emphasize the role of individual everyday choices in creating a sustainable future?


My friend told me about their domestic arguments about whether they could fly on their next vacation, and the struggle to get the kindergarten to stop serving red meat to their kids.


My friend told me about all the feelings of guilt, and how thinking of sustainability was a constant reminder of her shortcomings.


I totally understand the feeling. I think many of us relate to this feeling of wanting to contribute to saving the planet.


I do my best, and still, my carbon footprint is depressing

I drive an electric car and try not to waste food. I save energy in my house and work in an environmentally friendly agency. Still, the carbon footprint calculators tell me my negative effect on the environment is through the roof.


Try it yourself!


Why? Because I live in a carbon-infused economy.


Stanford University’s Social Innovation Review published an article showing our society is so carbon-infused that even homeless people have an unsustainably large carbon footprint.

Most people are trying to do their best

No surprise, then, when it comes to climate change, we feel helpless. We’re told that essential aspects of our lives - driving to work or the doctor, feeding our kids, or going on vacation with our family - are bad.


But we can’t envision how to live otherwise. Or even how to exist otherwise. So when we’re shamed, we defend ourselves because we feel we have no other option. We are just doing our best to get by.


The belief that this enormous, existential problem could have been fixed if we had just tweaked our consumptive habits is not only preposterous; but dangerous.


It turns environmentalism into an individual choice defined as sin or virtue, convicting those who don’t or can’t uphold these ethics.


We need a system shift

At the end of the day, systemic change is the only path to climate stability. So when the conversation on sustainable consumption is about a marginal reduction of our footprint inside a fossil-fuel-based economy, we might actually weaken the political and social push for system change. Because we’re making it personal and about virtues.


A large study in Norway concluded that people put the major blame for unsustainable consumption on the authorities. To make shifts in waste disposal, energy conversation, use of public transportation, organic food, etc - people do not believe encouraging individuals to voluntarily behave in an environmentally friendly way will lead to a major shift in consumer behavior.


People know how to consume more environmentally friendly, but they are not inclined to voluntarily take on the negative consequences, such as more work, less freedom, unpleasantness, or increased costs.


Most interestingly, though, is that people are open to more regulations and interventions by the authorities to facilitate sustainable development.


(Source: The Gap Between Attitude and Behavior on environmental protection - the Case of Norway).

No one can unilaterally choose to live in a low-carbon economy. The goal is not self-purification but structural change -Leah Stokes, All we can save

We think the cure is worse than the disease

As the acknowledged climate scientist Katharine Hayhoe writes in her book Saving Us - a climate scientist’s Case for Hope and Healing in a divided world - the problem with the mainstream perception of the green future is that we think the cure is worse than the disease.


While it's important to encourage individual action, we have a habit of overemphasizing how much an individual can actually contribute to solving the massive problem of climate change.


We need to change the roots of the problem

Oil, gas, and coal have been the cheapest way to create energy, but solar, water, and wind become more affordable over time. This is a system change that allows people to reduce their carbon footprint. And it opens up a whole new world of possibilities.


Exxon forecasted global warming by 1982, predicting around 1 degree up by now. According to the Carbon Majors Report produced by the Colorado-based Climate Accountability Institute, one hundred fossil fuel companies have been responsible for emitting 70 percent of the world’s heat-trapping gasses since 1988.


And, even more tellingly, the top eight have accounted for almost 20 percent of global carbon emissions from fossil fuels and cement production since the Industrial Revolution.


Fighting windmills

There’s already an entire economic system working against the individual. Our global economy is built on fossil fuels and unsustainable energy. And people know this.


So when we tell them to sacrifice their daily comforts that they don’t believe are big enough to make a global difference, it can lead to feelings of helplessness and apathy.


What to do instead

This is where I disagree with conventional wisdom.


In response to the problem of “present bias” (we tend to prioritize immediate concerns over long-term consequences), many climate communicators focus on short-term, individual actions, like:

  • Use paper straws instead of plastic

  • Install solar panels

  • Spend hours sorting your recycling

It’s all part of the same message:


“You can save the planet today! Just one small act from you, but imagine if we all worked together? Let’s do this!”


This is just another version of the “Imagine if…” message.


Except, most people don’t believe that their small actions, however simple to achieve, will make a big enough impact to matter.


Instead of focusing on individual actions, climate communicators should focus on the more significant, systemic issues that contribute to climate change, such as the role of corporations, governments, and international organizations in promoting sustainable practices.


Accountants will save the planet!

The author of the book Six Capitals argues that accountants will eventually save the planet. In the old economic growth system, bad effects on the environment or toxic waste were called negative externalities.


And no one put a price on them. In a sustainable economy, we put a price on such activity and include it in the very logic of the growth model.


I believe we save the planet through politics, regulation, technology, dropping prices on renewable energy, and widespread knowledge of climate risk within the finance sector.


Combined, these drivers move the money where the sustainable solutions are. And then the social effect of consumer groups, word of mouth, and imitation can really take off.


Off course, individual choices matter. And consumers push sustainability to a certain degree.


However, I think we have vastly overstated the role of the individual, leaving too much of the “green shift” to a small group of people who are naturally engaged in environmental issues.


We need a broader engagement to make the green shift a reality.

 

Next week, I start a mini-series on solutions; effective climate communication and best practice!


Sign up underneath to get a weekly update on a radical new model for climate messaging and storytelling!


See you!


 

Five Messaging Mistakes Climate Communicators Make That Are Delaying the Green Shift



16 views0 comments

Recent Posts

See All

Comments


Discover How Clear Your Church's Message Truly Is

Take a FREE Self-Assessment on "How Clear is Your Church Message"This quick quiz is your key to evaluating and strengthening your church's messaging and communication. 

Self-Assessment for Church Leaders
bottom of page