Who Cares About Your Carbon Footprint?
The story of how BP’s ‘carbon footprint’ advert spawned a wave of climate action solutions centering around individual consumption, while letting the biggest climate offenders off scot-free.
It is the year 2005. BP, one of the biggest oil companies in the world, just released an advertisement asking regular people on the streets the size of their carbon footprint. As part of the ad campaign, BP created the first online carbon footprint calculator, popularising the term carbon footprint. In the ad, BP claimed that they planned to reduce carbon emissions by 4 million tonnes over four years and implied to achieve this goal, we, as a collective, must reduce our emissions.
The plea for shared responsibility for the climate crisis sparked outrage since, around the same period the advert aired, the same oil company was at the centre of multiple lawsuits. The lawsuits ranged from dumping hazardous oil on the Alaska North Slopes (up to 267 thousand gallons — far more than you would ever ‘emit’ in your lifetime) to accusations of releasing illegal air pollutants over an 8 year period. But the ad worked. The legacy of BP’s ‘carbon footprint’ brainchild spawned a wave of climate action solutions centering around individual consumption, while letting the biggest climate offenders off scot-free.
To quote David Wallace-Wells from 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 anyway?
Neoliberalism, popularised in the 1980s under global leaders such as Reagen and Thatcher, is defined as a faith in free market capitalism to distribute societal resources efficiently and fairly. The free market, proposed by economist Friedrich Hayek, is when supply and demand eventually meet at an equilibrium point when the market is left on its own i.e., without government regulations.
Neoliberalism, in short, gives complete power to the capital class to manage their businesses how they see fit without pressure from governments or unions. Reducing government involvement allows the capital class to get away with environmental violations as, shockingly, CEOs’ and businessmen’s interests are in their pockets. The neoliberal ideology claims that consumers are free to choose what products and brands to buy from. Consequently, the popular brands would grow while less popular brands would sizzle out, making the free market efficient as only companies that supposedly meet the people’s needs would be rewarded.
How free are we exactly?
The idea of free will is not new, as theologians and philosophers have argued whether humans can make choices independently for centuries — but what about neoliberal promises of consumer free will?
Shopping aisles nowadays are bombarded with 100% recyclable stickers, and plastic shopping bags are being replaced by a 30p paper bag. It appears that, recently, we have been presented with more environmentally friendly alternatives, so it should follow that we are responsible for picking the right products to limit our carbon emissions. The ‘environmentally unfriendly’ products would phase out as they do not meet the demands of the people group, and then global emissions would decrease. That is how it works right, the survival of the fittest?
A marketing technique companies seem to favour is greenwashing. Greenwashing is defined perfectly by the NRDC as ‘the act of making false or misleading statements about the environmental benefits of a product or practice’.
One of the guiltiest offenders of greenwashing is Coca-Cola, which since 2021 has been marketing its products as made from 100% recycled plastics. Consumers may feel compelled to buy from Coca-Cola in opposition to other brands to reduce carbon emissions. Yet, Coca-Cola tops the chart yearly for producing the most plastic waste while also depriving water from water-scarce communities in production. For instance, Channel 4’s documentary on Coca-Cola revealed that 1–2 thousand cubic metres are used monthly by Coke’s bottling plant in Malawi (see the YouTube link below).
Most of the time, consumer choices are limited to picking the lesser evil. The lesser evil brand depends on its ability to favourably present itself to the masses. This marketing technique tugs on consumers’ virtuous heartstrings to pick Coca-Cola over other big polluting brands based on ethics. A highly lucrative ploy, as a 2023 survey completed by 2414 American adults revealed that 62% of respondents claimed they always or often seek to buy sustainable products. The Coca-Cola Company maintains its position as the #1 top polluter for the sixth consecutive year, setting a new record with a total plastic waste count of 33,820 — the highest tally for the company since the project’s inception. Source: breakfreefromplastic
Changing Whose Carbon Footprint?
We have all heard the rhetoric “walk or cycle to work”, “go vegan” or “buy less stuff” to tackle climate change. The shame of putting plastic bottles in the wrong recycling bin is international. Are these lifestyle changes efficient or even a possible globally? Pavements being virtually non-existent in many developing nations, lack of public transport, or inadequate infrastructure are why many people globally opt for driving as the most effective way to travel. Lack of accessibility to greener transportation correlates with urban poverty. Only half the world’s urban population has convenient access to public transportation, according to 2019 data from 610 cities in 95 countries. Furthermore, a 2021 study revealed that 71.6% of workers below the poverty line in the USA use personal vehicles i.e. driving.
According to a UN report in 2022, over 1 billion people globally reside in slums and informal settlements and are subjected to the worst forms of deprivation and marginalization. Yet many of whom know the true meaning of ‘reuse and recycle’ far better than the Western consumers concerned about the carbon footprint.
The Meat of the Matter
As for going vegan, wealthier nations top the chart for meat consumption since the USA and Australia consumed more than 120kg of meat per capita in 2020. With more vegan options incorporated into menus and supermarkets, a call to reduce meat consumption or eliminate meat in wealthier nations is not unreasonable. Carbon emissions by animal production and livestock account for 11%- 17% of global carbon emissions, according to the Breakthrough Institute.
But yet again, instead of the meat industry being held accountable for intense farming practices and fishing, the burden is placed on the people again to change their behavior. Although an increase in veganism increases the demand for plant-based production, it is up to government policies and taxing of the meat industry to ensure a substantial reduction in carbon emissions by animal production. Or at the very least removing generous subsidies: analysis by the Guardian finds that livestock farmers in the EU received 1,200 times more public funding than plant-based meat or cultivated meat groups. In the US, the animal farmers got 800 times more public funding.
And as for “buying less stuff”, I find that stance, to be frank, quite insulting as a person living paycheck to paycheck is not going on massive clothing hauls worth hundreds of pounds or constantly riding a private jet. It is insulting to the working-class people who work in the factories that release illegal pollutants for measly pay. As long as this class discrepancy remains unaddressed, temperature rises will not decline.
So what can we do?
It is good to reflect on how your actions may contribute to emissions and seek to implement realistic goals to render it. That’s a great thing, even. Nonetheless, individual change will not lead to a substantial decrease in global carbon emissions. On top of lifestyle changes, we must apply political pressure on our governments to implement effective climate strategies and stop aiding subsidies to climate destroyers. Only politics, and how you vote, can stop the pipelines and coal mines, and subsidise renewable energy.
An increase above the Paris Agreement of 2 degrees would create a world of increased natural disasters and water insecurity, which disproportionately affects the most vulnerable communities. Next time you worry about your carbon footprint, ask yourself what the carbon footprints of the top 100 biggest companies are. And think of that BP ad. They shifted the blame — and we all fell for it. Do the right thing as a consumer, of course — but don’t kid yourself into thinking you are ‘saving the world’ by doing it.
