No, the fate of the planet does not rest on you, the individual’s shoulders
A rebuttal of consumer-based environmentalism
This Earth Day, we at the Virginia Youth Climate Cooperative’s Science Research Team want to challenge some commonly-held beliefs about individuals’ role in saving the planet from the perils of climate change.
From childhood, many of us are told that we have the power to save the planet just by reducing, reusing, and recycling, and that it is up to us to save the planet. Environmental problems are, after all, the fault of certain people — litterers, people who leave the faucet on while they brush their teeth, etc. — who are apathetic and/or evil.
Of course, I’m exaggerating a little bit. But still, it is drilled into many of us that we as individuals can save the planet as long as we turn off the lights when leaving a room, buy organic or vegan food, and buy clothes from only the most sustainable brands.
I’m not saying these aren’t good things. Of course, conserving water and power, and not littering are helpful, and if feasible, buying and eating sustainably is wonderful. However, not only are some of the individually-centered solutions inaccessible to many, but this approach ignores the outsized influence of both corporations and governments. The reality is that no amount of meatless mondays will save us from the effects of climate change.
Why am I targeting corporations, you ask? According to a 2017 report, 100 companies are responsible for 71% of global emissions. On the other hand, the poorest half of the population — approximately 3.8 billion people — are responsible for only 10%.
The fifteen biggest American food and beverage companies emit more greenhouse gases than the entire country of Australia. I’m not targeting them; rather, a corporation-focused discussion is merely proportional to their impact. Not only have they had an outsized impact on our planet’s fate, but they’ve known about their impact far longer than the general public.
According to The Guardian, “by the late 1960s, Shell’s internal documents warned air pollution may, in extreme situations, be deleterious to health.” Most notoriously, perhaps, Exxon (now Exxon-Mobil) had a working understanding of their effect on the climate in 1977, over a decade before it entered the public consciousness. At the time, James Black, a senior scientist at Exxon, said:
“In the first place, there is general scientific agreement that the most likely manner in which mankind is influencing the global climate is through carbon dioxide release from the burning of fossil fuels.”
Despite this, Exxon-Mobil spent $16 million dollars between 1998 and 2005 funding groups that spread misinformation about climate science. Though Exxon-Mobil and other petroleum companies now publicly acknowledge climate change, and advertise projects like their algal biofuel campaign, they continue to fund climate-denying politicians, lobbying groups, and trade associations.
This deception is one example of greenwashing, defined as “a form of deceptive marketing in which a company, product, or business practice is falsely or excessively promoted as being environmentally friendly.”
The advertised 10,000-barrel algal biofuel campaign not only represents 0.2% of Exxon-Mobil’s refinery capacity, but also less than 0.5% of their revenue. They’re not actually investing in clean energy because they understand climate change; they’re investing the bare minimum because they understand that, increasingly, consumers like you both understand and care about climate change.
Greenwashing isn’t exclusive to fossil fuel companies. While advertising its low-emissions vehicles, Volkswagen was fitting its vehicles with ‘defeat devices,’ software that could detect when it was being emissions-tested and alter performance accordingly. As a result, instead of actually having low emissions, vehicles were emitting up to 40 times the limit for nitrogen oxide pollutants in the United States.
Multiple fast fashion brands, including Forever 21, H&M, and Zara, have also been accused of greenwashing. H&M’s Conscious Collection, for example, is advertised with vague, unsubstantiated claims of sustainability and environmentally-friendly production. Additionally, corporations like Procter & Gamble, which advertises its ostensibly-ambitious goal of a 50% reduction in emissions, only applies to 2% of the corporation’s estimated emissions.
Thanks to greenwashing, even good-intentioned individuals attempting to make a difference with their wallets can be duped into supporting polluters.
The government and its policies also have a role to play in these high emissions. The United States’ military, the largest in the world, is one of the world’s largest polluters. In 2017, the military emitted 59 million tonnes of carbon dioxide, which is more than that of entire countries like Morocco, Peru, Hungary, and New Zealand. Domestically, the United States spends ten times more on fossil fuels, a direct contributor to climate change, than on education.
Without government subsidies, half of future American oil production would not be profitable. Furthermore, government regulation is the only thing protecting half of American coal plants from bankruptcy. Because of subsidies and regulations, consumers are unable to meaningfully affect fossil fuel companies’ viability with their wallets.
Even Virginia’s government has engaged in its own brand of greenwashing. The Virginia Clean Economy Act, signed into law by Governor Northam in 2020, has been celebrated for setting a 100% renewable electricity target by 2050 — however, this ignores the fact that electricity is only about a fifth of total Virginian energy consumption, and that significant further action is needed.
This isn’t to say that individual action is worthless, corporations and governments having a far greater influence on emissions doesn’t mean that we should all give up. Practicing individual environmental stewardship is still valuable, just know that the fate of the world does not depend on you eating vegan or accidentally leaving a light on.
Every little bit helps, but little bits are not enough to confront the immense problems we face as a society and as a species. The little bits that are individual stewardship are also not important enough to justify shaming those who buy fast fashion or eat unsustainably, especially because this is often a result of one’s socioeconomic circumstances. In addition to stewardship, individual action should include pressuring corporations and governments to change their unsustainable practices and make way for the creation of a more sustainable society.
We hope that this knowledge takes a bit of pressure off of your shoulders and empowers you to be a more informed (and therefore more effective) individual environmental steward. Ultimately, that really is our main goal, especially considering the teach-ins that inspired Earth Day in the first place. On that note, happy Earth Day from the Science Research Team!
Written by Science Research Director Lalitha Aiyar and Science Research Deputy & incoming Director Noya Vattathara
