In February 1977, President Jimmy Carter donned a cardigan and urged Americans to conserve energy by turning down their thermostats. This call to individual action was a response to the oil crisis gripping the 1970s. Fast forward to the present, and the focus has shifted to how individual behaviors can combat the pressing issue of climate change.
It's undeniable that personal behavior change is a powerful tool against climate change. Scholars have long touted the potential of individual actions in reducing energy consumption, as highlighted by Gerald T. Gardner and Paul C. Stern's 2008 article on effective energy-saving behaviors. Later, Kim Nicholas and colleagues expanded on this work, listing four impactful behaviors: having fewer children, living car-free, avoiding air travel, and adopting a plant-based diet.
However, the effectiveness of these actions varies by country, influenced by their distinct political and economic systems. Take Norway, for instance. Virtually all its electricity (92% in 2022) comes from renewable hydropower. The Norwegian government has promoted electric vehicles (EVs) through a taxation system that makes EVs competitively priced compared to fossil fuel-powered cars. This policy has been successful; in 2022, a staggering 79% of new passenger cars sold in Norway were EVs.
Yet, these incentives only work in countries powered by clean energy. In the United States, where fossil fuels dominate electricity generation (60.2% in 2022), switching to EVs is less impactful. Most EVs there are charged by fossil fuel-powered grids, reducing their net benefit. Clearly, while individual actions are essential, they are insufficient without systemic changes in energy and transportation infrastructure.
The narrative discomfortingly shifts when we look at how powerful interests have used individual responsibility rhetoric as a distraction. Fossil fuel companies have promoted the idea of the 'carbon footprint' to focus attention on personal actions rather than their significant contributions to carbon emissions. This idea, famously unpacked by Mark Kaufman in 2020, diverts public efforts from systemic changes to individual adjustments like recycling or carpooling.
Amy Westervelt emphasized this in Rolling Stone: 'Big Oil is trying to make climate your problem to solve. Don't let them.' The inescapable fact is that much of our carbon consumption is embedded in our societal systems. A stark example is a study by an MIT class calculating the carbon footprint of a homeless person, which surpassed the global average despite their minimalistic lifestyle. This illustrates how deeply industrialization locks carbon consumption into our lives.
Let’s not dismiss individual actions entirely. Small lifestyle changes—like biking to work, using reusable coffee cups, and eating organic—do add up. They save energy, influence corporate decisions, and inspire others to follow suit. Yet, without government intervention, these changes achieve limited success. Norway serves as a prime example: despite its clean energy, shifting individual consumption patterns remains a monumental challenge. Government policies, not individual choices, have driven Norway's success in reducing emissions.
Climate change is a systemic issue requiring collective action from institutions globally. Significant portions of individual carbon footprints come from shared public services like infrastructure and healthcare, which are beyond personal control. Similarly, business strategies, governmental policies, and socio-economic conditions shape our individual choices. For example, a lack of public transport or availability of organic food hampers our ability to make green choices.
This framing of individual responsibility aligns with neoliberal ideologies, which anchor climate action as personal lifestyle choices, minimizing the role of political activism. While it’s empowering to believe in the impact of one's actions, it unfairly shifts the burden away from those truly capable of enacting large-scale change—corporations and governments.
Addressing climate change thus comes back to mobilizing ordinary individuals to demand systemic changes. This involves informing oneself, voting consciously, engaging in local debates, and pressuring businesses and politicians. Effective activism can range from signing petitions and protesting, to campaigning for institutional changes within universities and workplaces.
The goal is to progress to a stage where sustainable living is accessible and convenient for all, driven by systemic support. Remember, sustainable individual choices are vital, but the lion's share of responsibility lies with the masses pushing for systemic change. Only then can we hope to mitigate climate change's dire consequences.
