To some, the scale of the climate crisis can seem insurmountable. To others, it is a distant and abstract problem which pales in comparison to daily stresses. Both of these outlooks paralyse climate action on the individual level, making the personal sacrifice involved seem extortionate for the minimal and intangible result. One person going vegetarian, or not taking a flight, is not going to prevent headlines from telling us we are doomed. And it certainly won’t stop others from indulging in those things, and enjoying themselves while they do so.
It is notable that the concept of the individual ‘carbon footprint’ - the amount of greenhouse gases emitted by a person’s activities - was popularised in a marketing campaign by BP, apparently to detract from their own glaring culpability for pollution by placing the onus to change onto the consumer.
Another example of climate action being thrust upon consumers is the ban on plastic straws. When Mcdonalds, Starbucks and others announced their decision to phase them out in 2018 and 2019, it was certainly step in the right direction in terms of reducing plastic use, especially given that plastic straws have a habit of evading filters and ending up in oceans. Yet, it is also true that plastic straws were a low-hanging fruit, conspicuously public-facing but only representing a tiny fraction of the plastics used by global food chains.
Limited environmental initiatives like these are not only inadequate, they have also been accused of providing false hope that climate change can be tackled with easy tweaks, when in reality a revolution is needed. Large corporations who have reached their status through ruthlessly and relentlessly pursuing profit should not be expected to act altruistically. And while many may attempt to consume from them responsibly, purchasing decisions are made difficult by greenwashing and financial pressures.
In many cases, political pressure is a more effective outlet for individual climate action. An obvious and stark example of this is the 2024 US presidential election - Harris represented steady if somewhat lukewarm environmental promises, while Trump actively ignores and derides the problem represented by climate change.
The most effective political pressure could better enable individual climate action through purchasing decisions. Some environmental technology, such as carbon capture, has been accused of delaying change by being overestimated as a future solution. Other green devices, though, are available here and now, and have huge potential to cut emissions when promoted through government subsidies. Heat pumps, for example, use small amounts of electricity to move heat from outdoors to in, heating buildings much more efficiently than gas boilers. The UK government currently provides £7500 to homeowners to help with costs of installing heat pumps; if the uptake becomes more widespread, the nearly 20% of carbon emissions which currently come from heating homes could be drastically reduced.
The impetus for individual climate action comes from an accurate appraisal of the crisis as severe and immediate, but not unassailable. Avoiding individual responsibility is the easiest option, but making informed political and purchasing decisions can have a real impact without sacrificing quality of life.