Introduction

Climate change is a well-recognized threat to the wellbeing of humans and nonhumans alike, but tackling this problem does not seem to have a clear-cut solution. Ethically speaking, it is important for individuals to reduce their personal carbon emissions to a sustainable level to prevent additional climate change damages. A major objection to this idea is that each individual contributes trivially to carbon emissions, and that institutions such as corporations and governments bear the responsibility to reduce carbon emissions. Though it is true that institutions are responsible for emitting a majority of greenhouse gases, as beneficiaries of these corporations and governments each individual has a responsibility to limit their usage of products that contribute to greenhouse gas emissions. Because individuals benefit from carbon emissions at the expense of other individuals around the globe, it is ethically imperative that individuals act for the collective wellbeing of global humanity. Consumer habits have been clearly linked to environmental degradation, but social influences have shown the effectiveness of collective consumer action on reducing emissions and waste. Though it is unrealistic to require every individual to lower their carbon emissions substantially, collective action with less substantial lifestyle changes can contribute to slowing and stopping climate change.

Climate Change as and Ethical Issue

Though many people consider climate change to be an ethical catastrophe because of the destruction of animal habitats and wilderness, others may not consider this as ethically important. For that reason, we must consider the affect that climate change has on humans, which most people can agree deserve ethical consideration. Climate change affects people all around the world, but the people that it affects most are the communities that are contributing the least to climate change. This is the notion of “skewed vulnerabilities” described by Dr. Stephen Gardiner in “Ethics and Global Climate Change.”1 The people who benefit from greenhouse gas emissions are largely consumers in developed countries. The cost of these emissions is then passed to vulnerable communities in developing countries, who are negatively impacted by the changing climate. These communities are vulnerable for several reasons including dependence on agriculture, lack of technology for adapting to climate change, and geographic regions that are susceptible to climate change effects. Passing on the damages of benefiting from consumption of products that contribute to climate change is an ethical issue because it affects other people’s well-being, and those affected tend to be the least responsible for these damages. Not only does Dr. Gardiner discuss the issue of skewed vulnerabilities, but he also discusses the intergenerational effects of current and past greenhouse gas emissions. As a whole, we are largely aware of the fact that greenhouse gases remain in the atmosphere for a substantial amount of time, contributing to global warming for hundreds of years. So, just as people in the past have emitted large amounts of greenhouse gases which have affected the climate today, emissions of today have consequences for future generations of people. The ethical consideration of future generations of people who have yet to be born is unclear. However, our current generations are seeing an increase in wildfires, hurricanes, drought, and food scarcity due to climate change. It seems quite unfair to the current generations that these issues were brought upon them by the irresponsible emissions of the previous generations. Therefore, we expect that the future generations will feel similarly about our current generations if we continue to keep polluting unsustainably. Thus, having been in the likely shoes of the future generations, we can see how it is an ethical issue to consider the future effects of our emissions. Having established that climate change is an ethical issue, it is imperative that individuals do their best to remain ethical in their consumption habits and lifestyle. Because an individual’s consumption habits and lifestyle can affect vulnerable communities around the world and future generations of people, it is a matter of moral responsibility that individuals attempt to decrease their environmental impact by lowering personal carbon emissions to a sustainable level.

The Inconsequentialism Objection

A prevalent objection to the notion that it is an individual’s responsibility to alter their lifestyle to decrease their personal carbon emissions is inconsequentialism. Inconsequentialism in regard to climate change is the idea that a single person’s contribution to climate change is so trivial that it is not important for individuals to alter their lifestyle to decrease carbon emissions. This is paired with the claim that the responsibility of decreasing carbon emissions lies with companies, politicians, governments, and other large institutions. Martin Lukacs compares decreasing one’s individual carbon emissions to flapping towels at a burning house or bringing a flyswatter to a gunfight.2 He claims that because an individual’s carbon emissions are so trivial compared to global climate change, it is unimportant to emphasize the need for individuals to alter their lifestyle to be sustainable. Lukacs claims that a more effective method to combat climate change would be to “take railways and utilities and energy grids back into public control; regulate corporations to phase out fossil fuels; and raise taxes to pay for massive investment in climate-ready infrastructure and renewable energy.” Lukacs resonates with this inconsequentialism school of thought because he believes that individuals do not have much ability to reduce carbon emissions through lifestyle changes, but large-scale movements through government and policy could be effective at reducing emissions. David Wallace-Wells also discusses this inconsequentialism idea, saying that “People should try to live by their own values, about climate as with everything else, but the effects of individual lifestyle choices are ultimately trivial compared with what politics can achieve.”3 Wallace-Wells claims that the purpose of politics is to enact more change than is possible as individuals, and thus it is more important to rely on political and institutional action than the focus on individual contributions to emissions. The inconsequentialism objection is not that we should not care about emissions and climate change, but rather that individual action is little to no effect in reducing emissions, so it is not worth pursuing. Rather, pursuing change through political and institutional change should be our only focus.

Defense: Impact of Consumers on the Environment

Though I do agree with Lukacs and Wallace-Wells that pursuing political and institutional change is likely an effective way to address global emissions, I think that the inconsequentialism claim ignores the impact of many individuals taking collective action. Yes, it is true that a single person’s contributions to climate change are trivial, but shifts in consumption habits of groups of people have been shown to be effective in reducing emissions and waste. In their study Consumerism and Environment, Orecchia and Zoppoli claim that “most environmental degradation can be traced to the behavior of consumers either directly, through activities like the disposal of garbage or the use of cars, or indirectly through the production activities undertaken to satisfy them.”4 Thus, we can see that, even though companies are allowed to pollute due to irresponsible policy, the consumers are really the ones driving the pollution. However, consumer habits have been shown to be affected by social influences on the individual. In the Harvard Business Review’s article, the Elusive Green Consumer, the authors discuss how consumer habits can be changed by social influences.5 Among several examples, they reported that “A major predictor of whether people will install solar panels is whether their close-by neighbors have done so. And, in perhaps the most dramatic finding, telling university students that other commuters were ditching their cars in favor of more-sustainable modes of transportation (such as cycling) led them to use sustainable transport five times as often as did those who were simply given information about alternatives.” Even though one individual having solar panels on their roof or taking the bus likely won’t make a difference in the climate, by doing so an individual can contribute to the social influences that lead to others adopting similar sustainable habits. This can lead to changes in overall consumer habits, which we have seen are directly linked to environmental degradation. David Wallace-Wells says that “We have a tendency to wait for others to act, rather than acting ourselves.”3 This is the exact reason why individual responsibility is important. By acting in a sustainable manner, we strengthen the social influences for developing sustainable lifestyles and lead to larger scale changes in community consumption habits. Though pursuing change through institutional reform is important and effective, we should not dismiss the impact that individual responsibility can have in shaping consumer habits and thus environmental impact.

Conclusion

Climate change is surely an ethical issue, as the people benefiting from excessive emissions pass on the damages to vulnerable communities and future generations. Many have argued that individual responsibility is not important, as an individual’s contribution to climate change is trivial. However, I have presented support that individual action can add to social influences that can affect consumer habits and ultimately environmental impact.

References

  1. Gardiner, S. M. & Hartzell-Nichols, L. (2012) Ethics and Global Climate Change. Nature Education Knowledge 3(10):5
  2. Lukacs, Martin. “Neoliberalism Has Conned Us into Fighting Climate Change as Individuals.” The Guardian, Guardian News and Media, 17 July 2017.
  3. Wallace-wells, David. “Time to Panic.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 16 Feb. 2019.
  4. Orecchia, Carlo and Zoppoli, Pietro, Consumerism and Environment: Does Consumption Behaviour Affect Environmental Quality? (November 1, 2007). CEIS Working Paper No. 261.
  5. White, Katherine, et al. “The Elusive Green Consumer.” Harvard Business Review, 1 June 2020.