In the name of climate #1: why it's so wrong to depersonalize the environmental issue

Choosing sustainable food products, taking fewer planes or installing solar panels are elements of environmentalism in daily and individual actions also known as “performative environmentalism” and is often underestimated by academics and activists, so the only action with concrete consequences on the fight against climate change is that of governments and international organisations. According to this thesis, focusing on people’s duties and individual consumer choices, instead of those of governments and large multinationals, would be counterproductive.

For Annie Lowrey, who interviewed several experts in the Atlantic, it seems the opposite is true: the American journalist does not believe that daily and individual environmentalism can have negative effects, because the sustainable choices of individuals, however small and insignificant, can lead to important political decisions; in actual fact, they lead to imitation and collective habits, allowing for more environmentally-orientated societies and economies with the introduction of laws to such effect.

Although real change does still come through government action - Lowrey does not question this, in line with the narrative of contemporary environmentalism - change through individual behaviour remains a “false debate”, says NASA climate scientist Peter Kalmus. A recent study revealed that one house installing solar panels made it more probable for someone else to do so in the same area; similarly, a study on a sample of 6,000 people reports that at least one in five people claim to have reduced the number of planes they take for environmental reasons, in the name of so-called flight shame: the stigma (although still somewhat niche) associated with low cost flights that can be replaced with trains. A 5 per cent commitment from Americans would be enough to reduce carbon dioxide emissions by 600 million tonnes per year, concludes Brett Jenks, President and CEO of the environmental NGO Rare: “It would be one of the foremost events in the history of mankind, in terms of greenhouse gas emissions”.

Political action from governments would also be facilitated via widespread practices and sustainable individual behaviour. According to Lowrey, legislation works better when it reflects what people are doing or starting to do. Hence, if more people had solar panels or an electric car, it would be easier to introduce laws to encourage them; likewise, reducing the use of disposable plastic bottles will tend to be easier if - as seems to be the case - more and more people get used to using a reusable water bottle.

Some argue the opposite, posing the hypothesis that environmental efforts by citizens can be an excuse for governments not to act; this finds contradiction in several examples, such as the laws on fur production, introduced amid widespread hostility to the practice. Overall, for Lowrey, depersonalising issues relating to the environment and climate change is wrong, because it fails to take into account that social change is built on individual practices, which themselves start with the commitment of individuals and accumulate to become collective trends.