The Limits of Individual Action for Tackling Climate Change:
theories on systemic change and possible alternative sustainable futures
Isis Bliah
Word Count: 2000
Abstract
This report finds it base within three seminar sessions which were focused on understanding why individual action might not be enough in order to tackle climate change. The seminars also enabled participants to outline how to go further than simply looking at collective action as a better alternative for sustainability.
This report begins by identifying the quantitative statistical impacts that individuals have in relation to CO2 emissions, water use and waste production. Such statistics reveal that individuals’ percentage of impact stays under 12% compared to processes run by industry such as agriculture or by governments such as energy and heat generation. This report then looks at the limits of individual action from a qualitative level which shows that even if individuals have environmental values, these do not always translate into environmental action and moreover individuals across the globe experience common barriers to environmental action. Furthermore, as calls for individuals to consume green products have emerged, this report also outlines how this may be misleading and furthermore how this might render us into consumers within our current paradigm rather than citizens in a sustainable paradigm.
In the discussion, this report illustrates that neoliberalism allows for businesses to couple their economic growth with environmental degradation, and also explains that GDP, a part of neoliberalism, only accounts for goods produced and not the environmental externalities involved in that production. With debt driving GDP, it is argued that by making neoliberalism, debt and GDP obsolete, we would be tackling the issue of corporate hegemony and also provide space for the circular economy which would vastly improve product life cycles and our understandings of property. Theories on systemic change are also included in order to show that through principles such as trust, transparency, active engagement, access to knowledge, diversity, and acceptance, we may achieve the continuous transformative change needed to become a stable and sustainable society.
As uncertainties and fears increase in response to the calamitous projections of anthropogenic climate change, different systems of thought have emerged in order to tackle the issue. Notably the Environmental Citizenship movement has developed, calling for “citizen participation in climate change solutions”, placing responsibility on individuals to be informed on the drivers of climate change and to limit their consumption habits (Hawthorne and Alabaster, 1999).
Placing the burden of sustainability on individuals is problematic insofar as it instigates guilt on actors who do not, in quantitative terms, have such a wide scope for remediation. Furthermore, as Karlsson argues, it has more of a psychological benefit to individuals in terms of “personal redemption” and avoids any effective engagement with the current global context that is advancing climate change (2012). This engagement is also squandered by the emphasis on limiting and/or modifying individual consumption because all scope for “radically changing the corresponding production side” is lost (Karlsson, 2012).
The value of individual action is not being denied in this report since there is power in numbers. Instead, the main purpose of this report is to outline that individual action is simply not enough, specifically because it is based in a reality in which neoliberal values are prioritised, rending individuals into consumers with an inconsequential environmental impact relative to industry. Finally, in response to the limits of individual action, this report outlines potential alternative drivers for sustainability. It illustrates the benefits of a different global system, notably involving principles of the circular economy, and through theories on transformational change it explains the conditions needed in order to facilitate this transition into a new global paradigm.
Methodology
The methodology of this report is based on three seminar sessions. After the first two sessions, participants were required to research pre-agreed questions. Whereas the first session looked at the limits of individual action, the second session looked at future alternatives. All research is based on available evidence that was pooled together by the six participants and is both qualitative and quantitative. The qualitative evidence used consists of a review of the literature, specifically peer-reviewed journals, although it also includes grey literature. The quantitative data originates from governmental and organisation’s reports focusing on waste, water use, and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.
Results
This results section focuses on individuals’ global contributions to GHG emissions, water use and waste. The scope for individuals’ actions tends to be wider in these areas by, for example, using less transport and water as well as recycling.
In 2009, households represented 6% of the total global CO2 emissions (IEA, 2011). On the other hand, 41% of those emissions were attributed to heat and electricity controlled and provided by governments and energy companies, and 20% to industry (IEA, 2011). Moreover, 72% of annual global industrial GHG emissions since 1988 have been attributed to solely 100 major companies (CDP, 2017). Transport accounted for 23% of emissions, also giving some scope for individuals to drive less, although the proportion between commercial and freight emissions is not indicated (IEA, 2011).
In 2014, households represented 10% of global water usage, whereas agriculture contributed to 70% (UN, 2014). Interestingly, efforts in eliminating water intensive beef have been focused on individual diets rather than challenging the production process.
Global figures for waste are difficult to produce insofar as waste is not defined nor calculated in a uniformly across countries (DEFRA, 2018). However, in 2014, households in the UK accounted 12% of waste generation compared to construction, demolition and excavation (CD&E) contributing to 59% (DEFRA, 2018).
Based on these available statistics, households manifest some opportunities for reducing GHG emissions, water use and waste. Nonetheless, their impact is relatively small compared to government and industry led processes like heat and electricity or agriculture. These limits can also be analysed from a more theoretical perspective.
In her critique of the ABC policy method, Shove explains that behavioural change policies cannot achieve the best results for climate change. Despite “common motivators”, such as environmental values, individuals also have “common barriers” including those related to the Global North such as higher costs of “green” products but also those associated to the Global South like poor waste management (Shove, 2010). Moreover, according to the “value-action gap,” even if individuals do have green values this does not necessarily mean that they adjust their behaviour correspondingly (Shove, 2010). She finally argues that achieving sustainability requires the “radical unmaking of unsustainability by the parallel process of decaying the current system” whereby instead of focusing on individuals, we should be pushing for a paradigm shift including new markets, infrastructure, regulations and cultural meaning (Shove, 2010; Elzen et al., 2004).
This need for a system shift is particularly relevant when looking at green consumerism. Individuals are encouraged to buy green but the life cycle analysis (LCA) of the “green” product is not considered. Looking at electric vehicles (EVs), the product itself may not emit GHGs, but the emissions and water use during production, the type of energy used to charge the car, and the remanufacturing of parts are omitted even though these might counterbalance its sustainability (Helmers and Marx, 2012). Green consumerism is also misleading in the sense that it perpetuates the “economic rationalist” agenda whereby individuals are reduced to consumers and therefore cannot be citizens who can vote in favour of green policies and demand access to participation and information (Dryzek, 2013; Sagoff, 2008). Possibilities of questioning and demanding change in industry production methods are therefore lost and individuals remain as consumers, green or not.
Individual action is not enough for climate change mitigation because statistically households have a smaller impact, but also because such action remains in our current paradigm. Individuals are encouraged to consume less in a society which is based on consumption or they are encouraged to consume green, whereas such products have questionable benefits. Individuals remain as consumers whereas they should be encouraged to be citizens especially in a context which allows for businesses to experience economic growth at the expense of the environment (Monbiot, 2018
Discussion
Based on the results of this report, the tribulations of individual action lie in the fact that large industries and global processes have a more significant impact on climate change and in the fact that individual action is encouraged within our neoliberalist society. Therefore, this discussion will outline that systemic change is required in order to transition into a sustainable society.
Continuous Transformative Change
Systemic change requires more than reclaiming citizenship and acting collectively. Beer and colleagues illustrate that in order for change to happen, there needs to be "coordination, commitment and competence" (1990). Weick also outlines four principles which may inform change, including "(1) stay in motion, (2) have a direction, (3), look closely and update often, and (4) converse candidly" (Weick, 2000).
Continuous change involves many deep changes at a local level and these can in turn encourage transitional global scale change (Termeer et al, 2016). For this Termeer and colleagues stress the need for "psychological safety and a society which embraces non-conformity" (Boonstra, 2004; Termeer et al, 2016). This is in line with Weick’s fourth principle of candid conversation involving trust, but is also important because diversity and equality can enable “coupling”.
“Coupling” is a change accelerator which "stimulates social learning across boundaries by deliberately bringing people from different configurations into contact with each other" (Termeer et al, 2016). With trust and psychological safety coupling may be achieved faster and the transboundary aspect may help induce change on a wider-scale. Another driver of change is “sensemaking” which is understood as "recognising patterns of continuous adjustments and making them more salient through stories, framing and translation" (Termeer et al, 2016). It is in line with Beer et al.'s principles on competence because knowledge is needed to recognise patterns but also Weick’s third principle in which close attention to processes is necessary. Sensemaking is an important agent of change because it recognises that individuals must have access to information and because it promotes transparency.
Limits of the Prevailing System and Ways Forward
Having outlined how it may be possible to initiate a transformative change, it is then possible to envisage what a sustainable society might look like. The main focus of the necessary paradigm shift should centre on “delinking economic growth from rising environmental stress” (Dryzek, 2013). In order to achieve this, neoliberalism and our current economic system should become obsolete, allowing for the emergence of the “circular economy”.
Through privatisation, deregulation and free trade deals, neoliberalism has enabled corporations to pollute with little barriers (Lucaks, 2017). Businesses can against governments when environmental regulations infringe on their trade rights and they continue to receive fossil fuel subsidies (Lucaks, 2017; Carrington, 2017). Free market principles and privatisation would therefore have to be abolished in order for corporations to stop lobbying and to get public utilities like energy grids “back into public control” (Lucaks, 2017).
Neoliberalism has also allowed for our current economic system to prioritise GDP as our “primary measure of progress” (Hickel, 2016) and has also given private banks the ability to create money through debt, prohibiting governments from using money for sustainability and social justice (Mellor, 2016). GDP is a measure of growth that focuses on the production of goods and services and in doing so perpetuates the neoliberalist agenda by overlooking the “human or ecological consequences” that come as a result of producers and their production methods (Chainey, 2016).
In attempting to tackle climate change there has been a large focus on reducing GHG emissions through the dissemination of carbon, capture, utilisation and storage (CCUS), investing in renewables or improving the intermittency of wind, solar and wave power (CDP, 2017; Jacobson, 2009). However, that would tackle only the 70% of global GHG emissions which are caused by fossil fuels (Hickel, 2016). Instead the remaining 30% of emissions are caused by mass deforestation, industrial agriculture, production of cement and landfills (Hickel, 2016). These non-fossil fuel sources of GHG emissions are inherent to our consumerist society and will continue growing until GDP stops becoming country’s measure of growth (Hickel, 2016). Instead a new measure for economic growth that includes the externalities of production would be necessary and furthermore, by eliminating debt economies would not have reason to grow in the first place (Hickel, 2016).
A whole new economic model should be developed, following “circular economy” principles. These principles are especially important with regards to production and corporations. Instead of disposing of products, companies would start selling the benefit of their products, replacing private property through a “pay per use” scheme, which would help companies to recover products at their end-of-life stage (Frans Van Houten: Business Model Innovation, 2018). Through this recovery of materials, businesses could reuse their products and become “independent from primary raw materials” which may be the starting point of the environmental degradation caused by the LCA of their product (Frans Van Houten: Business Model Innovation, 2016). Therefore, the circular economy would vastly improve the sustainability of the LCA of products but also tackle waste. Moreover, 12% of the EU’s household carbon footprint could be cut by spending money on services rather than manufactured products (Ivanova et al., 2015).
To conclude, if we want continuous transformative change we need individuals who trust each other, are non-conformists, engage with transparent information, are encouraged to act, learn and discover together in a transboundary fashion and who’s actions are coordinated and interlinked with competent, organised structures like civic societies. In this fashion, we can push away from the guilt, fear and responsibility placed upon individuals by our current economic and political framework. Moving away from neoliberalism, debt and GDP for economic growth would allow for a circular economy improving sustainability in businesses including waste and emissions. Finally, this systemic change would alleviate pressures for investments in green technologies, renewables and sustainable agricultural practices, as economic growth would not be necessary nor reliant on parallel environmental degradation.
References:
Beer, M., Spector, B. and Eisenstat, R. (1990). Why Change Programs Don’t Produce Change. [online] Harvard Business Review. Available at: https://hbr.org/1990/11/why-change-programs-dont-produce-change. [Accessed 4 Nov. 2018].
Binswanger, M. (2001). Technological progress and sustainable development: what about the rebound effect?. Ecological Economics, [online] 36(1), pp.119-132. Available at: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921800900002147.
Boonstra, J. (2004). Dynamics of organizational change and learning. West Essex, Eng.: J. Wiley & Sons Inc.
Carrington, D. (2017). G20 public finance for fossil fuels 'is four times more than renewables'. [online] the Guardian. Available at: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/jul/05/g20-public-finance-for-fossil-fuels-is-four-times-more-than-renewables [Accessed 5 Nov. 2018].
CDP (2017). The Carbon Majors Database. CDP Carbon Majors Report. [online] CDP. Available at: https://b8f65cb373b1b7b15feb-c70d8ead6ced550b4d987d7c03fcdd1d.ssl.cf3.rackcdn.com/cms/reports/documents/000/002/327/original/Carbon-Majors-Report-2017.pdf?1499691240 [Accessed 4 Nov. 2018].
Chainey, R. (2016). Beyond GDP – is it time to rethink the way we measure growth?. [online] World Economic Forum. Available at: https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2016/04/beyond-gdp-is-it-time-to-rethink-the-way-we-measure-growth/ [Accessed 5 Nov. 2018].
Department for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs. (2018) UK Statistics on Waste. Plus Media Solutions.
Dryzek, J. (2013). The Politics of the Earth: 3rd Revised edition. Oxford: OXFORD University Press, p.141.Elzen, B., Geels, F. and Green, K. (2004). System Innovation and the Transition to Sustainability. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing Limited, p.1.
Frans Van Houten: Business Model Innovation. (2016). World Economic Forum.
Hawthorne, M. and Alabaster, T. (1999). Citizen 2000: development of a model of environmental citizenship. Global Environmental Change, [online] 9(1), pp.25-43. Available at: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0959378098000223.
Helmers, E. and Marx, P. (2012). Electric cars: technical characteristics and environmental impacts. Environmental Sciences Europe, [online] 24(1), p.14. Available at: https://enveurope.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/2190-4715-24-14.
Hickel, J. (2016). Clean energy won’t save us – only a new economic system can. [online] the Guardian. Available at: https://www.theguardian.com/global-development-professionals-network/2016/jul/15/clean-energy-wont-save-us-economic-system-can [Accessed 5 Nov. 2018].
Hickel, J. (2016). To deal with climate change we need a new financial system. [online] the Guardian. Available at: https://www.theguardian.com/global-development-professionals-network/2016/nov/05/how-a-new-money-system-could-help-stop-climate-change [Accessed 5 Nov. 2018].
IPCC (2018). Summary for Policy Makers. Special Report on Global Warming of 1.5 °C. [online] IPCC. Available at: http://report.ipcc.ch/sr15/pdf/sr15_spm_final.pdf [Accessed 31 Oct. 2018].
International Energy Agency (2011). CO2 EMISSIONS FROM FUEL COMBUSTION. IEA Statistics. Paris: IEA.
Ivanova, D., Stadler, K., Steen-Olsen, K., Wood, R., Vita, G., Tukker, A. and Hertwich, E. (2015). Environmental Impact Assessment of Household Consumption. Journal of Industrial Ecology, [online] 20(3), pp.526-536. Available at: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/jiec.12371 [Accessed 1 Nov. 2018].
Jackson, R. (2018). Global Climate Change: Effects. [online] Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet. Available at: https://climate.nasa.gov/effects/ [Accessed 31 Oct. 2018].
Jacobson, M. Z. (2009) ‘Review of solutions to global warming, air pollution, and energy security’, Energy and Environmental Science, pp. 148–173. doi: 10.1039/b809990c.
Karlsson, R. (2012) ‘Individual guilt or collective progressive action? Challenging the strategic potential of environmental citizenship theory’, Environmental Values, 21(4), pp. 459–474. doi: 10.3197/096327112X13466893628102.
Lukacs, M. (2018). Neoliberalism has conned us into fighting climate change as individuals. [online] The Guardian. Available at: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/true-north/2017/jul/17/neoliberalism-has-conned-us-into-fighting-climate-change-as-individuals?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Copy_to_clipboard [Accessed 2 Nov. 2018].
Mellor, M. (2016). Debt or Democracy: Public Money for Sustainability and Social Justice. London: Pluto Press.
Monbiot, G. (2018). We won’t save the Earth with a better kind of disposable coffee cup | George Monbiot. [online] The Guardian. Available at: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/sep/06/save-earth-disposable-coffee-cup-green?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other [Accessed 4 Nov. 2018].
Sagoff, M. (2008). The Economy of the Earth. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Shove, E. (2010) ‘Beyond the ABC: Climate change policy and theories of social change’, Environment and Planning A, 42(6), pp. 1273–1285. doi: 10.1068/a42282.
Termeer, C., Dewulf, A. and Biesbroek, G. (2016). Transformational change: governance interventions for climate change adaptation from a continuous change perspective. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, [online] 60(4), pp.558-576. Available at: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/09640568.2016.1168288?src=recsys#.
United Nations (2014). Water and Energy: Facts and Figures. The United Nations World Water Development Report. [online] United Nations. Available at: http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0022/002269/226961E.pdf [Accessed 4 Nov. 2018].
Weick, K. (2000). Emergent Change as a Universal in Organizations. In: M. Beer and N. Nohria, ed., Breaking the Code of Change. Boston: Harvard Business School Press, pp.223-243.