Are You Willing To Take Responsibility For Your Environmental Impact?
Criticism is rightfully given to the ultra-rich, those with excessive consumption and transportation habits, as well as corporations which are unwilling to take sustainable decisions if these do not result in profit maximisation and governments that have been unwilling to implement environmental protections or are unable to enforce them. The 2022 United Nations Emissions Gap Report states that “there is no credible pathway to 1.5°C in place.” Falling short of the target to limit global warming to a maximum of 1.5°C compared to pre-industrial levels will prove detrimental to our societies which rely on the planetary systems that human action continues to disrupt.
The effects of climate change will disproportionately affect those in low-income nations that lack the funds to adapt to climate change and may already suffer from food insecurity and political instability. However, the effects will continue to be felt stronger in wealthy nations due to our ever more globalised world. There are only so many sea walls that can be built, so much food which can be imported against increasing protectionism, and so much groundwater which can be extracted when rivers shrink and become brackish. Our planetary and social systems are interconnected, and there is a clear moral imperative to reduce our environmental impact. If not from a moral stance, there is clear self-interest in increasing cooperation against increased pressure upon planetary boundaries.
The Earth has an impressive ability to self-regulate, but humans have pushed our resource extraction and pollution beyond the rates at which the planet can support our societies. Each individual must have an equal right to use an equal share of resources and contribute their share of pollution if we are to create a just society. Technological developments and the circular economy might allow more resources to be used without increased extraction or pollution. However, immediate and drastic reductions from our current practices are needed. This does not simply mean gradual reductions in consumption by all people. Most individuals who are currently unable to meet their basic needs, such as water, food, shelter and energy generation, do not consume or pollute at rates high enough to cause serious planetary harm. These individuals have a legitimate claim to increase their resource use and pollution to achieve an acceptable living standard so long as going beyond basic does not come at the detriment of sustainability.
This means that the reduction in consumption and pollution must come from those exceeding their personal environmental budgets who can reduce their environmental impact without failing to meet their social needs. Even though governments and corporations should take more action to ensure that citizens’ actions are broadly in-line with environmental science, there are many actions an individual should take within existing frameworks to reduce their environmental impact. The University of Leeds has created a visualisation tool which looks at consumption-based per capita metrics by country compared to per capita planetary boundaries. It also reviews a nation’s ability to meet social needs. Although this tool does not account for unequal consumption patterns within a country, it shows clear disparities between countries.
The annual consumption-based, per capita boundary for CO2 emissions should be 1.6 tonnes. In the UK, the per-capita emissions are 12.1 tonnes. In the USA, this is 21.2 tonnes. Even in Sweden, a nation with a reputation for environmental consciousness, this number is 10.2 tonnes. The ten-fold decrease needed not to transgress planetary boundaries fundamentally requires a transformation of society. The extent of the needed change is significant but can mostly be met through simple actions.
To highlight this, the United Nations’ International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) says that return flights from Heathrow to Malaga in economy class emit ~300kg of CO2 and return flights from Heathrow to Bangkok emit ~800kg of CO2. Both figures contribute massively towards per capita environmental budgets. They do not even consider that those who can afford to take these flights are almost certainly already many times over these limits before stepping on the plane. Holidaying to either location is not a luxury worth environmental disaster, and avoiding these flights is not an action which requires government or corporate intervention. It’s also safe to assume that those reading this article regularly fly for leisure purposes but that flying is fundamentally opposed to any conception of sustainability or resource distribution. After learning of this fact, are you willing to skip your next holiday?
Giving up flying appears to be a bigger sacrifice than it is as a result of the consumption-heavy lifestyles which wealthy individuals have become used to. The actions needed might seem like drastic action but is insignificant when these actions hinder lifting billions out of poverty and suffering in a sustainable manner. Equally bad is that these actions actively damage our shared environment, making it harder for the poor to sustain their lands and livelihoods.
We must reassess who is considered wealthy. From a consumption perspective, even Argentinian and Chinese residents over-consumed at 5.3 and 6.4 tonnes of CO2 per capita. The actions needed must thus come from much more than the end of commercial flights. Current actions that individuals can take, which may seem severe, cause discomfort and may be pricey, but which will greatly reduce their environmental impact include: becoming vegan, buying locally grown and seasonal foods, moving to high-density housing, giving up their car (which is much easier in high-density neighbourhoods with good pedestrian infrastructure and public transportation), purchasing electricity from a green tariff, reducing material purchases, prolonging the life of existing purchases and recycling waste.
Even with these actions, the sustainabilisation of the remaining consumption needed to meet social needs and other wants must be developed further. This will require more action from corporations and governments. In the meantime, individuals who easily meet their basic needs must ask whether they want an equitable, just and sustainable society and be willing to take action to drastically reduce their consumption, even if this causes unease.
