Heightened by the crisis of Covid-19, the examination on individual vs. governmental responsibility has shifted to an equally heated topic–climate change. Many Americans say that the effects of climate change are evident and it’s happening in their communities, with two-thirds of Americans believing that the government has proved itself inadequate in reducing the effects of climate change. Others argue that individuals should hold themselves more responsible for the devastations of climate change. As public concern over climate change continues to grow, so does the threat, but alas, the debate continues.
Many Americans can agree that the government is quite tentative in its efforts to protect the water quality of rivers, lakes and streams, protect air quality, and reduce the effects of climate change, among other environmental actions. A report published in 2017 recognized that 100 companies are the source of 70% of the world’s greenhouse gas emissions. Oil firms like Exxon were running research on climate change for decades. To reduce any ability of their company’s emissions being cut, Exxon took the lead in stressing climate denial and stirring doubt about scientific research that the oil firm had already been aware of.
But to acknowledge fossil fuel companies and their unwillingness to reduce emissions, we must acknowledge the carbon footprint of their consumers. A 2020 study analyzed that across 86 countries, the richest 10% of people consume around 20 times more energy than the poorest 10%. Utilizing airplanes and large cars for long travels are some of the high contributions rich people make to climate change. Certainly, blaming rich people is not the intention, nor is it constructive. People with high carbon prints exist in a system that facilitates and even supports their high consumption.
The United States has released more CO2 than any other country to date and is accountable for 25% of historical emissions. Many Americans themselves are likely to consume more energy than is necessarily essential. However, we live in an environment where the line between communally destructive goods and environmentally friendly services are not always identifiable. Many Americans have become reliant on cars and other motor vehicles to travel to work or school. So, it becomes difficult to find hope in a solution to climate change that involves persistent self-sacrificing and individual responsibility while neglecting to condemn, and even worse, rewarding the highest consumers of energy.
I don’t believe that personal sacrifices are going to solve our climate crisis alone, but changes at the individual, household and community level are more significant than many are willing to acknowledge. We need improved political change and action to avoid devastating consequences from climate change. But this process is happening at an unprecedented speed–meaning this is now everyone’s business. A 2018 report identified 30 behavioral solutions that can diminish 19.9-36.8 percent of global emissions from 2020 to 2050. Reducing food waste, eating fewer animal proteins and products, carpooling, and using energy efficient lightning are just a few of the many behavioral solutions listed. Undeniably so, implementing sustainable practices in our everyday practices is a vital element of fighting climate change. But this process won’t work if we don’t first understand the ruling, law-making and power that initially impairs our planet.
The Student Movement is the official student newspaper of Andrews University. Opinions expressed in the Student Movement are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the editors, Andrews University or the Seventh-day Adventist church.