The following piece is an opinion and does not reflect the views of The Eagle and its staff. All opinions are edited for grammar, style and argument structure and fact-checked, but the opinions are the writer’s own.
“If everyone lived like you, we would need three Earths,” a well-known ecological footprint calculator told me after I answered basic questions about my living space and food consumption. Years of limiting my meat consumption, using a reusable water bottle, advocating for climate action, using public transport and going to the first carbon-neutral university in the United States means nothing — if everyone lived like me, we would need three Earths. The Earth we live on can not sustainably hold a population that acts like me.
The reality is that the way most people live is arguably worse for the environment than the average progressive college student living in D.C. When I’m here, I travel solely via walking or public transportation, I don’t own a car and I don’t eat much meat. There are a multitude of other factors that influence someone’s carbon footprint, but these are the main focuses of assessments like the one I took.
Much of my belief system is built around the fact that our resources as humans are not infinite. In all that we do as individuals, it is of utmost importance that we recognize this to live sustainable lifestyles. This idea is what proponents of reducing carbon footprint may be aiming to convey. However, forcing environmental actions onto individuals distracts from the big corporations, governments and other major polluters that are the most responsible for climate change and its consequences.
Even with a serious focus on the individual’s role in fighting climate change, collective apathy is an ever-persisting problem, and “most people do not seem to be seriously concerned,” as Thomas Pölzler puts it in his peer-reviewed article Climate Change Inaction and Moral Nihilism.
“We consume as much as we always did, drive as much as we always did, eat as much meat as we always did,” he said.
A study distinguishing between the individualist versus collectivist differences in climate change inaction found that “participants with more individualist orientations were more subject to perceived intractability and more likely to demonstrate climate change inaction than those with more collectivist orientations.”
I don’t plan on stopping my actions to support climate action anytime soon, even though I recognize that individual action alone is not enough. Even in individualized action, it is important to see climate action from a collective point of view to best recognize how action against climate change can be effective. When we feel as if we bear the entire brunt of climate change, we may easily get discouraged about how our actions are helping or hurting the Earth.
Rather than seeing individual climate action as extremely significant, we can view our actions as a protest against the corporate powers that are committing direct acts of violence against our world. 70 percent of the world’s greenhouse gas emissions over the previous two decades can be attributed to just 100 fossil fuel producers, according to a 2017 study.
“41 million people are already on the brink of famine, and that number is set to increase with higher temperatures, desertification and extreme weather events,” according to the International Rescue Committee. Real people are facing the consequences of these companies’ actions, which is why I feel it is so important to acknowledge who is truly responsible for the human suffering that results from climate change. The countries most impacted by climate change are often the least to blame, and here in the United States, the most socially vulnerable communities are disproportionately impacted by climate change.
American University prides itself on its climate action as an institution, labeling itself a proud “leader in sustainability.” It achieved carbon neutrality in 2018, two years before its goal, and the University touts, “10 LEED-certified buildings, seven solar panel installations, 100 percent renewable electricity, and an entire fleet of biodiesel shuttle buses,” and divestment from fossil fuels that began in 2020. Though AU is not one of the institutions most responsible for climate change, I respect its effort to contribute to the fight against climate change on an institutional level.
Through its EcoPledge program, AU encourages individual action for students in six categories: reduce waste, consume mindfully, conserve energy, save water, commute smarter and build community. I don’t fault AU for encouraging individual action, especially because its target audience is more politically active and arguably more determined to take collective action against climate change. The “build community” aspect of this pledge is the most important, as it encourages said collective action through conversation and environmental activism.
I don’t want to live in a way that requires three Earths. I want to live in symbiosis with my planet while always keeping in mind that I am alive and well because of it. However, centering consumer behavior in a world in which we are often forced to act in a way that hurts the environment — such as driving cars in a transportation system designed to necessitate car use and eating animal products in a country where the meat and dairy industries have serious lobbying power — is unfair to everyone except the companies and polluters directly responsible for the consequences of climate change that are already harming millions.
Quinn Volpe is a sophomore in the School of Communication and Kogod School of Business and a columnist for The Eagle.
This piece was edited by Alana Parker, Jelinda Montes and Abigail Turner. Copy editing done by Luna Jinks, Isabelle Kravis and Charlie Mennuti.
