Who’s Actually Responsible?

This leads to an important question: who truly bears responsibility for the climate crisis? Which habits need adjusting to avert this impending disaster? Often, we shift blame towards governments and industries — pointing fingers at transportation, agriculture, and construction as the primary culprits of carbon emissions. Notably, 71% of global greenhouse gas emissions since 1988 can be traced back to just 100 companies. A mere 20 of these companies account for a third of all emissions, with major players like Saudi Aramco, Chevron, Gazprom, and ExxonMobil at the forefront. Clearly, reforms in practices by countries, industries, and corporations are vital for the planet's salvation.

Sources: The Guardian / The Carbon Majors Database

Yet, in this discourse, we often overlook ourselves — the households and individuals who consume what these corporations offer and participate in governmental elections. We tend to forget that our excessive consumption of Gatorades, clothing, gadgets, and cars is squandering precious resources, causing hidden harm, and necessitating a change in our lifestyles. Consumerism is a critical issue that is frequently ignored.

The Consumption Conundrum

In 1869, Adam Smith articulated that “consumption is the sole end and purpose of all production.” Fast forward 154 years, and household carbon emissions account for 72% of global greenhouse gas emissions, with four-fifths of land, material, and water use driven by household demand. No single individual or family, regardless of how wasteful they may be, is solely responsible for the excess carbon in the atmosphere, the waste in landfills, or the plastics in our oceans.

In the EU, household emissions vary from 4 to over 50 tons of CO2 equivalent per year, with an average around 10 tons. In the US, the range is from 14 to over 90 tons annually, with 40% of the population emitting about 48 tons of CO2 each year.

While individual households can make changes, these efforts alone won’t significantly impact climate change. A family transitioning to a vegan, zero-flights, car-free, Gatorade-free lifestyle might reduce their emissions by a few tons annually, but global emissions are measured in tens of billions of tons.

The Dilemma of Consumption

The structures that define our world, the expanding carbon economy, and the policies governing them all shape our environmental impact. Companies like Exxon, Gazprom, and Saudi Aramco are responsible for producing the fossil fuels that fuel these structures. They hold significant accountability for carbon emissions, as they extract and market these fuels while lobbying for the carbon economy and benefiting from subsidies for further extractions.

However, it is we, the consumers, who actually utilize and demand the fossil fuels that these companies supply. We share in the responsibility because it’s our consumption that leads to carbon dioxide emissions from cars, flights, utilities, and plastic waste. The emissions that stem directly from oil, gas, and coal companies account for approximately 10% of fossil fuel emissions, while 90% of their products lead to emissions.

Thus, while we need actions from governments and corporations to restore our planet, we, as consumers, are the final link in this chain of responsibility. Our materialistic tendencies are driving the degradation of the Earth.

Uncovering the Inequities

Modern society prioritizes convenience and immediacy while glorifying excess and new trends, all the while ignoring the true costs of these lifestyles — costs that disproportionately affect the impoverished, wildlife, and future generations.

The rise of the global middle class has indeed fueled the recent uptick in greenhouse gas emissions and resource demands as nations like Gabon, Brunei, and India develop economically. Nevertheless, this does not exonerate wealthier nations and their citizens from their considerable role in exhausting the planet's resources. The affluent in wealthier countries carry a substantial portion of the blame. Too many consume excessively, waste unnecessarily, and show little regard for the consequences.

Globally, the average energy-related carbon footprint is roughly 4.7 tons of CO2 per person — akin to two round-trip flights between Singapore and New York or driving an average SUV for a year and a half. However, the wealthiest 0.1% of US citizens emit 62 times more than a typical household; on average, an American citizen is responsible for nearly four times the emissions of an Argentine citizen, who in turn emits four times more than a Guatemalan. Even though a Guatemalan may appear to be the most environmentally conscious individual, they still produce ten times the emissions of an individual from the Congo.

Source: OurWorldInData

What’s more, the top 10% of global emitters (771 million individuals) are accountable for about 48% of global CO2 emissions, while the bottom 50% (3.8 billion people) contribute around 12%. The wealthiest 1% alone account for 17% of annual emissions. The top 1% produces over 1,000 times more CO2 than the bottom 1%.

Americans, on average, spend at least $18,000 annually on non-essential items — expenditures equivalent to the GDP per capita of Mexico.

Source: CLIMATE CHANGE AND THE GLOBAL INEQUALITY OF CARBON EMISSIONS 1990–2020

The Illusion of Sustainable Consumption

Retailers may lead us to believe that the solution lies in the affluent adopting eco-friendly consumption habits — from reusable bottles and bamboo toothbrushes to solar chargers and electric vehicles. However, this is simply greenwashing at play. The most effective approach in terms of resource use and emissions is to buy nothing. It’s preferable to utilize what you already possess rather than acquiring new items under the guise of sustainability.

For instance, one would have to use an organic cotton tote bag every single day for 50 years to offset its production impact. Making use of existing items in our wardrobes is far better than purchasing new clothes in the name of ethical fashion. Much of the clothing produced is worn only a few times, and only 1% of fabric is ultimately recycled. The fashion industry fills landfills instead of closets.

The truth is uncomfortable but essential: less truly needs to mean less.

As individuals, we must reduce excessive and unnecessary consumption. It’s not about living in smaller, greener homes; it’s about consuming only what we genuinely require, not more. More critically, we must challenge the economic ideologies that have led us toward mass extinction and catastrophic climate change, beginning to act as if this crisis is indeed a crisis. Household and individual choices certainly influence climate concerns, but they are not the sole solution to climate issues. Broader factors such as infrastructure, technology, organizations, markets, and established practices also play a significant role. Households drive emissions through their demand for goods and services that fuel economic growth, making them either active participants in decarbonization efforts or significant contributors to dangerous emissions.

Individual actions serve as a vital precursor to broader change. As social beings, our influence extends to friends, family, and neighbors in meaningful ways. Consumer preferences dictate business practices, compelling companies to adapt to market demands. Moreover, individuals leading the charge against the climate crisis can facilitate governmental actions to follow suit.

A Complete Transformation is Necessary

A comprehensive change is essential, and it commences within our own homes.

Thank you for engaging with this content!

If you’re interested in more insights on climate change, scientific advancements, and geopolitics with a unique Patagonian perspective, consider subscribing to the Antarctic Sapiens newsletter for weekly thought-provoking material.