COVID-19 lockdowns don't show the limits of individual climate action

I’ve seen the following argument go around a bit this week:

“So we accidently ran an experiment where we did the most any individual can do to reduce carbon emissions and it’s not enough.” (Tweet)

It’s wrong. Individual actions are not enough, but they are absolutely necessary.

Institutional/structural changes are absolutely necessary – but also not enough.

We need everything.

Treating a three-month lockdown as a proxy for what can be achieved through individual action both reduces individual agency to consumption choices and misunderstands the nature of structural changes.

Individual consumption

Lockdown has enforced some consumptive changes on us, but by far not everything possible. Are people going vegetarian because of COVID-19? Are you all switching to 100% renewable energy? Are you doing your grocery shopping on foot, by PT, bicycle, or electric vehicle rather than by internal-combustion engine car?

No: this is not what’s happening under COVID.

Of course these things are difficult for many people because of structural factors. I’ve worked for years trying to help people with disadvantage improve their energy efficiency, I can talk for hours about structural barriers.

AND!

AND, also, many people could do more if they wanted to. Some people – not all, but some – say individual actions are useless without structural change. That’s wrong; the lockdown is not proof they’re right; and it’s unhelpful promoting feelings of disempowerment or blame-shifting.

Individual actions BEYOND CONSUMPTION

We are more than our purchasing habits. “We did the most any individual can do to reduce carbon emissions and it’s not enough” – sorry, did I miss the lockdown election where we took a vote on grand new climate policies?

Have you:

• Written to or called your political representatives about climate actions?
• Tried to convince your friends & family to change their behaviour?
• Joined an activist group?
• Organised, mobilised, participated, etc?

If you answer ‘yes’ to any or all of these, good on you! I am not talking to you. I am talking to people who don’t do any of these things, ‘because coal plants are still being built’, ‘because politicians suck’, ‘because it’s big corporations who emit the most emissions’.

Who do you expect to change the state of affairs if you won’t act?

Structural change

Structural changes take time. So much time. Sometimes things seem to happen really quickly, but that’s usually just the culmination of years of work. We need to change not just what we’re doing now, but what we expect to be doing in future.

E.g. we’re not driving petrol cars as much now, but we expect to do so later – and so do the people who sell us cars and petrol. So they’re still making petrol cars & making petrol, because they expect we’ll buy them. And cheap plastic shit, because they’ll expect we’ll keep buying that.

And even when those future expectations change, it still takes time for structures to change. If everyone tried to switch to 100% renewable energy this month, well, you couldn’t – no energy system in the world can achieve that within a month. Or within a year.

Would you take that as proof its not possible? No, that’s daft. So why would you accept it as an argument your individual action isn’t valuable?

Recap

Individual actions are not enough, but they are absolutely necessary.

Institutional/structural changes are absolutely necessary – but also not enough.

We need everything.

Folks trying to choose the most eco-friendly ‘mylk’ are helping; folks who protest coal mines are helping; folks who lobby their government (or employer) to act are helping. It causes, eases, supports, or complements structural change.

All of it is “the answer”.