Author: Peter KnappURL: https://medium.com/the-new-climate/why-individual-action-matters-4b9aa9447dd6
Recently I’ve noticed a rise in a particular kind of article, and argument, even from environmental commentators. The main message runs like this: *individual change is both hard and pointless. We can do what we like given that individual impact is so insignificant; it is only companies and governments that need to change.* It is understandable, especially in a world where governments and major polluting companies don’t seem to listen to individuals. But my counter message is this: **individual action and willingness to change is absolutely necessary**, though not sufficient, for the societal shifts needed to prevent societal and climate collapse. Yes of course, only systemic change will do; but that begins with individual actions.
The ‘*why bother when I’m one of 8 billion*’ argument requires these assumptions:
Everyone consumes the same amount;• every action consumes the same amount;• anyone is too small to make a difference; and• technology will save us.
With these assumptions comes the claim that cutting out flying, eating meat, or private cars are a waste of time because nobody else will bother. The ‘*why deny yourself these luxuries*’ narrative is also attractive to the people who cannot imagine things to be different and better.
But things *can* be different and better. There is an alternative, more empowering and effective outlook on the role of individual action. Individual action is impactful from high consumers, and willingness to change is essential from all. So, let’s debunk each pernicious myth one-by-one.
1. “Everyone consumes the same amount”
The richest 10% of people produce half of the world’s carbon emissions, while the poorest half contribute just 10%. To be in the top 10% of the world’s population, you probably don’t need need as much as you might think. According to the [2022 Global Wealth Report](https://www.credit-suisse.com/media/assets/corporate/docs/about-us/research/publications/global-wealth-report-2022-en.pdf) from Credit Suisse Research Institute, a total wealth of USD $138,346 (GBP £109,900) would put you in the top 10% globally. This isn’t just how much you might have in a bank account, but includes any property, car, computer, and any equity you might have. According to the [UK census 2021](https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/personalandhouseholdfinances/incomeandwealth/bulletins/totalwealthingreatbritain/april2018tomarch2020), this puts > 30% of the UK population in the top 10% globally.
It is not necessarily true that wealthier people consume more, but this is an assumption I will make. Wealthier people can consume more by running private jets, yachts, huge homes, and often own shares in, or operate extremely harmful and high-consuming companies.
The graph below, from Oxfam’s [Confronting Carbon Inequality report](https://www-cdn.oxfam.org/s3fs-public/file_attachments/mb-extreme-carbon-inequality-021215-en.pdf) shows something slightly different: the global distribution of income, rather than net worth. People who earn a lot of money and people who have a lot of wealth are both extremely high consumers. Here, nearly 50% of the income goes into the pockets of just 10% of the people. This is quite different to [45.6% of the total global wealth already sitting in just 1%](https://www.credit-suisse.com/media/assets/corporate/docs/about-us/research/publications/global-wealth-report-2022-en.pdf) of the global population.
From Oxfam’s [Confronting Carbon Inequality report](https://www-cdn.oxfam.org/s3fs-public/file_attachments/mb-extreme-carbon-inequality-021215-en.pdf)
Therefore, the actions of high consumers — and if you’re reading this in a developed country on one of several screens that you own, this likely includes you — far outweigh the actions of low consumers.
The framing of the individual efforts to reduce their consumption as just “one down, 8 billion to go”, assumes that all 8 billion people consume the same. This is simply not true.
2. “One less flight won’t help anyone”
Flying 8 hours from London to New York would produce around one tonne of CO2 on average. A return produces two tonnes. According to the [United Nations](https://www.unep.org/explore-topics/climate-action/what-we-do/climate-action-note/state-of-climate.html), that return flight is more than an average person produces in a whole year in 42 countries, including Bangladesh, Kenya and Haiti; all of which are suffering enormously from floods, droughts and extreme weather from climate change.
It’s become a common refrain that air travel only accounts for 3% of carbon emissions. But we need to talk about global warming potential, not just carbon emissions. [Aviation contributes about 6–7%](https://acp.copernicus.org/preprints/acp-2022-169/acp-2022-169.pdf) of total warming potential when including contrails. This broadly means > 50% of the [warming effect of flying comes from contrails](https://www.imperial.ac.uk/news/242017/clouds-created-aircraft-have-bigger-impact/). This is precisely what my research group works on. Contrails are most warming when they are created at night, because they reflect the warmth of the Earth back onto itself. They act as a blanket to prevent the Earth’s warmth escaping.
Flying is the fastest way to fry the planet. A plane like a Boeing 747 uses approximately 1 gallon (about 7 pints) of fuel every second. Over the course of a 10-hour flight, it might burn 36,000 gallons (240,000 pints).
Flying is also the most unequal form of transport. [Only 1% of the world’s population](https://stay-grounded.org/get-information/#injustice) cause 50% of commercial aviation emissions, while more than [80% of the world’s population](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0959378020307779) have never set foot on an aeroplane.
‘*The plane will fly anyway*’ argument is false, as demand drives flight numbers. According to the Committee on Climate Change, the number of [UK passenger flights doubled from 2021 to 2022](https://www.theccc.org.uk/publication/2023-progress-report-to-parliament/#downloads) when demand returned.
Does 10 years of diligent recycling give you permission to fly as much as you like? No. We know much of this waste is shipped to other countries to be burnt, and even when it is recycled they [produce vast quantities of microplastics](https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/may/23/recycling-can-release-huge-quantities-of-microplastics-study-finds). Recycling does not offset flying.
Flights are a therefore almost entirely an individual choice, compared to steel production, for example, which is much more in the hands of industry and government. You would struggle to find any other individual change that would reduce so much harm as flying. Individual action can inspire others and influence company policy, which could lead to far more reductions than an individual’s.
3. “Driving is a modern reality, so the answer is EVs not mass transit”
The focus on a transition to personal EVs alone is a techno-optimist argument, where we can continue to live our high-consuming lifestyles without any major changes. This creates its own problems, like introducing cats to kill rats in Australia. EVs still pollute, creating even [more particulate pollution](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0304389421015910) than cars with conventional engines through tyres, brakes and resuspension. They still require vast quantities of tyres, steel and space, [mining materials in countries rife with child labour](https://intercalationstation.substack.com/p/8ceacb7c-c03e-4ad7-ab39-34af7207e0a9) and pollution generated by mining and refining, and EVs will kill as many people per year as combustion engine cars do in road accidents. In fact, road traffic crashes now represent the [eighth leading cause of death globally](https://www.brake.org.uk/get-involved/take-action/mybrake/knowledge-centre/global-road-safety). They claim 1.35 million lives each year and cause up to 50 million injuries, and half deaths are pedestrians, cyclists or motorcyclists. Globally, road traffic accidents are the [leading cause of death among children and young people](https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/jul/11/outdoor-play-campaigners-uk-traffic-curbs-protect-children) aged five to 29.
Cutting out driving is hard, especially where accessible public transport is poor. Sharing a car reduces manufacturing emissions and liberates space. Walking and cycling improves health — it is much safer for others, and may bring you closer to your community, and also makes it much easier for buses and people who currently need to use cars.
Floods will take cars off the road overnight. Picture from the [Washington Post](https://news.wgcu.org/2021-10-14/floods-threaten-to-shut-down-a-quarter-of-u-s-roads-and-critical-buildings)
There is a tech-fix attraction to hydrogen, too, which uses the natural gas network. But if you [look at the amount that the network currently leaks](https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/images/149374/mapping-methane-emissions-from-fossil-fuel-exploitation), you would be shocked. Hydrogen will leak much more due to its tiny molecular size, requiring enormous upgrades to the network to plug the gaps in every single street and house. We all know from the cover of the first [Led Zeppelin album](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Led_Zeppelin_(album)#/media/File:Led_Zeppelin_-_Led_Zeppelin_(1969)_front_cover.png) what hydrogen does if it catches fire. The cost and timescales are unfeasible compared to retrofitting and installing heat pumps, for example. Hydrogen is a lifeline for the fossil fuel industry, and this is why they are happy for people to talk about it.
#/media/File:Led_Zeppelin_-_Led_Zeppelin_(1969)_front_cover.png){kind=link}
“*You can’t stop ___ overnight*” is also a fossil fuel tool used to stoke disempowerment. A catastrophic flood can take cars off the road overnight. A pandemic can take planes out of the sky overnight. But this is reactive rather than proactive. The argument ‘*you can’t be proactive so let’s wait for catastrophe and act then*’ is doomist; another tool of the fossil fuel industry.
4. “My eating meat makes no difference — what’s one less burger?”
Regarding cutting meat consumption, again the argument is *but I’m just one of 8 billion,* which homogenises all diets as though everyone were the average American. The [average meat consumption](https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/per-capita-meat-type) of someone from the USA is 149 kg, compared to 12 kg in India and 8.3 kg in Ethiopia. There are also over 1.5 billion vegetarians in the world. All meats are problematic: land use, water use, antibiotic resistance, animal cruelty, fertiliser and pesticide pollution and deforestation are all mainly caused by the meat industry. My article ‘[Plant-based benefits](https://medium.com/the-new-climate/plant-based-propaganda-25b599e2adaa)’ goes into more detail.
This graphic is from an excellent article by Hannah Ritchie, from [here](https://ourworldindata.org/less-meat-or-sustainable-meat).
The [global inequality of meat supply](https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/meat-supply-per-person?time=2020), from the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. It is important to note that there is huge variation within each country. Notice the scale is not linear.
If we realised how much we consume compared to others, then indeed, one less burger — and eventually switching to no burgers — makes enormous difference.
5. “One person is too small to make a difference…”
…which is, ultimately, what all the defeatist viewpoints against ‘individual action’ boil down to. It feeds the feeling of disempowerment that the fossil fuel industry thrives on. Individual change of high-consumers and influential people can be great drivers for societal change. Governments won’t push for change when they don’t see appetite from the public. The public have to start the ball rolling and influence others to create the political demand for change. In other words: ditching the car (if you have one) means less demand for car infrastructure, more demand for public transport and cycling infrastructure, and not feeding into an industry that has [cheated on its emissions](https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/mar/22/dieselgate-millions-of-extremely-polluting-cars-still-on-europes-roads-says-report) and plans to keeping growing despite the enormous amount of energy required to make a private car.
Individual action by a celebrity or someone with a platform is also enormously impactful. Take [Dave Grohl going to Glastonbury on a train](https://twitter.com/GWRHelp/status/1672303849917259789) instead of a helicopter, like many other musicians did who performed there.
Dave Grohl rocking the train on the way to Glastonbury Festival shows other high-consumers that train travel is perfectly acceptable for anyone.
This shows high consumers that they are not above public transport and that many others will think *‘if Dave Grohl can use a train then so can I’.* The impact of individuals can have enormous impacts. You don’t have to be a celebrity, either. [Greta Thunberg’s individual action](https://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffmcmahon/2019/11/19/greta-is-right-study-shows-individual-climate-action-boosts-systemic-change/?sh=4a875ac14a54) kick-started a global response. But it’s important to note that these actions are much more likely to make a big difference when (i) the media report it and (ii) the individual is a high-consumer in a high-consuming country.
I am an individual. I think writing this article might reach a few people, perhaps many people. I believe that my activism inspires others to act. I believe talking about being vegan leads to catering changes (I am writing this after a conference I attended where all the food was vegetarian and vegan by default — a result of me suggesting it to the organizers beforehand). How many burgers did that individual action cut?
I am, in no way, advocating that individual change is the solution. I know many people who became obsessed with litter picking, for example. A sustainable approach is to force the companies producing the litter not to; like calling out [Coca-Cola as the biggest plastic polluter in the world](https://www.greenpeace.org/usa/news/cop27-sponsor-the-coca-cola-company-named-worst-plastic-polluter-for-five-years-in-a-row-according-to-2022-brand-audit/) for five years running. Focussing on yourself as both the cause and solution of climate change is damaging and dangerous. The energy should be spent forcing governments to act, rather than making sure you have cleaned that bottle properly before throwing it into a recycling bin: in that respect alone, I agree with the *‘systemic change only’* people. The goal *is* systemic change; and as a means of bringing that about, individual action can have a big influence.
Another consideration: individual action can be to work with larger groups to create systemic change. If this is regarded as individual action, then joining a campaign group is incredibly impactful.
As Hollywood has shown in the 2004 film *The Butterfly Effect*, a small change here and a small change there can make an enormous difference at a global scale. Hollywood just needs to show us what this might look like in the climate and nature crises. Indeed, imagining a different future is half the battle. Some individual action has much more potential to create change than others. Your individual action might feel small compared to the challenge ahead, but not taking that flight could lead to much greater changes, some of which you’ll never know was related to your decision. Taking the opportunities to make that difference is in your hands.