This article was written in response to Emma Weller’s opinion piece published Sept. 25, 2020 entitled “Opinion: Consumerism is to blame for smoking out climate change progress.”
When it comes to living sustainably and reducing our environmental impact, the importance of shopping less and sustainably when possible cannot be overstated. However, putting the burden of the current climate crisis on citizens and individuals to change their shopping habits will not solve climate change or reduce global warming.
An opinion piece published by the Charlatan claims that “the primary contributor to climate change lies in the conscious decisions humans make to over-consume and support multinational corporations that do not promote sustainability.”
I wholeheartedly disagree with this statement.
The main cause of climate change is the increasing carbon dioxide and greenhouse gases being released into our atmosphere, causing certain parts of the planet to heat up while other parts cool down.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) wrote in the fifth assessment report released in 2013 that human activity has caused this increase in global temperature, sea-level rise, ocean warming, reduced air quality, and shrinking arctic ice.
Note that the report does not attribute these changes solely to human consumerism. There is more to climate change than simply the actions of individuals.
A report released last year by the Carbon Accountability Institute showed the top 20 companies that contribute to climate change are large corporations in the oil and gas industry. These companies keep investing in non-renewable forms of energy to increase their profits and retain the status quo. As the Guardian reports, some of these companies have known about the implications of their actions since 1965.
Corporations create the product and the desire through elaborate marketing and then refuse to take responsibility for the problems that result. Whether it is plastic, fashion, cars or any other anti-green product we use, each one was created by a company whose goal is to make a profit at any cost—the environment and people be damned.
Blaming individual consumers is pointless. People may have created a demand for Coke, but they didn’t ask for it in a plastic bottle that takes millions of years to degrade. And yet, it has become the responsibility of consumers to recycle these companies’ products, rather than attacking the first step of consumption: unsustainable manufacturing.
Governments have known too. The IPCC was formed in 1988 to “to provide governments at all levels with scientific information that they can use to develop climate policies,” and currently has 195 member countries. Both governments and industry have known the implications of climate change and have done nothing about it.
Additionally, the Charlatan piece makes a point that the fear of obsolescence gives people the urge to keep buying things they do not need. While this is true to an extent, it does not give the full picture. All people do not consume equally. Those with the means to buy more—i.e. the wealthy—do so more than those who are living in poverty. If anyone is to be targeted with anti-consumerism campaigns, it should be the very rich—not the typical lower to middle-class person.
Ignoring the systems of inequality that result in a world where many are forced to depend on cheap, unsustainably produced items is bad enough. Going a step further by telling these same people—who cannot afford to buy more expensive, sustainably made products—that they alone must reverse the cycle of consumerism is naive at best and classist at worst.
Governments must take action and create policies that prevent corporations from further destroying environments and mass-releasing pollutant chemicals in low-income communities. They must create incentives for corporations to invest in renewable, clean sources of energy. Failing that, corporations will have to find the initiative within themselves for the sake of a better planet.
Just as we have regulations for things like public health—directly preventing people from purchasing deadly household products, rather than hoping they make the ‘right decision for themselves’—so too should regulations exist to ensure people are not able to make the earth-destroying decisions they have been for decades.
There is a reason why the United States leaving the Paris agreement is a problem for the world, and it’s not because people buy too many things. We need those in power to implement mandatory regulations to secure our future. While individual actions count too, it is our world’s leaders—whether economic or political—who will determine whether we are doomed.
Featured image from file.
