The following article is an opinion and does not reflect the views of The Eagle or its staff. All opinions are edited and fact-checked for grammar, style, and argument structure, but the opinions are the author's own.
“If everyone lived the way you do, we would need three planets,” I said, after answering some basic questions about living space and food consumption, followed by the famous Ecological Footprint calculation. someone said to me: What did it mean to spend years limiting meat consumption, using reusable water bottles, advocating for climate action, taking public transportation, and attending America's first carbon-neutral university? There is no. If everyone lived like me, the earth would need three. The planet we live on cannot sustainably sustain people who behave as I do.
The reality is that most people's lifestyles are probably worse for the environment than the average progressive college student living in Washington, DC. When I'm here, I only get around on foot or by public transportation, and I don't own a car. Don't eat too much meat. There are many other factors that influence someone's carbon footprint, but these are the main focus of assessments like the one I did.
Much of my belief system is built around the fact that our resources as humans are not infinite. In everything we do as individuals, recognizing this is paramount to living a sustainable lifestyle. This idea is what proponents of reducing carbon emissions want to convey. However, forcing environmental action on individuals distracts from large corporations, governments, and other major polluters who are most responsible for climate change and its consequences.
Even with a serious focus on the role of individuals in the fight against climate change, collective indifference remains a persistent problem, as Thomas Perzler describes in his peer-reviewed paper, Climate Inaction. as in, “most people don't seem seriously concerned” and moral nihilism.
“We consume as much as we always do, we drive as much as we always do, we eat as much meat as always,” he said.
A study that differentiated between individualists and collectivists in climate change inaction found that “participants with more individualistic tendencies were more difficult to treat than those with more collectivist tendencies.'' “and are likely to indicate inaction on climate change.”
I recognize that individual action alone is not enough, but I have no intention of stopping my work to support climate action anytime soon. To best appreciate how effective climate action can be, even individual actions, it is important to look at climate action from a collective perspective. When we feel as though we are bearing the brunt of climate change, it is easy to think about how our actions are impacting or harming the planet and take a break. You may feel discouraged.
Rather than seeing individual climate action as critically important, we can think of it as a protest against the corporate forces that are directly committing acts of violence against the world. According to a 2017 study, 70 percent of global greenhouse gas emissions over the past 20 years can be attributed to just 100 fossil fuel producers.
According to the International Rescue Committee, “41 million people are already on the brink of starvation, and that number will rise further due to rising temperatures, desertification and extreme weather conditions.” Real people are facing the consequences of these companies' actions. That's why I think it's so important to recognize who is truly responsible for the human suffering caused by climate change. Countries most affected by climate change often bear the least responsibility, and here in the United States, the most vulnerable communities are disproportionately affected by climate change.
American University is proud of its commitment to climate action as a university and calls itself a “leader in sustainability.” The university achieved carbon neutrality in 2018, two years ahead of its goal, and boasts “10 LEED-certified buildings, seven solar panels installed, 10 percent renewable electricity, and bio- “All Diesel Shuttle Bus Fleets” and promotes divestment from fossil fuels. Although the AU is not one of the institutions most responsible for climate change, I respect its efforts to contribute to the fight against climate change at an institutional level.
Through the EcoPledge program, AU encourages personal behavior among students in six categories: reducing waste, conscious consumption, saving energy, conserving water, commuting smartly, and building community. I don't blame the AU for encouraging individual behavior. In particular, AU's target audience is more politically active and perhaps more determined to take collective action against climate change. The “community building” aspect of this pledge is most important as it encourages the aforementioned collective action through conversation and environmental action.
I don't want to live in a way that requires three earths. I want to live in harmony with the Earth, always remembering that I am alive because of the Earth. But if we do things that harm the environment, such as driving in a transportation system designed to require the use of automobiles or eating animal products in countries with large meat and dairy industries, Centering consumer behavior in a world that is often forced to do so means that everyone except corporations and polluters are directly responsible for the consequences of climate change, which is already harming millions. It's unfair to
Quinn Volpe is a sophomore in the School of Communication and Kogod School of Business and a columnist for The Eagle.
This article was edited by Alana Parker, Jerinda Montez, and Abigail Turner. Copy editing was provided by Luna Jinks, Isabelle Kravis, and Charlie Mennuti.
opinion@theeagleonline.com
