Target-branded reusable bags. Electric vehicles. Bamboo toothbrushes. Sustainable yoga gear.
To people who consider themselves environmentally conscious, these “eco-friendly” options may seem attractive. By opting for these over more pollutive choices, one can reduce their so-called “carbon footprint.” In theory, these options can allow a person to have the warming and sea level rise of the climate crisis put back in their hands. The University of Michigan describes one’s carbon footprint as “the total greenhouse gas emissions caused directly or indirectly by an individual.” This can range from the amount of energy a household utilizes, to the plastic waste it produces and even the amount of ever-polluting red meat one chooses to consume.
But more interesting is what that does not measure. Emphasizing the carbon footprint ignores the fact that the average consumer is far from responsible for the deepening climate crisis. An individual’s contribution towards solving this crisis is negligible in the face of the real culprits: modern profit-motivated society. The ugly truth of the climate crisis is that it is an issue so deeply embedded in our day-to-day existence that it runs up every part of our wider cultural and economic apparatus.
Perhaps the most obvious example of the insignificance of the average consumer’s carbon footprint is that of the upper class’ widespread use of private jets. In recent public discourse, this has manifested in the frankly ridiculous private jet emissions of singer-songwriter Taylor Swift. Her recent globe-trotting “Eras” tour has been powered by numerous private jet trips. Her journey to attend the 2024 Super Bowl has brought her total distance traveled by private jet to over 19,400 miles in just two weeks. This means producing 200,000 pounds of carbon emissions, which is equivalent to the amount used by 14 American households in an entire year. In the face of this casual mass-scale pollution done by celebrities like Swift, it is baffling to blame any single consumer and their carbon footprint for the climate crisis. For every paper straw used by a well-meaning consumer, a celebrity like Swift produces innumerable pounds of carbon emissions for their own convenience and economic gain. In fact, even when looking solely at air travel, celebrities and other extremely wealthy individuals still produce vastly more emissions than the average American; they’re responsible for 50% of all air travel emissions. Individuals can be as climate conscious as they would like, but that means nothing as long as cultural events like Swift’s “The Eras Tour” demand that celebrities make incredibly environmentally damaging decisions that laugh in the face of comparatively microscopic scale eco-friendly consumer choices.
Carbon emissions are no accident. They are not a coincidence of economic production, but a direct, known part of how large companies make a profit. Oil, gas, and coal companies have been directly responsible for at least 15 percent of all carbon emissions in recent centuries. This is a fact that has been known to them for years, and research proves that these companies continuing on this path will bring untold catastrophes in our lifetimes. This fact is disturbing to these companies because of how it will affect how consumers view them, the public relations disaster is obvious, and so they have made an effort to deflect blame. ExxonMobil, perhaps the most guilty culprit in energy companies’ carbon emissions, has led this effort. Initially, the company deliberately denied the existence of climate change. But when the scientific consensus on climate became too prolific to deny, however, ExxonMobil shifted towards blaming consumers for the climate crisis. They framed climate change as a consumer-forward issue, describing that “Energy-saving consumers can make a real difference.” This rhetoric exists to create the myth of the consumer’s carbon footprint and ignores the fact that ExxonMobil is directly causing the climate crisis and has the power to help end it. Companies like ExxonMobil exist for the sole purpose of generating profit, and shifting away from their pollutive modes of production, which are profitable, would harm that purpose. This lie of individuals being at fault for climate change is spread solely to protect their short-term profit margins at the expense of long-term climate liveability.
Shifting the context of climate change away from individuals’ carbon footprint is not just about knowing where to place blame. In order to truly solve the existential issue of climate change, we have to evaluate the institutional cultural and economic issues that allow carbon emissions to dominate everyday life. This is key to help reorient discussion on climate change away from meaningless blame-shifting rhetoric and towards solutions. Climate catastrophe can only be avoided by a radical reorganization of the economy and macro-level patterns of consumption. Of course the choices of individuals matter, but it’s time to stop putting our focus on an elusive carbon footprint and start seeing the reality of how profit-obsessed individuals and companies got us to this tipping of extinction.
