Maybe individuals can't change the world

In the blogs I write I’m always careful to include what individuals can do about climate change and environmental issues. It’s about presenting a complex and daunting issue, but then discussing ways we each do something about those problems. Recycle, ride your bike rather than drive, don’t over consume, switch to energy savers, lobby government, don’t take this shit lying down. But lately I’ve started to wonder.

I think the guardian.co.uk site is a good example of what’s changing my thinking. On the site they have a section where they investigate the finer points on living “green”: whether polystyrene is a better alternative to plastic; if clingwrap is recyclable and whether one should choose “local” over imported organic. I’m sure the intention is good, but I have the feeling it leaves people feeling thoroughly overwhelmed and so guilty about everything they do that ultimately they decide to hell with it, bring me my Hummer.

Towards the end of last year there were a number of news reports that seemed to report exactly this: people were switching off from news of climate change because it left them feeling guilty. Although the public had been fed hundreds of ABCs on how to green their lives, they felt that any changes they made were inconsequential. So, in the face of a problem many feel unable to change, denialism becomes an easier way of dealing with the issue. What’s the point of taking ownership of a problem one can’t really control?

The problem with emphasising what individuals can do is that it draws attention away from the larger systems that really influence the situation. We lose sight of the bigger picture, and create unrealistic expectations of what individuals can achieve.

We can recycle till we’re blue in the face, but for as long as more and more are consuming more and more, that recycling can only do so much. Energy savers can only achieve so much when our electricity system is underpinned by dirty coal. Cutting down on our personal use of petrol can only go so far when our entire food transport system, and indeed the whole economy, runs on oil. In the end consumers are left feeling guilty, and they soon withdraw from the problem. Rather than lobbying Eskom to change from coal to clean energy, the onus is placed entirely on the consumer to cut down on how much power they use. Yes, they have a role to play, and should use power responsibly, but ultimately it’s changing how our power is generated that will have the greatest effect on the country’s emissions.

For change to happen, we need to change the systems. First and foremost we need to identify the systems that have created and led us to the position we are now in, and then we need to change them. By purely focussing on the consumer, creating the impression that change starts and ends with them, we won’t change the game. Instead of identifying capitalism, or materialism, or whatever, as the overarching system which sets the playing field, we are focussing on the players — and they can only do so much. If we want to change how the game is played, we need to change the rules of the game — or the actual game itself — not the techniques of individual players.

And that’s where the public comes into the picture: not as consumers, but as citizens. It is their role to vote and lobby and protest for changes at the systemic level. I am not saying individual action has no place in all this. By all means people should endeavour to lighten their carbon and ecological footprints as much as possible, but we have to realise that there is only so much they can do given the broader economic and social arrangements. To achieve more we will have to change the system. By all means we should praise individual action, but promoting it as the ultimate solution to environmental decline may actually be blocking real solutions.