An Issue for All

By Anonymous / Fall 2020

I was walking along the beach the other day and I noticed a piece of small plastic attached to a sea anemone; they typically cover themselves with shells and that one seems to have mistaken the plastic for a shell fragment. When we think about climate change we usually think about drastic pictures, such as piles of waste and extreme weather, but the small “innocent” things like this show how pervasive pollution has become in our lives.

The concept of climate change has been around for a while. I remember as a child, we learned about the ozone depletion and the polar ice caps melting, and we were told that if this continues then Earth would eventually become uninhabitable. Growing up in a fastly developing city in China, we can see the smog in the air now and then, yet like the tiny piece of plastic, it did not seem to greatly impact the life of the average person. However, in our education, we are encouraged to discuss how to improve our city and society, and my teachers often told us to start from ourselves and start with the little things in life. I remember shutting the lights for an hour on Earth Day, double-checking the labels for recycling, and turning off the AC periodically during the summer. Despite the lessons and the slogans, the city did not become that much greener. As Russell illustrates “As economies have grown richer, nature has paid the price”.

Climate change is undoubtedly the result of human activity. With the industrial revolution, we can see a spike in the amount of carbon emitted. So naturally, we blame ourselves, humans, for causing climate change. When doing the research for this paper, it didn’t take more than a quick google search of “How are our habits ruining the environment” for a few dozen articles to pop up claiming that flushing the toilet is one of the many ways that we are killing the environment. I understand that articles like this with exaggerated phrasings can generate massive clicks, but it reinforces the idea that the individual is the one responsible for something as grand as climate change. I attended a coding competition that had the theme of sustainability about a year ago, and my group created an app that calculates the carbon footprint of a person’s shopping list. While I still think it’s a nifty app, a judge’s opinion pointed out its shortcomings: the products are already made, so while the consumer is responsible for the consumption it shouldn’t be completely on the individual to make good choices, especially when good choices can be rather unattainable. For so long many like me have internalized that ourselves and others as the guilty party, especially when we use plastic straws or leave the lights on, but we fail to see the bigger picture of how our consumption came to be. Like Lukas states, “Individual choices will most count when the economic system can provide viable, environmental options for everyone—not just an affluent or intrepid few.” I do realize how deeply consumerism has been ingrained within us, but it just goes to show that climate change has become a systemic issue, that needs to be addressed for its impacts across the globe.

If we were to look beyond blaming a single person or even a single entity, we would see that society has created a convenient space for those entities to conduct behaviors that are not environmentally friendly. The way the narrative has been pushed to hold the individual accountable for climate change has facilitated them to absolve themselves of the responsibilities. For instance, according to Hyman, “In fact, only 100 investor and state-owned fossil fuel companies are responsible for around 70 percent of the world’s historical GHG emissions.”, and their interests push the narrative that climate change is on the individual. One might think that as consumers we can impact corporations’ policy-making with our consumer choices, but corporations likely impact our consumption choices more than vise versa. According to Hyman, “ They simultaneously lobby for trillions of dollars in subsidies that cheapen fossil fuels and make it more difficult for alternative renewable energy sources to compete fairly in the marketplace”. Thus, our choices of consumption are heavily influenced due to their ability to control prices. But if we stop them from cheapening their prices wouldn’t our lives be impacted? Wouldn’t the poor be more inconvenienced as they might be unable to afford things such as driving? Their products are cheap in their labeling, but the full price is more than what meets the eye. The total price may not be paid in a direct transaction we make with them, but rather paid by the subsidies provided to them by the governments, when the money could have been spent elsewhere such as on welfare, or creating jobs in sustainable energy. Thus, in a sense, we are the ones paying for the corporations’ damage to the environment, yet they managed to push the narrative that we are the ones responsible for climate change rather successfully. In recent years, with the popularization of sustainability, many corporations are trying to make a better image for themselves by promising goals of reducing waste. However, they often fail to address their actual scale of emissions (Axelrod). Reading the fine prints of their policies show that our consumer preferences may impact their change in creating their image but not necessarily their core decisions. As Axelrod puts it, “Government and individual actions are vital to addressing climate change, but corporations, with their outsized influence and power in today’s world, have an even larger role to play.” Climate change is an issue that impacts people worldwide and we should view that from an international perspective. Indeed, gradually people from all over the world are realizing growth at the cost of the environment is not sustainable. So why is the wheel of climate change not coming to a halt?

Apart from the neoliberal perspective on climate change that distracts those who are already wanting to improve, there are merchants of doubt that cast disbelief on climate change for those that are less aware. In the movie merchants of doubt, it was shown that ExxonMobil, a multinational oil and gas corporation, is a major funder of climate change disinformation. They are successful in that they spread misinformation by third party “experts” (Merchants of Doubt). According to Hyman, " the corporations’ spread of climate change denialism has caused the percentage of Americans that believe climate change to be 10% less than the international median”. While I have stated that the individual is not responsible for climate change, when the merchants of doubt instill skepticism in individuals, it fractures the unity of the group and takes away our power to ask for change. Furthermore, the way they do it can be quite appealing if you never suffered greatly from the direct impacts of climate change. As I sit here reading the facts and figures of climate change, I find it hard to contextualize. Life in the ivory tower untouched by large amounts of toxic wastes, natural disasters, and lack of impoverishment of resources is very comfortable, and these ideas seem so far away. Moreover, part of me does not want to believe it either. As stated in the neoliberalism perspective we hold on climate change, I worry that if climate change is my responsibility, then what measures would I have to take, and would I need to give up my current lifestyle? I believe that this fear of change probably holds more weight in the hearts of those who deny climate change and are susceptible to the tactics of the merchants of doubt. As we have seen with the pandemic, many people are unhappy to wear masks or stay indoors, in fact, some describe mask-wearing as taking away a person’s freedom. In the Merchants of Doubt, Marono even stated how easy it is to moger fear and doubt, “ people will fill in the blanks with their own perspective”. When looking at how they phrase things such as “a global environmental organization that will be able to police the world” (Merchants of doubt), it is not hard to see why people would be scared of environmental activism negatively impacting their lives, as it greatly parallels their fear of mas-wearing policies restricting their lives. Combating climate change would require many changes in policies and regulations, and it is natural to fear that this would negatively impact their lifestyles. We can see countries model this behavior as well, as they compete for higher GDPs. China is one of the fastest-growing country and it also produces the highest amount of emissions, and while the economic growth has boosted more into the middle class, the future generations might not be so lucky to enjoy the same quality of life. Then there is the USA that has been the dominant country in the world for generations, and while in recent years it has tried to tackle climate change and the environment within the country has improved, we can see that products it imports or creates still make the carbon footprint of the average American one of the highest in the world. I am not criticizing the average person in China who wants to move into a more middle-class lifestyle, nor the average person in America who is just consuming what is tangible to them. I also understand the government's desire to develop, for Russell has stated that since the 20th-century countries compete in terms of GDP. However, climate change is a global issue that requires the cooperation of all, and while countries try to sustain or improve the economy they should also consider the impacts of their actions on their future generations. There have been some global efforts to curb climate change. Still, we should pay attention to the swing of the pendulum as it could easily swing back, and we should especially look deeper into the promises made by the big corporations.

As I stated in my other writings, I think that the desire to have a comfortable life and items is natural, but as Prof. Twohig pointed out “at what point does the hoarding of wealth by a few people lead to suffering for the masses and the planet?” Corporations are not people, but I think this would be a great question to apply to them. One could say that the immense wealth that corporations have generated at the expense of the environment is unethical for it has impeded the benefits of the people. I would like to start by addressing those who are most at risk of climate change. As Beech presents, those who consume the least often suffer the most, “communities of color are disproportionately burdened with health hazards through policies and practices ... As a result, these communities suffer greater rates of health problems attendant on hazardous pollutants”. As it shows, climate change amplifies the effects of inequality. When seeing the heartbreaking reports of citizens dying of lead poisoning, and babies born without brains, one must wonder how we are expected to lift the poor if they’re lives are already written to tragedies due to the state of the environment being stacked against them. Then I would like to address the subtle tolls that climate change has taken on everyone. I stated in the last paragraph that my life is untouched by climate change, but what I mean is that on the surface level, climate change doesn’t seem to be my problem. In actuality, the pollutants have infiltrated deep in the ecosystem, according to Gibbens," humans may be consuming anywhere from 39,000 to 52,000 microplastic particles a year." and it is hypothesized that” over time, the cumulative effect of ingesting plastic could be toxic”. In my hometown, while we enjoy the benefits of having more wealth, we also worry about our lungs due to smog. Lastly, I want to touch on the more drastic and concrete ways we see the effects of climate change. As Reich has shown, climate change is largely to blame for the increase in frequency and intensity of natural disasters such as wildfires, flash floods, and hurricanes. Again the poor are more affected as they could end up homeless afterward or even die during it due to the lack of shelter. As for the middle class and those whose living places are less prone to disasters, we might not be directly caught in a disaster, but as long as we still live on the planet there is no way that one can be 100% immune to the rumblings of nature. We can see the harm of climate everywhere -- the plastic on the sea anemone is just a minute fraction of the waste in the ocean, and it is not as innocent as it seems, for it is the result of pollutants prevailing. Russell states that to combat climate change we might have to tighten our belts, but I think that putting public health and the sustainability of the environment in higher importance would eventually be a positive for the entire society.

As individuals, there’s not much power we have in comparison to the large corporations. However, as a group, we have the power to call for change. We should accept that climate change is happening, accept that is due to the human activities that we conduct, and also accept that there are currently many jobs and lifestyles that we have that come at the cost of the environment. However, we shouldn’t place the blame on others for using a plastic straw, and take it upon oneself to solve the issue of climate change, for it is not caused by a single person nor can it be solved that way. To curb climate, the entire society has to transition into a greener one, and that demands new policies to be created. There have already been policies drafted with ideas of combating climate change, as governments have realized the importance of preserving the place in which we live in. The proposal of the Green New Deal, according to Cortez, suggests that there should be a shift made to cleaner energy sources, and it would offer many new jobs in the market for teaching, research, and so on. I think this shift can also benefit workers as they do not have to work with as many pollutants if we switch to cleaner production methods. However, this has received pushback, in large part due to the power that the corporations have and their success in campaigning doubt amongst the public. If we want to push the change to a more sustainable future we need to have the international corporations be held accountable for their effects on the environment, to incentivize them to change their products. Fossil fuel companies have spent a great deal to absolve themselves from blame. Thus, we need to point out their tactics, so that the pressure would be on them to put their money to better use, such as on creating more environmentally friendly business models. There are already ongoing projects regarding renewable energy, but there are certain barriers Aside from the technical difficulty that is being minimized by the year, and geographic limitations, there are the complications caused by a lack of education on the matter and well establishment of fossil fuels (Clean Energy Ideas). These are issues that require society’s effort to change, so that we can be more educated and that the energy industry can become cleaner. Last but not least, to execute the above ideas, we would need to get the public on board. We need the people to be willing to make changes in their lives, such as changes in their jobs, and their support for funding projects on sustainability. As I said before, some doubt climate might worry that changes in regulations and policies might negatively impact their lifestyle, but we should help them realize that the fallout of climate is the actual threat, for we need to get past this issue as a group.

Professor Twohig often mentioned the pale blue dot during class. I did not share what I thought about when looking at the dot the first time I saw it. I thought about how mathematically incredible it is that this dot became an inhabitable place for life. I thought about how small and fragile we are in the world, and there is no other place we know that can sustain life. I thought about the history of the Earth, in which we are not the first inhabitants, and I hope that we will not be the last. Climate change affects us in individual ways, but to tackle a problem on a global scale, we must approach it from a global scale. 

Work Cited

Axelrod, Joshua. “Corporate Honesty and Climate Change.” NRDC. 26 Feb 2019. 18 Dec 2020

Beech, Peter. “What is Environmental Racism and How Can We Fight it?” World Economic Forum. 31 Jul 2020. 18 Dec 2020

Clean Energy Ideas. “Why Don’t We Use More Renewable Resources?” Clean Energy Ideas. 29 Jun 2019. 18 Dec 2020.

Gibbens, Sarah. “The Average Person Eats Thousands of Bits of Plastic Each Year.” National Geographic. 5 Jun 2019. 18 Dec 2020

Hyman, Elliot. “Who’s Really Responsible for Climate Change?” Harvard Political Review. 2 Jan 2020. 18 Dec 2020

Kennor, Robert, director. Merchants of Doubt. Participant, 2014.

Lukas, Martin. “Neoliberalism has Conned us into Fighting Climate Change as Individuals.” The Guardian. 17 Jul 2020. Dec 2020

Reich, Robert. “Amid Fire and Pestilence, Floods and Storms, the Personal is Political.” The Guardian. 23 Oct 2020. 18 Dec 2020

Russell, Ruby. “Climate Crisis: Is it Time to Ditch Economic Growth?” DW. 10 Jan 2020. 18 Dec 2020.

Twohig, Niall. “Re: Journals.” Received by Yueqi Wang, 13 Nov. 2020.

Ocasio-Cortez, Alexandria. “A Message from the Future.” YouTube, uploaded by TheIntercept. 17 Apr 2019.