Climate objectives: let us apportion responsibility where it should be

The climate. It is a theme that seems to stir everyone. Finally I would say. In the search for a scapegoat and the need for control, I notice that the wrong people always seem to be accountable.

A thought experiment

I propose a thought experiment for clarification. Imagine a million couples who this year cancel their hypothetical flight vacation to Curaçao, eat ten kilos less meat, install solar panels, switch to electric driving and halve their shower time. You have to be honest, that sounds big.

Let's make the sum:

• The million flights to Curacao save 2.37 million tonnes (Mt) CO2 equivalent.
• The reduction of 10 million kilos of beef results in a reduction of 0.34 Mt CO2.
• Subsequently, 10 solar panels of 275Wp on 500,000 houses (one couple per house): that would be a saving of 1.1 tonnes per house, 0.55 Mt CO2 in total.
• In addition, we are replacing 500,000 petrol cars with electric cars. Assuming 50% green energy, this would be a saving of 75% of 3.36 tonnes of CO2 per car, 1.26 Mt in total.
• Finally, 5 minutes less showering per person also saves 0.09 Mt CO2.

These five substantial interventions together account for a saving of 4.6 Mt CO2 equivalent.

Well, how does this saving relate to the emissions of the major polluters? Don't be shocked, but it equals less than 1%of worldwide emissions of Shell's products in 2015. A single CO2 fart from Shell is thus sufficient to undo the sustainability initiatives of a million citizens.

Europe's largest refinery Shell Pernis

A false choice

Of course, the industry likes to hide behind the argument that it simply delivers what consumers ask. That sounds logical, but it is not. These industries are so large that they largely determine which and how many resources are exploited (in which billions are invested) and how consumers are tempted.

Powerful lobbies also have a steering effect on a government policy of deregulation and tax relief. In addition, some major polluters knew decades ago that their products caused a real problem and that the industry had to change. It's not that an individual consumer really has options, right?

It is just like with the false choice between traveling by plane or train to Barcelona. After all, the government has largely made that choice for you through infrastructure and taxation choices; you have to be extraordinarily privileged and principled to take the train.

Do I claim then that the 'conscious citizen' should keep flying, polluting the earth or devouring meat? No of course not. Most 'green' behaviors make your body healthier, your environment more beautiful, your fellow people happier, and your conscience cleaner.

But focusing on individual consumption behavior to tackle the climate problem doesn't serve much purpose. It mainly represents a moral mouse hunt that diverts us from the fact that the hyenas continue to party on the climate cadaver. And they are subsidized for it. Only one hundred companies worldwide are responsible for 71% of all CO2 emissions since 1988.

How on earth can we fly less or drive an electric car while the state cheerfully subsidizes fossil fuels? How can we stimulate more green initiatives, adore climate-neutral houses and self-monitor our personal CO2 consumption on a daily basis through the latest GreenerU app, while large corporations keep declaring their love for fossil fuels? It seems like the internalization and individualization of this climate debt is very convenient for the heavy user.

Angry citizens

It is actually not that complicated. Environmental problems are distributional issues. Who generates the mess? Who bears the costs? The bearers of burdens and lusts are now separated from each other: a very small group of large polluters are celebrating, while the consequences of environmental problems are disproportionately borne by those who have little to do with creating them.

For impact, we should not look primarily at ourselves as a green consumer, but at ourselves as an angry citizen. Governments, top management and shareholders must become nervous about the changing public opinion. There must be a tax system where the major polluter pays. We need divestment campaigns and climate-focused lawsuits against the state and business. But all this does not get off the ground without millions of angry citizens pointing their arrows in the right direction.

That is why we must stop blaming ourselves and each other. We need each other. We must unite!