Passing the buck

In 2021 the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists once more set its world famous Doomsday Clock, which is used to symbolise the urgency of possible existential threats, at 100 seconds to midnight. This has been in part due to the fear of climate catastrophe, which is clearly visible in the continued flooding, wildfires, raised temperatures, melting ice-caps, rising sea-levels, and so much more.

We are in a state of climate emergency according to United Nations Secretary General Antonio Guteres, who stated that, “[this is a] code red situation, the alarm bells are deafening, and the evidence is irrefutable” It’s gotten so bad that even Prince William has noticed. The Royal, ahead of the COP26 summit, decided to launch a fund for climate activists and stated that, “time is absolutely crucial, we are on a ticking clock unfortunately and the next 10 years are critical.”

It is then no surprise that many are understandably concerned and want to do something about it. As humans, we like to see tangible possibilities of change which is why many have moved towards using a ‘Carbon Footprint Calculator’ to reduce their individual footprint. The idea here is to swap out habits that contribute towards climate change and replace them with climate friendly ones. This would mean that if you drive a diesel car to work, you may consider switching to an electric car as those are more environmentally friendly.

Having a tool that helps you calculate your contribution to climate change has made one’s impact on climate change real and quantifiable, and therefore, seemingly reversible with lifestyle changes.

This has led to the term ‘Carbon Footprint’ spreading like wildfire, with every green-minded person you know looking to calculate their Carbon Footprint and companies encouraging the use of their products because it would result in a smaller Carbon Footprint. The term is now part of our common jargon, but is it a good thing?

To unpack that, it needs to be addressed where the idea originates from. While the idea of a Carbon Footprint is scientific, making it an individual narrative is actually part of a larger marketing ploy. Nearly two decades ago, British Petroleum (BP), in a 2004 marketing campaign helmed by Ogilvy & Mather – a powerful marketing firm – coined the concept of a Carbon Footprint Calculator. An incredibly effective marketing ploy, BP’s Carbon Footprint calculator allowed an individual to see how much of their daily lifestyle contributes towards global warming.

Notably, BP happens to be the second largest non-state owned oil company in the world, with 18,700 gas stations across the globe. And of the 100 companies that contribute towards 71 per cent of all of the world’s Green House Gas emissions, BP happens to be one of the largest contributors. BP and other large polluting conglomerates have used the idea of individual Carbon Footprints to shift the climate action narrative from corporate accountability to personal responsibility.

In 2004, the year of the calculator’s launch, as many as 278,000 people calculated their footprints. Meanwhile, BP continues to produce four million barrels of oil per day.

This is inherently problematic because the idea of the Carbon Footprint is much like the greenwashing ‘opium of the masses,’ where something feel-good like the small lifestyle changes you can make tangibly helps you feel content with your negligible climate action and shifts your focus from calling out the real culprits. Simply put, it promotes inaction.

The Pandemic, which effectively removed most people’s Carbon Footprint, is clear evidence that individuals do very little to help global warming. The amount of carbon dioxide in the air won’t go down at all this year, and that is because despite all of us staying at home, big business are still running and doing so using money-making, climate unfriendly practices.

Furthermore, calculating one’s Carbon Footprint creates an incomplete picture of how an individual contributes towards climate change. As with anything in life, an individual’s consumption patterns are also intersectional – they are based on the context in which they are carried out and cannot be seen as ‘good’ or ‘bad’ on face value. Take the examples of two people, one that uses less air-conditioning and one that uses a lot of it. On the surface it would seem that the individual with less energy usage has a smaller Carbon Footprint. However, it pales in comparison if we consider that the person with higher electricity usage regularly votes green, while the other one does not vote at all.

A measure like the Carbon Footprint measures everything except what actually matters. If we encourage eco-friendly individuals to use their Carbon Footprints as the ultimate guide to fight climate change, we risk them spending all of their energy on low impact individual actions. Measures such as these are incomplete as they do not take into account a person’s voting patterns, how many children they wish to have, where they work, where they invest their money, as well as, how much they talk about climate action and whether this is done with a sense of urgency, apathy or denial.

A measure that takes all this into account is climate activist Emma Patte’s concept of the ‘Climate Shadow,’ which includes what one consumes, what their choices are and where they put their attention. “The power of your Climate Shadow is that, unlike a Carbon Footprint, it includes actions that defy easy calculation,” says Patte, while adding that, such a measure promotes climate action.

Promoting a measure like the Carbon Footprint as the single most important thing for individuals to focus on places a smoke screen around the real issues, that need to be addressed with urgency by taking away the appeal of collective activism.

The writer is Sub-Editor, Bol News