Average Joe Versus Uncle Sam...Where Does The Responsibility For Action On Climate Change Fall?

Every day I scroll through my Instagram feed, I see posts condemning the consumption of animal products, and in the same breadth messages about how we should be holding corporations accountable rather than shaming each other for our individual choices. So when it comes to tackling climate change, whose responsibility is it?

As you know, this blog discusses matters of sustainability at the individual level based on my own practices and experience. I obviously believe in the power of the individual, when multiplied by millions, to affect change on a larger scale. That said, the role of government and regulation of corporate pollution and environmental practices are irreplaceable in the fight against climate change.

To have this discussion, we first need to differentiate between sustainability and climate change. Sustainability in its most basic definition is the ability to maintain something at a certain level, and in the environmental perspective, sustainability is about balancing the consumption rate of natural resources with their renewal. That’s why when we talk about “renewable energy” we are focusing on sustainable energy sources. There will always be that guy on Facebook (we all know one) who will say that fossil fuels are technically renewable because they came from the decomposition of plants and dinosaurs. Realistically, fossil fuels are being consumed drastically faster than they are being produced (by millions of years), which is part of what makes them unsustainable and for humans, non-renewable.

Sustainability is broad in its application, which is what I try to emphasize through my blog. Maintaining habitat connectivity while managing urban development, reducing water consumption by swapping to low flow shower heads and toilets, and preventing our pets from harming wildlife while donating to our local wildlife rehabbers are all examples of sustainability that don’t necessarily relate to greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Being able to understand, manage, and mitigate one’s own personal impacts is a responsibility we inherit by reaping the benefits of living in an affluent society.

What do I mean living in an affluent society? While we’ve all heard the stats about the world’s top 1% in regards to wealth, we hear less about the average individual living in a wealthy country. For example, according to The Federal Reserve, the median household net worth in the US is approximately $97,300¹, which is still higher than 90% of the worldwide population². Another way to examine this is to look at income. In 2017 the median household income in the US was $57,652 with a per-capita income of $31,177³. Compare that to the worldwide median household income $9,733 or a per-capita income of $2,920 according to Gallup metrics⁴.

Living in an affluent society is where your garbage is handled at a regulated landfill and not dumped directly into your drinking water source, where you watch the evening news while eating dinner with your family, where you get to drive your personal car back and forth to your job, where you don’t have to worry about where your next meal is coming from because even if you’re low on cash you can always scrounge up enough quarters for a fast food double hamburger.

Due to sustainability’s broad nature in scale and type of application, it is my belief that we must take the responsibility upon ourselves to implement sustainable practices wherever possible. This may be swapping out paper towels for dish cloths, going to your city council to request a curbside composting service or improved recycling program, or planting native species in your garden instead of a non-native ornamental breed. Essentially, we should be evaluating our lifestyles and making everyday changes to lessen our impact and consumption.

Climate change is more specific to the issue of greenhouse gases in our atmosphere, causing global level changes in Earth’s climate (the atmosphere, the hydrosphere, the cryosphere, the lithosphere and the biosphere, and the interactions between them). The emissions that come from commuter traffic, energy plants, manufacturers, etc. enter our atmosphere and warm the planet like a blanket. The rapid influx of GHGs into the atmosphere since the industrial revolution has accelerated the natural rate of climate change. Typically, I try to include references to peer reviewed journal articles to support the claims I use in my posts, however, for this particular statement please refer to 97% of scientists.

Given the global implications and role that our governments play in regulation of industries that are directly contributing to climate change, it is my opinion that it the is responsibility of the government to pass policies and legislation that hold corporations accountable. In contrast to matters of sustainability that are easily implemented by the individual based on their personal lifestyle, matters of climate change are often the source of larger scale issues that are not within the control of the individual. Therefore, it should be the responsibility of our government to step in and regulate where the consumer has no power.

For this let’s look at an example of climate change source emissions based on US EPA data. Transportation accounts for the largest share of GHG emissions at approximately 29%, which includes transportation from passenger vehicles, commercial trucking, trains, planes, and ships. The majority of transportation emissions comes from passenger vehicles (cars, minivans, pickuptrucks, and ATVs) and light duty trucks⁵. In other words, it’s our everyday personal travel that makes up the bulk of transportation emissions.

While consumers have the ability to vote with their dollar in the purchases they make to influence the demand for more fuel efficient vehicles, we can only buy what’s available in the market. In 2012, the Obama administration released new federal standards to increase fuel efficiency to 54.5 miles per gallon (mpg) for cars and light duty trucks by model year 2025. This pressured car manufacturers to start investing more in research and development to meet the new federal standards. However, last year the Trump administration announced that they would be easing those fuel efficiency standards for model years 2022-2025. This change was the result of pressure from auto makers saying those standards would raise the price of vehicles beyond what consumers can afford, despite the fact that consumer savings on fuel would have been equivalent to gas costing approximately $1 per gallon⁶.

This decision will now influence available vehicles in the market for years and potentially slow the fuel efficiency progress and electrification of vehicles. Rather than defending a matter of climate science with scientific data, the decision to ease regulations was made based on a loosely founded economic claim, and us citizens are the ones who will have to deal with the outcome.

This is just one example but there are many more like it. Looking back in United States history we can see the consequences of letting ourselves operate without regulation. Rivers were polluted to the point where they caught fire, thousands of species were pushed to extinction or the brink of it, and the air was polluted so heavily it was causing illness in children.

However, thanks to the Clean Water Act of 1972, the Androscoggin River I now kayak and canoe on went from one of the ten most polluted rivers in the United States to a designated swimmable waterbody. Thanks to the Endangered Species Act of 1973, it’s no longer a rarity to see a Bald Eagle flying high over a lake searching for fish. And the Clean Air Act of 1970 (and amendments) showed that protecting the quality of our environment does not have to come at the expense of our economy, as emissions of the six regulated pollutants decreased 41% while the gross domestic product (GDP) increased more than 64%⁷.

What’s the take away?

As with mostly anything, there is a need for both trickle down (government regulation) and bottom up (grassroots movements) processes to best affect change. So, to answer the original question (see title), we have to make changes where we can individually and press our representatives to make the sustainable changes where we can’t.