Both environmentalists as well as concerned citizens are reeling from the compromisesClimate change was a major topic at the recent COP26 summit.
Follow the ads for bamboo paper towels, which are more sustainable than regular paper towels (and twice as expensive) than regular paper towels, to see news clips about dramatic climate protests that have been shared on Instagram. On the streets, PostersH&M is proud to promote green or sustainable brands such as H&M. consciousFashion trends are a competition for consumers’ attention with seasonal Starbucks signs, inviting them in with promisesThese lids are made from a variety of materials. EliminateStraws
We are constantly bombarded by calls for climate change, but we rarely question their hypocrisy. These calls come from corporations, who are the most polluting.
Many are familiar with the main culprits that contribute to pollution, namely Big corporationsStates in the coal and oil industries. The 10% who are the most wealthy contributes less. 63% of carbon dioxide emissionsMuch of this carbon emissions comes from international air travel and consumer habits. Comparable to the middle 40%, who contribute 44% of carbon emission, or the poorest half (who contribute only 7%) of carbon emission), the carbon footprint left by the wealthy and large companies is staggering.
Corporations place the burden on individuals to care for the environment, and we buy into it.
Despite corporations and wealthy being the most responsible and having the greatest means to address carbon emissions, they insist that individuals take responsibility for the climate and we agree to it.
According to a Pew Research Center reportTwo-thirds of the respondents, representing the U.S. adult populace, believed that ordinary Americans weren’t doing enough to reduce their climate change contribution. Nearly half of those surveyed also believed that they were not doing enough.
Everyday consumers are criticized if they don’t recycle, drive electric cars, or carry reusable straws. These are all great habits to incorporate into your life. But it is not everyone who is responsible. Oil leaking into the oceansOr choosing less sustainable materials just to make more profit. We are the ones who should be greener.
Many historians trace the beginning of assigning Personal responsibilityThe environment was transferred onto individuals in the years immediately following World War II. These changes in the economy encouraged a consumer society based in single-use containers and other household goods in the name convenience. This was a break from a culture that reused dishes and glass bottles, and shied away takeout containers.
The campaign was used by corporations to remind people to stop littering and to encourage recycling to end the litter problem.
The proliferation of littering prompted states to take action against single-use corporations to protect the land. In 1953, plastic companies joined forces with corporations like Coca-Cola or Dixie Cup to create Keep America Beautiful. The companies tried to hide their part in the litter problem and so they used the campaign to remind people to stop littering and to encourage recycling to end the litter epidemic.
Keep America Beautiful attracted widespread support from environmental groups. By the late 1960s mainstream society was becoming more concerned about environmental pollution and overpopulation. Keep America Beautiful shifted its focus from litter to other aspects, such as clean air and water, and has since been able to preserve the environment through environmental preservation. The Crying IndianThe Ad Council released an advertisement in 1970 that shifted all the blame from corporations to individuals by using guilt and pathos.
The basic idea of the video is to follow the path taken by a Native American man as he collects litter along the highway. The emotional part comes in when the camera zooms into the pained expression on his faces and the single tear running down his cheek. DetailIndividuals pinpoint guilt and responsibility as the root cause of their feelings.
Even though environmental groups are reducing their efforts, many companies still benefit from the campaign. SplitKeep America Beautiful was founded in the mid-1970s to fight regulations protecting the environment.
Many companies are involved in the fashion industry, such as the ones mentioned above. H&M and Zara. UniqloThey have been criticised for using unsustainable practices (mostly in relation to fast fashion, and cheap materials). Their solution: GreenwashingTheir products market their clothes as sustainable and consciousHowever, it hides the non-eco friendly methods used to produce these products to appeal to consumers’ desire for responsible environmental behavior. People can still shop green and buy easily replaceable products without feeling guilty about polluting the environment.
Similar promises are made to change unsustainable practices through the use of more products RecyclableCompanies like Nestl, Coca-Cola, and Pepsi can find them, but they rarely take action. According to the report, Nestl, Coca-Cola, and Pepsi are the top three plastic polluters in the third consecutive year. Get Rid of Plastics Brand Audit 2020 Report.
Large, polluting companies often produce the most convenient and accessible products. It can be difficult to find green brands or stores. Take the Shop with a PackageLocated on Grand Street in Brooklyn. The store is known for its environmentally-friendly mission of producing zero packaging waste for basic household staples like soap, detergent, and other household essentials. However, the prices are much higher than what most people can afford. A bottle of Natural Refillable ShampooCosts $32, for instance.
Greener brands are still focused on making a profit, even though they know that many customers will be willing to pay more for the environment. They are just like large polluting corporations. People who can afford green products will pay that amount. Those who cannot afford it or don’t want to have to deal with those expenses will be forced to choose from single-use, less sustainable commodities.
To shift the environmental blame from corporations onto individuals, large corporations may also resort to disturbing psychological tactics. Take Campaign for Target Neutral at bpsFor example, On One pageReaders are informed by the fact that many of us want action to reduce our lifestyle carbon footprints but don’t know how to get started. We created a lifestyle calculator to help you determine your carbon emissions for travel, home energy and what you buy.
The CalculatorClick on the link to take a quick quiz. This will ask for information like how many hours you drive per week and how much of your home’s energy comes from renewable sources. Participants are then confronted with (and often ridiculed for) their personal carbon footprint and asked to make a personal pledge to lower their thermostats by one degree or to only fly on renewable airlines through cute infographics.
Ecoanxiety, ecoguilt, and ecological grief are all terms that have been used in medical articles about mental health.
These pledges are ridiculous and unreasonable to expect from individuals, particularly when the infrastructure required to permanently reduce individual emissions is not available. They unfairly put the burden of reducing emissions on individuals when the company sponsoring the questionnaire has the power and responsibility to effect change.
People who lack the resources, time, or energy to change their habits to lessen their impact on the environment can feel like they are powerless to stop it from happening. This can have a negative impact on their mental health. According to a report by a, terms such as ecoanxiety, ecological guilt, and ecological grief have entered the lexicon in medical articles that relate to mental health. Systematic reviewFrontiers 2019 consolidated medical literature to show the increased link between climate and mental illness.
Recent developments have seen a SurveyMore than 10,000 respondents from 10 different countries were surveyed in September 2021. Nearly 50% of those surveyed felt that climate change had caused anxiety. Large corporations are often blamed for making us feel guilty and responsible for environmental changes that are not our responsibility.
We cannot solve climate change on our own.
Moreover, the groups that are Most likely to be affectedBoth climate change and mental health problems are caused by these changes racial minoritiesAccording to the EPA They live in areas more susceptible to natural disasters and have longer recovery times than whites. Racial minorities are more susceptible to climate change than whites, and they are also less at fault for it. Older men often make up the top ranks of wealthy corporations and the highest-ranking climate activists. younger People of color, ContraryPopular belief is that minorities don’t care about the environmentalism.
Im not advocating for you to stop bringing your reusable cup and straw to Starbucks or to completely boycott greenwashing brands like H&M; you should continue to incorporate eco-conscious habits into your life because individual actions do still matter.
However, we cannot solve the climate change problem by ourselves.
It is not right for individuals to feel guilty for a problem perpetuated by corporations and wealthy people, especially when this responsibility is starting to affect our mental health.
It doesn’t matter if people are eco-conscious. The pollution caused by corporations and wealthy individuals is. so much greaterIt is higher than the average citizen’s. Real change can only be achieved by regulating companies and holding those who have the power to make changes accountable, not blaming individuals. As much as we all would like to see climate change disappear, Tossing a CoinThe actual change is more like a stream of laws, regulations, and pledges to climate initiatives by corporations and the rich than a fountain. This isn’t a problem we can solve by ourselves.
