“No matter how hard a citizen individually follows Article 51A (g), Climate Change and

Environmental Pollution cannot be countered till Corporate Entities don’t earnestly act”

Article 51A(g) in The Constitution Of India 1949

(g) to protect and improve the natural environment including forests, lakes, rivers and wild life,
and to have compassion for living creatures;
We’re on track to blow by the 2°C threshold of temperature increase at which climate change
has been deemed catastrophic for humanity
Following the 2015 Paris Agreement to hold the global increase in climate to below 2℃ above
pre-industrial levels, the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was asked
to produce a report on the impacts of global warming of 1.5℃.
What can be done to limit global warming to 1.5°C? There’s a deluge of advice on how
individuals can change their behavior. Take public transport instead of the car or, for longer
journeys, the train rather than fly. Eat less meat and more vegetables, pulses and grains, and
don’t forget to turn off the light when leaving a room or the water when shampooing. The
implication here is that the impetus for addressing climate change is on individual consumers.
Would you advise someone to flap towels in a burning house? To bring a flyswatter to a
gunfight? Yet the counsel we hear on climate change could scarcely be more out of sync with
the nature of the crisis.
Yet there are at least two reasons why making it the duty of individuals to limit global warming
is wrong.
INDIVIDUALS ARE STATISTICALLY BLAMELESS
Climate change is a planetary-scale threat and, as such, requires planetary-scale reforms that
can only be implemented by the world’s governments.
Although the power of consumers is strong, it pales in comparison to that of international
corporations, and only governments have the power to keep these interests in check.
The Carbon Majors Database Report of 2018, has found that just 100 companies are
responsible for 71% of global emissions since 1988. Incredibly, a mere 25 corporations and
state-owned entities were responsible for more than half of global industrial emissions in that
same period.
If the fossil fuel industry are not forced to change, we will be on course to increase global
average temperatures by 4°C by the end of the century.
If just a few companies and countries are responsible for so much of global greenhouse gas
emissions, then why is our first response to blame individuals for their consumption patterns?
INDUSTRIES SHOULD LEAD
Governments have the power to enact legislation that could regulate industries to remain within
sustainable emission limits and adhere to environmental protection standards. Companies
should be compelled to purchase emissions rights–the profits from which can be used to aid
climate-vulnerable communities.
All of this is not to say that individuals cannot or should not do what they can to change their
behaviour where possible. Every little contribution helps, and research shows that limiting
meat consumption can be an effective step. The point is that failing to do so should not be
considered morally blameworthy.
While we busy ourselves greening our personal lives, fossil fuel corporations are rendering
these efforts irrelevant. The freedom of these corporations to pollute – and the fixation on a
feeble lifestyle response – is no accident.
Anything resembling a collective check on corporate power has become a target of the elite:
lobbying and corporate donations, hollowing out democracies, have obstructed green policies
and kept fossil fuel subsidies flowing; and the rights of associations like unions, the most
effective means for workers to wield power together, have been undercut whenever possible.
People feel in order to save the world they have to be “good”. Yet that is bad – because it
paralyses change. Personal sacrifice alone cannot be the solution to tackling the climate crisis.
There’s no other area in which the individual is held so responsible for what’s going wrong.
And it’s true: people drive too much, eat too much meat, and fly too often.
But reaching zero emissions requires very fundamental changes. Individual sacrifice alone will
not bring us to zero. It can be achieved only by real structural change; by a new industrial
revolution.
A 2018 United Nations report published states corporations generated approximately $2.2
trillion dollars in environmental damages, half of which were related to greenhouse gases.
Companies are among the top greenhouse gas emitting industries. Yet, without the backing of
a social trend questioning their practices, the climate will continue to deteriorate.
For example, during the Taiwanese waste crisis in the 1980s, collective action was successful
in opposing the national incineration project which effectively halted the construction of
burners. This also motivated the Taiwanese government to create policies and programs to
support recycling efforts.
More recently, New York City looked to sue some top oil and gas corporations for their
complicit role in causing climate change—showing a political willingness to hold corporations
accountable. Other cities who have filed lawsuits against corporations include San Francisco
and Oakland.