The false dichotomy of systemic and individual behaviour change

Individuals aren't going to solve climate change, but they are an important part of the system that will get us there.

There is often a polarising debate about who is “responsible” for climate change, and ultimately, who should fix it.

There is the “systemic change” camp who tend to put the focus on big corporations, governments, and economic systems. You see this narrative in popular headlines such as “Just 100 companies responsible for 71% of global emissions”.¹ Or claims that BP and other big oil companies promoted the personal carbon footprint to shift the blame onto consumers.²

Then there is the “personal responsibility” camp which puts focus on individual lifestyle changes: driving a petrol car, flying, and eating lots of meat leads to a carbon-intensive lifestyle; so we should cut back to live more sustainably.

I often get questions that suggest people view this as a binary. “Do you think individual actions matter when systemic change is what we need?”

But this is a false binary. It’s not one or the other. It’s both.

To be clear, I’m not deluded into thinking that we will solve climate change if we all just recycle our plastic bottles and compost our food waste. To get emissions to zero we have to rebuild and transition almost every part of our economy, from electricity and heat, to transport, agriculture and construction.

But it also seems wrong to suggest that individual actions — especially as larger collectives — don’t matter at all. Individuals are, after all, part of the system. We’re one of the cogs. Not nearly big enough to get things moving on our own — which is why us all “doing our bit” is not going to cut — but certainly capable of slowing things down if we’re not willing to budge.

In this post I’ll lay out some reasoning as to why I think systemic versus individual change is the wrong framing; the limits of behaviour change; and what really matters when it comes to personal impact.

---

The positive feedback loop of governments, companies and people

Systemic versus individual change is a false dichotomy. Both matter. No, individual behaviour change is not going to solve this. But governments and businesses can’t fix it if people aren’t willing to make changes, either.

Public opinion and openness to change influence government policies, and the direction that businesses and innovators move in.

Take the simple example of decarbonising road transport.

“Systemic changers” might say that it’s on governments to roll out and subsidise large-scale public transport programs to make them cheap. The government can support that. But that’s pointless if commuters are not willing to shift from the car to the train. In my last article, I looked at the results of a pilot program in Scotland, where the government cut peak rail fares. Unfortunately, the program was scrapped because the uptake from commuters was too low. If people aren’t willing to change behaviour, there’s only so much that institutions can do.

The same is true of electric vehicles. Building out high-quality, widespread charging networks is crucial. But governments are not going to waste their money if no one is willing to switch from their petrol car to an electric one. We can’t expect governments and companies to invest heavily in electrification if we’re too stubborn to transition.

Rather than it being one or the other, individual behaviours and system-builders work together. Institutions need to make it affordable and easy for people to make the switch: that’s anything from discounts, tax breaks or deals for the low-carbon choice; to putting mandates on automakers; to making sure that the country has a reliable charging network. But people also need to show institutions that this is the direction they want things to move.

Those who have the power to make structural changes need positive reinforcement from the public that what they’re doing is popular. The best way is for individuals to show that by moving to public transport, getting an electric car, or installing a heat pump.

This also applies to the interactions of businesses and consumers. No, you’re not going to solve climate change by swapping your beefburger for a meat substitute one. But your impact is also a bit higher than the carbon savings of your burger alone. When we buy products like meat substitutes we’re sending a signal to the market — to existing companies and new innovators — that there is demand. It’s like waving a flag for businesses to come and serve us with low-carbon products. This not only attracts new innovators and companies to build better products, but it also allows existing ones to scale and drives the cost down.

The early adopters of solar panels, electric cars, and meat substitutes have played a crucial role in driving down their cost. This makes them more affordable for everyone else, and helps to turn niche, elitist toys into real global solutions.

People emphasise the importance of voting at the ballot box. This is arguably where you can have the biggest impact. But you can also vote with your wallet, sending a signal to the market about what types of products you want and don’t.

---

Individual behaviour change is hard

Again, I’m not deluded into thinking that if we all just do our little bit, then this problem will be solved. Nor do I think that changing individual behaviours is easy. It’s not.

If you’ve read some of my previous work you’ll have seen my pessimism about behaviour change seep through. Regardless of whether we’re talking about solar panels, heat pumps, electric vehicles, public transport, meat substitutes, home heating, or air conditioning, I always stress that you need to make it cheap and easy for people to make the switch. If it’s expensive, most people won’t do it. If it’s difficult or inconvenient, then forget it.

I also tend to emphasise like-for-like substitutes or swaps for existing behaviours. If people like driving a petrol car, then give them an electric one. Of course, also invest in public transport, bike lanes, and liveable cities to make it even more attractive for them to leave their car at home. But many are still going to get a car for journeys that can’t be taken conveniently on a bike or a bus.

If they like burgers, give them an almost identical plant-based one. Again, this reflects the principle of making it easy and convenient for people: they don’t have to learn a new vegan recipe, they just need to swap out a beef patty for a soy one.

Getting people to substitute existing behaviours for a similar low-carbon equivalent is much easier than getting people to stop completely.

I know that’s not always a popular view. Many will think that people need to take responsibility and “give stuff up” or sacrifice some comfort. Maybe that’s true. But it doesn’t change the fact that it’s politically unpopular, and will make decarbonisation a constant and polarising battle.

So the way I think about behaviour change is that you need to give people what they want, and you need to make that affordable and easy. “What they want”, to be clear, is not a petrol car or a gas boiler. It’s a convenient and comfortable way to travel from A to B, and a warm home. 

The role of broader political, economic and corporate change (i.e. systemic change) is to make it “affordable and easy”.

---

What’s the point of a carbon footprint, anyway?

I can believe that BP is happy to promote “carbon footprints” to put responsibility on individuals. But that doesn’t mean the concept of a carbon footprint is useless. 

Carbon footprinting lets us understand — through numbers, not intuition — what things really matter when it comes to climate. And those things that don’t, so you can stress about them less.

It’s not just about individuals. Footprinting shows companies and governments where most of their emissions are coming from so that they can implement policies or invest in particular sectors effectively.

In the spirit of the late David MacKay, footprinting (whether it’s carbon, energy, or financial budgeting) is about working out the big stuff that matters. Here he is in his chapter “Every BIG helps” from his book:

“Have no illusions. To achieve our goal of getting off fossil fuels, these reductions in demand and increases in supply must be big. Don’t be distracted by the myth that “every little helps.” If everyone does a little, we’ll achieve only a little. We must do a lot. What’s required are big changes in demand and in supply.”

What are the big stuff?

If you look at the average person’s carbon footprint, you’ll find that most of their carbon emissions fall into four categories: moving stuff (or people) around, heating things up, cooling things down, and what they eat. That means that the biggest areas to think about are:

1. Driving. Opt for cycling or public transport if you can. If you need a car, electric is much better for the climate than petrol.

2. Flying. Probably the most carbon-intensive behaviour you have, if you take flights. Substituting remote meetings for in-person, and generally being selective about when you fly will make a big difference to your footprint. It’s one of the reasons I decline almost all non-UK conferences and in-person events; I prioritise the rare, high-impact ones.

3. Diet. If you eat meat and dairy, this will be the biggest part of your food footprint. Moving to a more plant-based diet (doesn’t have to be vegan) if the most effective way to cut the impact of your diet. Yes, meat substitutes are fine.

4. Heating or cooling. Probably be the biggest energy consumer at home. Making sure your house is insulated makes a big difference. Electric heat pumps are far better for the climate than gas boilers. This also includes hot water, so consider limiting your 20-minute showers.

5. Renewable energy: If you can afford to install rooftop solar panels, then go for it.

But beyond changes to your individual carbon footprint, here are things that can make a positive difference.

1. Vote for candidates with positive climate policies.

2. Vote with your wallet (signal to the market that people want low-carbon products).

3. Choose a career that contributes to solving these problems.

4. Donate money to effective causes. I give 10% of my income every month to cost-effective charities in global health. Sustainability is not just about carbon emissions and land use; it’s about giving people good lives at the same time. Contributing to causes that alleviate human suffering — and help people deal with the inequalities and consequences of climate change — matters too.

Think of these as your carbon handprint. The aim is to make your handprint far bigger than your footprint.

---

1. Note that state-owned companies are considered as single companies in the study behind this statistic. So, Chinese or Russian state-owned fossil fuel producers count as single companies.

I never quite understand why people find a statistic like this surprising. Global fossil fuel production is dominated by a relatively small number of players.

If you attribute all of the emissions to them, regardless of who is consuming them at the end of the chain (which doesn’t make a lot of sense to me; as consumers, we have some responsibility in buying their products), then of course 100 companies are going to make up the majority of global emissions.

https://fullfact.org/news/are-100-companies-causing-71-carbon-emissions/

2. There's probably truth to this — and I'm sure big fossil fuel producers are happy to shift responsibility. But as I'll come on to later, carbon footprinting is still useful!