THE SECOND THOUGHT

When it comes to climate change, the question is often framed like this: What can I do to help? Should I stop flying? Go vegan? Swap fast fashion for charity shop finds?

These are important questions, but they miss a bigger one: who really bears the burden of solving our environmental crisis?

For the last 150 years, industrialisation and resource extraction have altered the Earth’s atmosphere in profound ways. We now face what philosopher Stephen Gardiner called a “perfect moral storm” — a crisis so complex, involving so many actors, across so many generations, that responsibility becomes hard to pin down.

So, should individuals like you and me shoulder the weight of fixing it? Or should the heavy lifting fall elsewhere?

The Case for Individual Responsibility

On one level, it feels fair. Human activity has driven climate change, and we all make choices every day that have an environmental impact — from what we eat, to how we travel, to what we buy.

If our actions contribute to the problem, then surely we have a moral duty to be part of the solution. And in fact, small changes can have an effect: when the UK introduced a 5p charge on plastic bags in 2015, usage dropped by 95%. One small behavioural nudge, multiplied across millions of people, made a huge difference.

And beyond impact, there’s the symbolism of individual actions. Carrying a reusable coffee cup or cycling instead of driving sends a signal. It starts conversations. It shifts what people see as “normal.” As philosopher Avner de-Shalit puts it, our choices can have communicative value — influencing others to act too.

But here’s the catch.

Why Individuals Alone Can’t Fix It

While lifestyle changes matter, they’re a drop in the ocean compared to the emissions of governments and corporations. In 2023, 36 companies were responsible for more than half of global fossil-fuel CO₂ emissions in that year alone. No amount of shorter showers or recycling can outweigh the decisions made in corporate boardrooms or government parliaments.

This is why focusing too heavily on individual behaviour can be misleading — even unjust. It risks distracting from the fact that large-scale systemic change is what really shifts the dial.

Governments, for example, are uniquely positioned to create policies that shape behaviour: taxes, regulations, investment in green infrastructure. Individuals may not willingly cut back on flying, but carbon pricing or investment in affordable train networks could make lower-carbon travel the easier choice.

Corporations, meanwhile, have both the resources and the responsibility to change. If a utility company switches to renewable energy, all its customers automatically reduce their carbon footprint — whether or not they think of themselves as eco-conscious.

Who Bears the Greatest Responsibility?

If not just individuals, then who?

There’s a strong argument that wealthy, industrialised countries should bear a larger share of the burden. They’ve contributed most to historic emissions and reaped the greatest economic benefits. Principles like “polluter pays” and “beneficiary pays” support this.

But the picture isn’t that simple. Developing nations like China and India are now among the world’s top emitters, and rapid urbanisation means their emissions will continue to grow. Meanwhile, earlier generations who industrialised without knowledge of the damage they were causing complicate questions of blame.

All of this highlights a central truth: environmental responsibility cannot be neatly allocated. It must be shared — but not equally. Wealthier nations and powerful corporations have the greatest ability (and moral imperative) to act.

The Collective Challenge

Ultimately, climate change is a collective action problem. Left to individuals alone, the temptation is to “free ride” — to let others make the sacrifices while continuing as usual. That’s why systemic structures matter so much.

Individual action still plays a role — both in reducing impact and in building a culture that normalises sustainability. But meaningful change depends on governments setting binding policies, corporations transforming their practices, and international agreements holding all actors accountable.

Final Thought

So, is it just to ask individuals to carry the major burden of addressing environmental issues? No. Is it effective? Not on its own.

But individuals are not off the hook. Our choices matter — not just for their impact, but for the message they send. At the same time, we must demand accountability from governments and corporations.

Climate change is too big for any one person to solve, but too urgent for us to wait for someone else to act. The burden must be shared — and shared wisely.