Universität Greifswald
Mathematisch-Naturwissenschaftliche Fakultät Umweltwissenschaften
How does the individual’s responsibility compare with those of industry, government, and the media in the
effort to mitigate the climate crisis?
Bachelor Thesis 7
thterm 2020/21
Johanna Czichowski
First supervisor:
Prof. Dr. Susanne Stoll-Kleemann Second supervisor:
M. Sc. Susanne Nicolai
Berlin, 26th of February 2021
II EIDESSTATTLICHE ERKLÄRUNG
Hiermit erkläre ich, dass ich die vorliegende Arbeit selbständig und eigenhändig, sowie ohne Benutzung anderer als der angegebenen Hilfsmittel angefertigt habe. Die aus fremden Quellen direkt oder indirekt übernommenen Gedanken sind als solche kenntlich gemacht.
Die Arbeit wurde in gleicher oder ähnlicher Form keiner anderen Prüfungsbehörde vorgelegt und auch noch nicht veröffentlicht.
Berlin, den 26.02.2021
...
Johanna Czichowski
III ABSTRACT
It proves difficult to allocate responsibility for climate change and identify it as an imminent threat since it is a multigenerational, global problem with no direct causation (Peeters et al., 2019), which hinders governmental compensation for damages. Moreover, it thwarts adaptation and mitigation efforts, due to a lack of authoritative oversight committees and because of short-term governments which are re-elected regularly (Bernauer, 2013; Braun &
Baatz, 2017), while complex government systems obstruct directly allocating blame to one party (Bache et al., 2015; Mayer, 2016; Okereke & Coventry, 2016; Page & Heyward, 2016;
Wilson & Hobolt, 2015). Nevertheless, mitigation and adaptation programs are central governmental duties to protect human rights and to support other, more vulnerable, and less adaptable countries (Bernauer, 2013; Wewerinke-Singh, 2019).
Individual moral responsibility for climate change can express itself in personal GHG reductions and more importantly by promoting the collective action of holding institutions accountable. This is based on the argument that people are part of a culpable collective (Banks, 2013; Braun & Baatz, 2017; Hiller, 2013), supported by several other moral principles (Fragnière, 2016; Kyllönen, 2016).
Therefore, premising individual responsibility allocations upon a combination of the cause, benefit and means principle seems to be fairest, thereby acknowledging differing circumstances for each person by considering past actions, current privileges, and monetary resources (Braun & Baatz, 2017).
Similarly, (non-)material compensation of governments should be measured by the countries’
financial and technical resources, the benefits current generations enjoy due to past emissions of their country, together with historical responsibility, efforts of mitigation, and vulnerability, which can be summarised by income per capita (Bernauer, 2013; Mayer, 2016).
The combination of historical knowledge about the prospective effects of GHG emissions and the unwillingness to adapt technology accordingly, along with lobbying against emission regulations, justify attributing high levels of responsibility to the industry (Frumhoff et al., 2015; Heede, 2017; Hormio, 2017).
As media has significant influence on public concern, the perceived credibility of the varying involved parties and the way citizens regard their role and the potential of civil action, it falls to them to provide information about underlying power relations, include marginalised voices, as well as the political opposition, encourage critical thinking, and explain the scientific background (Carvalho, 2010; Happer & Philo, 2016; Lück et al., 2018; Pepermans &
Maeseele, 2017; Schäfer, 2015).
Yet past and present media coverage has mostly relied on elite authorities (Gibson et al., 2016; Happer & Philo, 2016; Pepermans & Maeseele, 2017; Petersen et al., 2019; Schäfer, 2015; Schäfer & Painter, 2020), has thus contributed to a manipulative reporting system (Maclean, 2019; Schäfer & Painter, 2020) and should hence be held responsible for its journalistic narratives and frames (Lück et al., 2018). However, focussing on
intersectionality and climate justice, could enhance self-efficacy and encourage questioning existing socio-political and economic systems (Pepermans & Maeseele, 2018), which need to be reformed to induce lasting change (Cuomo, 2011; Lahikainen, 2018).
IV ZUSAMMENFASSUNG
Verantwortung für den anthropogenen Klimawandel zuzuteilen, erweist sich als schwierig, da es sich um ein globales, generationsübergreifendes Problem ohne direkte Kausalität handelt (Peeters et al., 2019). Darüber hinaus werden staatliche Klimawandelanpassungs-, Entschädigungs- und Verminderungsbemühungen aufgrund fehlender Kontrollinstitutionen und zeitlich befristeten Regierungen vereitelt (Bernauer, 2013; Braun & Baatz, 2017), während komplexe Regierungssysteme eine direkte Schuldzuweisung erschweren (Bache et al., 2015; Mayer, 2016; Okereke & Coventry, 2016; Page & Heyward, 2016; Wilson &
Hobolt, 2015). Verminderungs- und Anpassungsprogramme sind jedoch zentrale Regierungsaufgaben, die dem Schutz von Menschenrechten dienen, sowie weniger anpassungsfähige Länder unterstützen müssen (Bernauer, 2013; Wewerinke-Singh, 2019).
Individuelle moralische Verantwortung für den Klimawandel kann sich in privater Emissionsreduzierung äußern, und indem kollektive Maßnahmen von Institutionen gefordert werden. Dies basiert auf dem Argument, dass Menschen Teil eines schuldhaften Kollektivs sind (Banks, 2013; Braun & Baatz, 2017; Hiller, 2013), sowie weiteren moralische Prinzipien (Fragnière, 2016; Kyllönen, 2016). Daher erscheint es am gerechtesten, Zuweisungen individueller Verantwortung auf die Kombination von Ursache, Nutzen und Mittel zu stützen, unter Beachtung verschiedener persönlicher Umstände, vergangenem Handeln, aktueller Privilegien und finanzieller Mittel (Braun & Baatz, 2017).
Ähnlich sollten (im)materielle Entschädigungen von Staaten gemessen werden an deren:
finanziellen und technischen Ressourcen; historischer Verantwortung; Vorteilen, die aktuelle Generationen aufgrund vergangener Emissionen ihres Landes genießen; sowie an Verminderungsbemühungen und Vulnerabilität, zusammengefasst unter dem Pro-Kopf- Einkommen (Bernauer, 2013; Mayer, 2016).
Eine Kombination aus Wissen über zukünftige Auswirkungen von Treibhausgasen und unzureichendes Anpassen von Technologien, sowie Lobbyarbeit gegen Emissions- vorschriften, rechtfertigen es der Industrie ein hohes Maß an Verantwortung zuzuteilen (Frumhoff et al., 2015; Heede, 2017; Hormio, 2017).
Die Medien haben einen erheblichen Einfluss auf den Fokus der Öffentlichkeit, sowie auf die wahrgenommene Glaubwürdigkeit der beteiligten Parteien, die Einschätzung der Bürgerrolle und das Potenzial zivilrechtlicher Maßnahmen. Dementsprechend müssen Medien über zugrunde liegende Machtverhältnisse informieren, kritisches Denken fördern, marginalisierte Stimmen und die politische Opposition repräsentieren, und den wissenschaftlichen Hintergrund erklären (Carvalho, 2010; Happer & Philo, 2016; Lück et al., 2018; Pepermans
& Maeseele, 2017; Schäfer, 2015). Vergangene und gegenwärtige Berichterstattung stützt sich jedoch hauptsächlich auf elitäre Institutionen (Gibson et al., 2016; Happer & Philo, 2016;
Pepermans & Maeseele, 2017; Petersen et al., 2019; Schäfer, 2015; Schäfer & Painter, 2020), trägt somit zu einem manipulativen System bei (Maclean, 2019; Schäfer & Painter, 2020) und muss daher für journalistische Narrative verantwortlich gemacht werden (Lück et al., 2018).
Hingegen kann der Fokus auf Intersektionalität das Hinterfragen aktueller sozio-politischer und wirtschaftlicher Systeme fördern (Pepermans & Maeseele, 2018), die reformiert werden müssen, um eine nachhaltige Veränderung zu bezwecken (Cuomo, 2011; Lahikainen, 2018).
V TABLE OF CONTENTS
Eidesstattliche Erklärung ___________________________________________________ II Abstract ________________________________________________________________ III Zusammenfassung ________________________________________________________ IV Table of Contents _________________________________________________________ V 1 Introduction ___________________________________________________________ 1
1.1 Problem definition ... 1
1.1.1 Anthropogenic Climate Change ... 1
1.1.2 Mitigation responsibility ... 2
1.2 Purpose of work & motivation ... 2
1.3 Guiding question & structure ... 3
2 Method _______________________________________________________________ 4 2.1 Research strategy ... 4
2.2 Selection of sources & search terms ... 4
2.3 Strategy for the Analysis ... 5
3 Analysis & Results ______________________________________________________ 6 3.1 Individuals ... 6
3.1.1 Introduction to Moral Arguments ... 6
3.1.2 Individual Impact... 7
3.1.3 Collective & Retrospective Responsibility ... 9
3.1.4 Promoting collective action ... 10
3.1.5 Climate Justice & Intersectionality... 11
3.1.6 Engagement & Motivation ... 12
3.1.7 Role of Scientists ... 14
3.1.8 Provisional Result ... 15
3.2 Industry... 15
3.2.1 Discreditation of scientific evidence ... 15
3.2.2 Corporate Carbon Disclosure ... 17
3.2.3 Transforming the Heavy Industry... 18
3.2.4 Potential of renewable energies ... 19
3.2.5 North–South Divide ... 20
VI
3.2.6 Lobbyism ... 21
3.2.7 Corporate Responsibility ... 22
3.2.8 Provisional result ... 23
3.3 Government ... 23
3.3.1 History of Climate Politics ... 23
3.3.2 Encumbrance to Implementation ... 25
3.3.3 Compensation, Mitigation & Adaptation ... 26
3.3.4 Lobbyism ... 28
3.3.5 Allocating Responsibility ... 29
3.3.6 Provisional Result ... 31
3.4 Media ... 31
3.4.1 The role of Media ... 31
3.4.2 Journalistic Frames & Narratives ... 32
3.4.3 Social Media ... 34
3.4.4 Effects of Media representation ... 35
3.4.5 Climate Journalists ... 36
3.4.6 Problems of covering Climate Change ... 37
3.4.7 Provisional Result ... 39
4 Discussion ____________________________________________________________ 40 4.1 Limitations ... 40
4.2 Connection ... 40
4.3 General Adaptation ... 42
5 Implications __________________________________________________________ 43 5.1 Recommendations ... 43
5.2 Future ... 45
6 References ____________________________________________________________ 46 6.1 Literature ... 46
6.2 Internet Sources ... 50
1 1INTRODUCTION
1.1PROBLEM DEFINITION
1.1.1ANTHROPOGENIC CLIMATE CHANGE
Handling the climate crisis has become the most urgent problem of the 21st century, with wildfires and flooding growing more extreme, as well as sea and ground temperatures reaching new heights and causing an uninhabitable environment for millions of people, animals and plants (IPCC, 2014; Hagedorn et al.).
The rising temperatures are the result of an increased release of greenhouse gases (GHGs) such as carbon dioxide (𝐶𝑂2) or methane due to human activities like burning fossil fuels and intense animal agriculture. These GHGs reflect the sun rays reaching Earth, ensuring that in its natural state this planet’s average ground temperature lies at +15 °C as opposed to -18 °C when also disregarding the albedo effect. However, the anthropogenically caused GHGs are emitted at such a large rate that they upset the balance between release by animals and capture by trees and algae. Therefore, the GHG concentration in the atmosphere continues to grow, causing an increasing backscatter of sun rays, which results in higher surface temperatures (IPCC, 2014).
The average global temperature has already risen by approximately 1 °C in comparison to pre-industrial levels, causing catastrophic effects for aquatic and onshore ecosystems, mainly the loss of many plant and animal species and thereby biodiversity (IPCC, 2014).
Additionally, the global North, as well as the political and economic elites of various countries, profit from the past and present exploitation of the planet as a result of desired limitless growth. This happens at the cost of the people least responsible, which currently translates to inhabitants of the global South. According to the Global Climate Risk Index, these citizens suffer the most, due to extreme weather events with little adaptation options (Eckstein et al., 2021), even though they often live the most sustainably, with ecological values and knowledge that do not fit into the system of capitalism (Cuomo, 2011).
Moreover, future generations and specifically vulnerable groups of women, children, the poor and BIPoC (Black, Indigenous and People of Colour) are affected disproportionally (Cuomo, 2011), but have the least social power (Lahikainen, 2018). Therefore, anthropogenic climate change is not only a problem of nature science and technological advancement, but also of ethics, sociology, and political science, which should question underlying power relations and the economic systems that caused these structural inequalities (Cuomo, 2011).
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) special report of 2018 displays how humans are close to triggering several tipping elements, with the melting of the Arctic’s and Greenland’s ice sheets as the most pressing and undisputed threats. Setting off any of the nine main tipping points could cause a lasting and sometimes irreversible change in the Earth’s ecosystem with disastrous consequences (IPCC, 2018), especially for citizens of the global South (Cuomo, 2011).
2 1.1.2MITIGATION RESPONSIBILITY
To mitigate the effects of anthropogenic climate change, the discussion ultimately lands on whose responsibility it is to implement the changes necessary.
With the establishment of the Paris Agreement in 2015 it looked like the United Nations (UN) were ready to take on the challenge of enforcing stricter regulations in order to achieve the 2 °C global temperature target (UNFCC). However, since then global policies aiming to protect the environment have been scarce and ineffective (Bernauer, 2013), while the 𝐶𝑂2
concentration in the atmosphere has risen to numbers and is increasing at a rate unprecedented in recorded history (Scripps Institution of Oceanography, Keeling curve). Therefore, one can assume that if society and economy proceed with a business-as-usual mentality, 𝐶𝑂2 emissions will continue to rise, making the adherence to the 2 °C temperature target very unlikely, unless action is taken immediately by all of the parties with influence (IPCC, 2018).
While corporations often claim they only produce goods or extract the oil and gas which consumers demand, climate activists state the obligation to enforce and support a more sustainable society lies with governments and industries. They often base their argument on the Carbon Majors Report of 2017, which determined that 100 fossil fuel producers are responsible for more than 70 % of the GHG emissions released since 1988 (Griffin, 2017).
However, just because the supplier of unsustainable energy has been identified, this does not necessarily translate to them carrying all the responsibility for it.
In this context, a recent study by Oswald et al. (2020) found that energy is used up twenty more times by the wealthiest 10 % of people in comparison to the poorest 10 % and the former are freer in making choices regarding their lifestyle, actively selecting a big car or planes as modes of transportation. Additionally, the authors note that affluent people also tend to hold more influential positions in society, hence possessing the means to implement change on an extensive level (Oswald et al., 2020).
This discussion results in the question on how to hold countries and business organisations accountable, while also acknowledging the potential of individual action, with the media as the connection between those sides and the power to make a scientific and structural problem relevant to every citizen.
1.2PURPOSE OF WORK & MOTIVATION
Most analyses about taking on responsibility for the consequences of the climate crisis only focus on one category regarding whose obligation it is to implement sustainability in their respective fields. This approach enables detailed investigations in and studies on various subcategories and groups within those sections. However, it also often neglects how different aspects might influence each other and what kind of system originally facilitated climate change and the resulting inequalities we can observe today.
A dissertation by Lauri Lahikainen (2018) partly fills this gap by examining individual responsibility on the assumption that climate change is a social structural issue, hence considering underlying power relations which are required to evolve in order to achieve a holistic transformation of society. Nevertheless, his reasoning revolves around the moral
3
accountability of individuals, whereas media, industry and governments as additional systems that are not only made up of separate human beings all acting within their own moral interpretation, are not evaluated in this context.
Therefore, this thesis aims to combine the four main themes “individuals, government, industry, and media” in one study, inspecting specific groups and their differing roles in causing and mitigating the climate crisis, as well as studying social and economic structures which these various actors operate in.
The direct comparison thus achieves an interdisciplinary view by including politics, science, and sociology, and hopes to capture the varying scientific research over the last ten years on responsibility allocations and summarise conclusions, connections, and suggestions for the future process of moving towards a more sustainable society.
During my studies in Environmental Sciences, I discovered that the subjects resonating the most with me, were the ones connecting current scientific discoveries and calculations regarding climate change, with their consequences for and implementation in economy and politics. In conversations with fellow students the question often surfaced, to what extent individual action such as a vegan diet, will have an impact on the reduction of GHGs in comparison to fossil fuel companies. With the emerging movement of Fridays for Future and Extinction Rebellion, the core of this discussions shifted more towards who should be held accountable, keeping in mind the history and (in)action of different governments and industries, at the same time demonstrating the power individuals like Greta Thunberg can hold.
1.3GUIDING QUESTION & STRUCTURE
The first idea on what this thesis should entail included the contrast of the impact of individual action such as reducing animal product consumption in comparison to the power of influential industries. To achieve a holistic view on the issue of important actors in the climate crisis, the institution of governments and media were added to this analysis.
Thus, the guiding question quickly assembled to assessing the responsibility of the four main groups in climate change mitigation: individuals, industry, governments, and the media.
Those categories also make for a clearly structured scheme, analysing them individually, while addressing various subordinated aspects, before drawing conclusions on how they might affect each other and what measures are required to be taken by each division.
Before beginning the analysis my assumptions regarding responsibility allocations are formulated as followed. First, industry and governments should have more pronounced duties to mitigate the effects of climate change as these measures are more effective and active denial or derailing of conversations about GHG regulation add to the debt owed to citizens. Second, individuals should mainly fulfil their obligation to vote so that governments with advanced sustainability programs are able to implement emission reduction measurements. Third, the media must show the catastrophic effects of rising global temperatures for ecosystems and humans on a daily scale to raise alert and action in society, but also present successful measures taken by governments, industry and on an individual level, to enhance engagement.
4 2METHOD
2.1RESEARCH STRATEGY
The approach chosen for this thesis is a systematic literature review to enable a diverse look on the contrasting perspectives in scientific research regarding the topic of responsibility and accountability in the climate crisis within the last ten years. Therefore, the results were summed up in a qualitative way, based on the individual findings of scientists, additionally providing new insights on how to distribute responsibility among all of the involved parties with an inductive argumentation.
A first orientation on the subject was done via recent newspaper articles, mainly by independent and impartial papers such as The Guardian, The BBC, The New York Times or Der Spiegel, to establish the four main themes and sketch an outline for each of the subcategories. Different opinions in these articles, portrayed by the various authors and interviewed experts, also helped to survey the arguments for and against different sides regarding responsibility allocations.
Most of these articles were based on interviews with scientists, who wrote papers or were part of research teams addressing some aspect of whose obligation it is to fight against climate change. Accordingly, chain-referral sampling (Dudovskiy, 2011) was employed to locate initial papers and reports which the newspapers referred to.
This method, sometimes also called snowball sampling (Dudovskiy, 2011), was used additionally during the in-depth search for literature on which the review is based. With the criteria mentioned in the following paragraph an exponential discriminative snowball sampling was applied, meaning that one paper might lead to several referrals, but only one reference was deemed useful to add to the chosen sources.
While studying the abstracts of relevant research, new subtopics emerged such as the specific role one can attribute to scientists when looking at individual responsibility (Getson et al., 2020). New subjects also included sustainable options for the heavy industry (Friedmann et al., 2019), as opposed to the production where consumers have a more direct influence due to their purchase decision. As the topic of media was the least familiar category, several new aspects were added to the rough outline of sub-themes like the focus on how social media affects the perception and awareness of climate change (Anderson, 2017; Mavrodieva, 2019), as well as theories about manipulation (Maclean, 2019; Pepermans & Maeseele, 2018) and whether certain media display results in public action (Feldman et al., 2017; Yang et al., 2020).
2.2SELECTION OF SOURCES & SEARCH TERMS
As a search tool Google Scholar was utilised for finding sources to base the literature review on and with the help of the University Greifswald library license, many of the restricted articles were made accessible. In addition, the databases and publishers employed during the inquiry included Sage Journals, Elsevier, IOPscience and Wiley Online Library.
With climate change as a particularly innovative field of research, the main criterion for the selection procedure of sources was the time frame. Only articles written after 2010 were
5
chosen, with most of them in 2015 or later, especially regarding the subject of lobbyism and politics in general since those issues experience most changes over time. However, regarding the subject of individual responsibility an analysis on how the opinions about this subject have changed in the past decade might be thought-provoking, which is why the timeframe was not narrowed down as much.
The following search terms were used to locate specific articles for the media section of this literature review: media climate change, additionally adding specifications such as international, lobby and social media. Searching for articles related to individuals, the phrase individual responsibility climate change was used and the terms moral and mitigation were added. The expressions for the analysis regarding industry included industry climate change, supplemented by impact, energy, accountability, lobby, and renewable energies. For the search of articles related to the government part, the captions government climate change and corporate social responsibility were worked with including the additions reparations, history, and politics. Variations of these terms, as well as translations of them in German were employed to ensure an extensive search.
Furthermore, most of the sources have been published in reputable journals such as The British Journal of Politics and International Relations, Journal of Cleaner Production, Taylor
& Francis or Nature, as well as having been printed by editors like Springer. The few unpublished sources, most of them theses or dissertations, were used to gain an overview of what other final papers have already covered and what aspects might be interesting to investigate further, along with considering new developments in more recent research.
2.3STRATEGY FOR THE ANALYSIS
The sources deemed appropriate were firstly sorted into one of the four Excel sheets titled individuals, government, industry, or media. Within those tables the articles were categorised depending on their focus which consisted of the rubrics responsibility, accountability, or role for all four main classifications. Furthermore, categories were based on the search terms mentioned beforehand, such as international comparison for the media and government subsection, but also complemented by categories like motivation of citizens regarding the analysis about individuals. Part of those additions for the industry examination included impact and food industry together with subjectivity and propaganda in regard to the inquiry about media.
Apart from the title and authors of the papers, the sources were evaluated regarding their main statements, prime concepts and their strengths and weaknesses such as being less relevant due to relying on older information. Additionally, limitations resulted from only looking at the situation in one country and their solutions for sustainability issues, with little reproductivity for other parts of the world. However, international comparisons were deemed more valuable for being able to provide thorough interpretations for a global analysis, although they often gave fewer specific ideas regarding suggestions for explicit action.
6
Since a qualitative content analysis was chosen as the method of evaluation, the sources for each category were limited to around twenty for each section, depending on which papers gave the most helpful and innovative insights.
The quality factor of the analysis has been adhered to since the individual steps of the research have been clearly portrayed, while structured search criteria enabled a comprehensive scope and comparable data, without including outdated or unreliable sources.
3ANALYSIS &RESULTS
3.1INDIVIDUALS
3.1.1INTRODUCTION TO MORAL ARGUMENTS
With the introduction of the Carbon Footprint by a campaign led by British Petroleum (BP) in 2005, the focus of the public fell on how individuals should hold themselves accountable for the emissions they caused, hence implying that changes to reduce global GHG emissions ought to be made on a personal level (Crist, The New York Times, Mar. 2020; Doyle, 2011).
This stands in controversy with the fact that over two thirds of global 𝐶𝑂2 emissions are released by fossil fuel energy companies (Griffin, 2017) and a change in a few lifestyle choices by a limited group of the population will have little to no impact on mitigating anthropogenic climate change (Hiller, 2013).
Nevertheless, based on the no harm principle, citizens bear a personal and collective duty to inhibit negative effects of climate change or at least attempt to limit them (Kyllönen, 2016).
Additionally, the aspect of responsibility does not solely rely on the individual effect, but according to Fragnière (2016) also covers the past, by holding people accountable for prior actions, as well as entailing a sense of duty regarding the future. The general discussion about individual obligations therefore distinguishes between the cause principle, where the people emitting the most should be held accountable, the benefit principle meaning the ones gaining the highest profits should carry the burden and the means principle referring to wealthy citizens (Braun & Baatz, 2017).
Climate ethicists have been frequently discussing this problem since the 1990s, arguing that virtues make people change their behaviour, for instance, by relying on moral values of citizens, who deem climate change important enough to adapt their way of life (Fragnière, 2016).
However, in more recent years the argumentation, summarised by Voget-Kleschin et al.
(2019), focussed on if individuals have the duty to reduce their own impact or whether they are only obligated to support institutions aiming to lessen their carbon footprint. Voget- Kleschin et al. further present the debate where one side argues that the impact of individual action is morally irrelevant, hence denying such duty. Yet others suggest that aggregated actions translate to being part of a group causing harm, which can be considered as morally blameworthy regardless of whether the specific consequences can be observed (Kyllönen, 2016; Voget-Kleschin et al., 2019).
7
Additionally, the unsustainable actions of one individual might make another person feel vindicated in acting the same way, as group affiliation plays an influential role in human nature (Banks, 2013). Nonetheless, burdening everybody with adapting a completely sustainable lifestyle, also called demandingness objection, cannot be the solution. This leads to the suggestion that instead of impositions on how individuals should implement changes in their lives, our society requires a more defined view of environmental values and higher awareness of sustainability as a virtue to initiate sustainable behaviour (Voget-Kleschin, 2019). Concurrently, the consequences of aggregated individual actions and the resulting duty to mitigate should also not be underestimated.
3.1.2INDIVIDUAL IMPACT
The most common argument against the relevance of individual action and changes in behaviour is that one person’s carbon footprint is inconsequential in the grand scheme of things and therefore not important, also called individual causal inefficacy as mentioned by Avram Hiller (2013).
However, as he also counters this is a redundant argumentation, since the total of those actions is the reason for anthropogenic climate change, cultivated by a society which rewards or at least does not restrict unsustainable living choices (Hiller, 2013; Kyllönen, 2016). This becomes obvious when looking at it from a macroscopic point of view, by integrating the effects over an expanded time frame (Braun & Baatz, 2017; Hiller, 2013).
Hiller further explains, how humanity is so overwhelmed by the complexity of climate change and its consequences that it is easy to conclude our own actions do not matter. He suggests, focussing on how damages intensify due to certain activities and actively chose to not contribute to those effects. Furthermore, he highlights the importance of implementing changes on a political level and the influence of citizens thereon, by exercising their right to vote (Cuomo, 2011; Hiller, 2013).
In addition to that, the value system which our society is based upon came into existence during a time when communities were much smaller and not like our globalised, advanced, and interconnected world of today (Fragnière, 2016). Therefore, our knowledge about everyday causality with an identifiable culprit proves to be challenging to project on the global phenomenon of the climate crisis (Braun & Baatz, 2017).
Since the reasons for climate change also stretch over several generations, across the globe and the damage caused is unintentional, it is even more difficult to apply it to a paradigm moral problem where one person is directly responsible for the harms experienced by another individual (Peeters et al., 2019; Fragnière, 2016). Many therefore argue that we have to revise our current definition of responsibility as a direct causation, in order to adapt it to our reality (Fragnière, 2016).
Moreover, according to the British philosopher Derek Parfit, the act of millions of seemingly unimportant and minuscule actions causing considerable damage is called the paradox of small effects, where people firstly make the mistake of not looking at how these individual activities add up. Secondly, Parfit argues that since our actions do not only have consequences
8
for ourselves, but for everyone and everything on this planet, these activities can be seen as morally wrong (quoted in Fragnière, 2016; Hiller, 2013).
Another common argument against the power of individual action assumes that if a certain threshold in the climate system is crossed, anything that comes afterwards is irrelevant.
However, the IPCC special report of 2018 clearly demonstrates the different circumstances necessary for triggering a tipping point, with some being likely to transpire this century, whereas others heavily depend on our course of action within the next decades. Additionally, tipping points are difficult to calculate, meaning that we cannot precisely determine when our emissions have prompted a lasting change in an ecosystem (IPCC, 2018).
As several studies have shown, there is a gap in society between environmental concern and pro-environmental behaviour or policy support, also referred to as the attitude-action gap (Kulin & Sevä, 2019) or motivational gap (Peeters et al., 2019). Regarding this issue, Peeters et al. (2019) present the difference of on the one hand internalism, a concept used in modern philosophy, which states that motivation automatically follows with sincere morals, suggesting that our moral judgment is not equipped to handle the complex, multi-generational issue of climate change. On the other hand, externalism is based on the idea that people understand the problems and consequences of their actions well enough and are still not motivated to adapt their behaviour, therefore separating moral judgement from motivation.
Peeters et al. elaborate how although people with sincere moral judgement will be somewhat motivated, this ambition can be suppressed or dominated by other factors such as self-interest, weakness or tenaciousness.
Not being able to understand the way our climate system works and interacts, poses another complication in the ability to recognise one’s role and responsibility in the climate crisis. This does not translate into having to educate everyone on the level of climate scientists, but all citizens should be aware of the basic scientific and social consequences that follow due to a certain behaviour (Braun & Baatz, 2017).
Putting all the responsibility on governments and international organisations is based on the delegated authority model, where elected politicians are authorised and obligated to act on behalf of the citizens’ interest. However, when dealing with climate change this model has not been working, in part because citizens have failed to make use of their power to elect politicians who support the evolution to a sustainable future. Furthermore, the main issue lies with how people of developed countries are afraid resolute climate politics will burden and demote their current lifestyle. Hence, politicians who focus on improving the national economy with little regard for the environment are at least partly representing the present public opinion (De Smet et al., 2016).
Based on this assumption De Smet et al. (2016) deem blaming only governments for their inaction a form of moral disengagement, which enables individuals to justify their unsustainable behaviour and extrude feelings of guilt. By ignoring our role, we become complicit and part of the problem, thus the individual’s responsibility lies in delegating a strong enough mandate to representatives (De Smet et al., 2016). At the same time, citizens who are unsatisfied with their government’s measurement should form new institutions or
9
improve existing structures (Banks, 2013). Moreover, while individuals should not have to take over the government’s work, a higher demand for sustainable options like plant-based substitutes or cycle paths, might encourage industry and politics to expand those alternatives.
Furthermore, as the changes implemented will have to be executed by citizens, they in part collectively wield the power over societal developments (Peeters et al., 2019).
3.1.3COLLECTIVE &RETROSPECTIVE RESPONSIBILITY
With climate change as a global issue where everyone who causes GHG emissions is, in a cumulative nature, part of the problem, the concept of a collective responsibility has been essential when discussing individual duties.
Melany Banks (2013) argues that as a collective problem, the climate crisis requires collective responsibility to be navigated effectively. Banks allocates everyone to the collective who participates in the emission of GHGs, while individual responsibility is depended on the agent within the collective to connect the consequences to the appropriate causer. She exempts people from this categorisation who have publicly spoken out against and distanced themselves from it, even if they are still contributing to climate change. She does so on the grounds that they are aspiring to limit their participation in the collective action and in most cases are educating their social environment on the problems of collective harm (Banks, 2013).
Furthermore, Banks determines moral responsibility by applying the criteria of awareness regarding the consequences certain behaviour entails. Nevertheless, she acknowledges that in modern times the harmful effects of GHGs are almost universally known and an understanding of the complete scientific context is not necessary for each individual.
However, this assumption does excuse the behaviour of generations prior to around 1990 when the IPCC published its first report, thereby making information about climate change available to everyone. Being in denial about one’s own harmful contribution does not exempt from being part of the collective, since individual duties also lie in educating oneself about how in the grand scheme of things one’s actions do matter, provided that this information is accessible (Banks, 2013).
Therefore, Banks allocates responsibility to everyone who does not openly declare their opposition to a harmful society and economy, while she also recognises that different positions in a system i.e., president, CEO, celebrity, citizen of the global North or of the global South, should implement changes in various ways depending on the power, possibilities, and resources they hold within their community.
When looking at collective responsibility, one must also consider the history of climate change, as Europe and the USA each caused one quarter of GHG emissions since the beginning of the industrial revolution around 1751 and while China is now the biggest polluter, its per capita emissions are still much smaller than those of most western countries (Hansen & Sato, 2016). This issue is also referred to as retrospective responsibility (Braun &
Baatz, 2017).
10
Voget-Kleschin et al. (2019) argue that to be content in the modern world, we depend upon being able to emit our fair-share of GHGs along with considering contextual factors. As one of the co-authors of this paper, García-Portela discusses whether today’s citizens are required to compensate for the damages caused by past generations. She concludes that even though individual obligations are not part of compensatory justice, people should still be held accountable for the atmospheric debt of their state since they also reap the benefits from living in industrialised countries.
Nevertheless, the determination of a fair-share is a very complex topic, taking into account living circumstances in different nations and access to more sustainable options like renewable energy, public transport or regional and seasonal food. Fragnière (2016) expands on this, explaining how a finite carbon budget will be difficult to enforce with legally binding consequences. However, if citizens of certain countries have the means and access to reduce their GHG emissions, they should be held accountable to that, especially when looking at luxury emissions, a term coined by Henry Shue (quoted in Fragnière, 2016; Peeters et al., 2015). The complication here lies in where to draw the line between on the one hand, needs that ought to be fulfilled to live a ‘good life’, and on the other hand luxury activities when looking at acts such as eating meat or driving a car to work. This would also mean that citizens of developed countries are universally allowed to produce more emissions, even though these countries have the technology, experts, and financial resources to revolutionise their energy production (Fragnière, 2016).
Braun & Baatz (2017) conclude that only a smart and adept combination of the cause, benefit, and means principle might result in a just distribution of responsibility considering past action, financial resources, and current privileges, while encouraging cumulative activities also constitutes a key duty.
3.1.4PROMOTING COLLECTIVE ACTION
Next to the question of how much responsibility can be put on an individual, an equally if not more important duty is the promotion of collective action, which is generally agreed on as a necessity, but with little specification on how these activities are supposed to look like.
The two most common ways to implement collective action are the bottom-up approach, which relies on changes in lifestyles and social norms, whereas the top-down approach is based on institutional action as Fragnière (2016) explains. Although average citizens should not have to develop strategies on how to mitigate climate change, they do have the duty to hold their governments accountable if these fail to act. By staying ‘neutral’ as in politically inactive, one is compliant with the current course of action in politics, which can be seen as immoral (Fragnière, 2016).
A special responsibility falls to those who possess a large platform for promoting the concept of sustainable living, causing an amplifying effect and are at liberty to call attention to failings of governments and industry. However, this does not mean that people in less powerful situations are exempt from such duties. With the increasing significance of social media and influencers who are not necessarily classical celebrities, but can still reach a large audience,
11
this effect has taken on new dimensions. Moreover, these high-profile positions could also function as a space for including marginalised voices by lending these platforms to people with less influence (Fragnière, 2016).
The top-down approach is generally deemed more effective, since without legal bindings, any suggestions for lifestyle changes will only be implemented by a few, and the more influential adjustments regarding transport and energy cannot be made on an individual level.
Additionally, these changes, also referred to as secondary means, are more efficient as they lower the level of difficultly for citizens to opt for environmentally friendly alternatives and can be considered fairer because a problem caused by a collective can only be truly solved by a unified approach (Braun & Baatz, 2017; Fragnière, 2016).
Nonetheless, without support from the public top-down approaches will likely be inefficient regarding a long-term perspective, as the elected government body of most democracies change in regular time periods of a few years. Since citizens vote for politicians that align with their perspectives, a universal support for measurements mitigating the climate crisis is necessary to raise parties which plan to implement change to influential positions (Wolf and Moser, 2011).
Furthermore, as the last 30 years have shown, relying entirely on governmental leaders has not been particularly productive and by choosing an approach which depends on existing power patterns, inequalities will likely be enhanced with marginalised groups suffering the most (Kaijser and Kronsell, 2014; Wolf and Moser, 2011).
3.1.5CLIMATE JUSTICE &INTERSECTIONALITY
In the face of the injustice and unbalanced development regarding emission and energy footprints when distinguishing between the global North and South, climate justice has emerged as an important subcategory for analysing responsibility allocations (Fisher, 2015).
While redistribution is one goal climate justice hopes to achieve, it is essential to recognise the work being done by organisations, especially regarding non-governmental (NGO) institutions, in disadvantaged countries. Fisher (2015) argues that by neglecting social movements and local measures, practical implementations are disregarded. He suggests including actors of every scale related to climate justice in policy concepts, to broaden the understanding on how to engage organisations on various levels.
The concept of intersectionality emerged within feminist studies and was first used by law professor Kimberlè Crenshaw in 1991, to describe how different forms of inequality can affect and interact with each other, especially when looking at the combined inequalities resulting from gender and race (in Kaijser and Kronsell, 2014; TIME, 2020). By analysing an issue such as climate change with an intersectional approach, different responsibility allocations may emerge, as social constructs are put into historical and political context with regards to past and present power relations (Kaijser and Kronsell, 2014).
When looking at the victims and actors of climate change, an intersectional method is necessary to analyse various levels of motivation and engagement groups. Salehi et al. (2015) present several studies, which found that women, people with a University degree and
12
younger adults are more likely to adapt their lifestyle and implement mitigation techniques.
In a study Salehi et al. conducted in Iran, they found women were more engaged in the issue of climate change, whereas men knew more about it. While women in the global North are more involved in the decision-making process of climate policies, in the global South they often play a key role in sustainable consumption regarding the household (Salehi et al., 2015).
Still, climate strategies scarcely suggest adaptation concepts for sectors such as behaviour regarding transportation or consumption where gender and class differences are distinctive (Kaijser and Kronsell, 2014).
Effective mitigation and adaptation techniques can only be implemented when the different categorisations society entails, are understood. For example, if adaptation methods regarding transport suggest purchasing a new electric car, this mainly addresses white, middle-class men making them the norm, which neglects the majority of the world population even if only developed countries are targeted (Kaijser and Kronsell, 2014).
In addition, taxes on certain plan-based alternatives are often still higher since they are not declared as staples food, hence making them unavailable to low-income households.
Moreover, not all regions in every country can always provide affordable seasonal and regional vegetarian options, and not all citizens can afford the technical equipment to store fresh fruits and vegetables (Kendall, 2020).
This demonstrates how the modern concept of a sustainable lifestyle is dominantly modelled after the image of white, wealthy citizens of Western countries, thereby rooted in materialistic and economic growth, but a sustainable lifestyle looks different depending on the country, social categories, gender, and race (Kaijser and Kronsell, 2014).
Thus, forcing the standards designed for developed countries on the global South and on marginalised groups will likely be impossible to implement and only strengthen existing inequalities. Therefore, marginalised citizens must be part of policy making, while existing power structures should be questioned additionally by asking which social categories and identities are represented, what type of environmental knowledge is prioritised, and how materialistic the image of a ‘good life’ is portrayed, serving as the norm which sustainable practices are often pivoted on (Kaijser and Kronsell, 2014).
3.1.6ENGAGEMENT &MOTIVATION
The implementation of sustainable changes and involvement of individuals on a private as well as collective level, faces several obstacles which are necessary to analyse in order to determine who can be held responsible for their existence.
Engagement in this context does not only refer to political action, but also to an individual link to the climate crisis, which can happen on three different levels: through rational argumentation (the mind), by appealing to sympathy and affection (the heart) and lastly via a practical approach (the hands). Addressing only one of those levels will not result in sufficient reactions, as has been shown by research analysing how improving knowledge of climate change does not necessarily motivate audiences since barriers of social and institutional norms are still in place (Wolf & Moser, 2011).
13
Furthermore, citizens of varying countries formulate individual opinions and draw different conclusions when being educated on topics such as climate change. This heavily depends on their attitude type, meaning they respond to climate change issues with varying levels of concern, uncertainty, scepticism, or action, which has been proven in cross-national overarching studies as discussed by Wolf & Moser (2011) and Hine et al. (2016).
Happer & Philo (2016) conducted a study with various population groups as to their perception of climate change and barriers regarding stimulating action. The obstacle of understanding the complex topic of climate change was a universal finding across all groups.
Moreover, the difficulty of determining trustworthiness of digital media was mentioned, especially by young people. While scientists were perceived as the most reliable source of information, the lack of more definite predictions and the uncertainty regarding global trends, evoked feelings of doubt among participants (Happer & Philo, 2016).
Politicians were deemed the least trustworthy as they were accused of acting in their own interest, thus neglecting voices of the public and causing feelings of powerlessness (Happer
& Philo, 2016), which is a major factor in engaging citizens in political debates (Carvalho, 2010). This was not the case with people having had direct personal experience with decision makers and public meetings, or citizens implementing changes within their communities (Happer & Philo, 2016).
Effects on personal lives and living areas were also regarded as productive when stimulating thoughts about climate change. However, translations into a response were often hindered by the perception that individual actions are inconsequential, governments are required to lead the way by implementing more mitigation methods, and lifestyle changes are inconvenient due to structural barriers (Happer & Philo, 2016).
Additionally, another important aspect in how audiences react, relates to what their culture has taught them about fairness, the perception of nature and their role in society. Portraying the issue around climate change as a scientific or technological problem limits the group feeling addressed, presuming that all responsibility has to lie with experts of scientific or political fields, whereas integrating the power of the public can enhance feelings of personal responsibility regarding mitigation (Wolf & Moser, 2011). Nevertheless, these findings are not universal as other investigations like an Australian study by Hine et al. (2016) found no strengthening of adaptation intentions when focussing on collective action. They do acknowledge that the difference between mitigation and adaptation methods might be a relevant distinction (Hine et al., 2016).
Massage framing is therefore an essential part of motivation, with specific strategies on emission reduction being deemed the most effective to induce engagement. While universal doom often results in disengagement to suppress fear, threats to people’s immediate surroundings like their family, living area or belongings can trigger active behaviour (Hine et al., 2016; Peeters et al., 2019). Yet direct exposure to the effects of raising temperatures such as flooding, do not necessarily translate into a greater concern about mitigation techniques, rather the people affected focus on how to adapt to the new circumstances (Wolf & Moser, 2011).
14
To increase motivation and interest in the subject of climate change, visual tools like films can help if they do not communicate too much fear, which people often find manipulative or difficult to process, hence stifling personal engagement (Hine et al., 2016; Wolf & Moser, 2011). Presenting clear, realisable, and locally framed mitigation techniques in a hopeful way, by focussing on the positive outcome if collective measures are taken now, has been proven to be more conducive in raising motivation (Hine et al., 2016).
To overcome the motivational gap, Peeters et al. (2019) present two strategies, the first one being to break down the complexity of climate change, thus making it easier to relate to and therefore increasing motivation. Second, they suggest to further educate on the impact of individuals, emphasising the importance and significance everyday choices can have when accumulated over time. They focus on the method of empowerment through self-efficacy to encourage self-management and engagement, as well as clarifying the individual’s role.
Since many people still perceive the adaptation of an environmentally friendly lifestyle as expensive it is necessary to highlight that sustainability is rooted in less consumption with higher quality, especially when looking at clothes and electronic devices. Accordingly, people do not have to discard of all their old clothes and replace them with fair fashion, but should reuse and repair the products they already own.
Introducing people to a less materialistic lifestyle will not only reduce their emission footprint, but also increase their mental and physical wellbeing by focussing on non-materialistic occupations regarding culture, politics, personal growth, or relationships, leaving people less anxious and more satisfied with life. However, as society and cultural norm can override any attempts of integrating sustainability into one’s life, limitations when changing one’s lifestyle arise from the circumstances the individual is born into (Peeters et al., 2019), with scientists in particularly relevant positions.
3.1.7ROLE OF SCIENTISTS
In past few decades, science was generally viewed as a neutral field and independent from political developments. Yet in more recent years, climate scientists have commenced to clearly position themselves regarding activism for example the Scientists for Future initiative supporting the student movement Fridays for Future by verifying their statements and demands (Hagedorn et al., 2019).
Moreover, the current political climate with alternative facts and fake news clearly demonstrates how important professional and qualified experts are to inform the public and counsel governments.
In their study, Getson et al. (2020) interviewed climate professionals in the USA on their role in supporting the government in developing climate change mitigation strategies. Since that survey took place from March to the 2nd of June 2017, the United States under the Trump administration announced their decision to withdraw from the Paris Agreement just before the end of the study. Accordingly, the scientists expressed their frustration towards the American government and in general agreed that they had a responsibility in spreading information about mitigation techniques to the public.
15
Since scientists are becoming more intertwined with politics, either in the role of consultants or by running for office themselves, the image of scientists as a neutral party is changing, and further research on how this integration should be managed is necessary to use the scientific knowledge to its full potential (Getson et al., 2020).
3.1.8PROVISIONAL RESULT
After analysing various perspectives on individual duties, the common ground seems to be that individuals have to take on some moral responsibility for climate change whether by reductions in their own GHG emissions or by mutually holding institutions and fellow citizens accountable. This can be justified by being part of a collective where individual action added up over time, is the reason for harmful consequences of anthropogenic climate change (Banks, 2013; Braun & Baatz, 2017; Hiller, 2013), supported by the morality of the no harm principle (Kyllönen, 2016).
However, it proves difficult to identify climate change as an imminent threat because it is a multigenerational, global problem with no direct causation and because our moral judgement can be overridden by other emotions or circumstances in society (Peeters et al., 2019).
Framing climate change adaptation in a positive and specific way, while still displaying the urgency of this crisis has been deemed the most effective to motivate audiences (Wolf &
Moser, 2011; Hine et al., 2016). Additionally, the various groups of society should be considered when addressing individual responsibility to achieve engagement (Peeters et al., 2019).
Top-down approaches have been assumed as the most effective for implementing measures, however, citizens are required to delegate a strong enough mandate to representatives who focus on mitigating the climate crisis (De Smet et al., 2016).
The central problem revolves around how the circumstances are different for each individual, making it difficult to formulate a universal recommendation. Basing responsibility allocations on the combination of the cause, benefit and means principle seems to be the most just, considering past actions, current privileges, and financial resources (Braun & Baatz, 2017).
As the (fossil fuel) industry is the party facing the highest accusation from individuals and activists’ groups, its role in causing and mitigating the climate crisis will be analysed next.
3.2INDUSTRY
3.2.1DISCREDITATION OF SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE
In 2017, the Carbon Majors Report was published, stating that 100 fossil fuel producers are responsible for more than 70 % of the GHG emissions released since 1988, which has been utilised widely to demonstrate the power few industries hold and to question their role in taking on responsibility for the effects of burning fossil fuels (Griffin, 2017).
Discussions around the severe consequences of anthropogenic climate change began in the 1950s and commenced being part of scientific papers in the following decades, which led to the establishment of the IPCC in 1988. At the same time, investor-owned fossil fuel companies founded the Global Climate Coalition (GCC) to prevent the establishment of GHG emission limitation policies by lobbying against them, as well as initiating campaigns
16
questioning the reputability of the IPCC and the theory of the anthropogenic greenhouse effect (Frumhoff et al., 2015; Schäfer, 2015). This happened, even though the scientists of fossil fuel industries were fully aware of the consequences increasing GHG emissions would entail since the 1970s, yet these companies intentionally failed to disclose the risks to their shareholders and the public (Heede, 2017).
After BP acknowledged its shared responsibility for the effects of 𝐶𝑂2 in 1997 and focussed on technological innovations as the solution to this crisis by establishing funding of solar energies, several other companies joined this movement. However, their investments in low- carbon and renewable energies, usually make up only <1 to 2 % of their capital expenditures (Hedde, 2017; Frumhoff et al., 2015; Schäfer, 2015).
Nevertheless, even though some companies recognise the influence of human activities, many of the biggest emitters and later also BP denied corporate responsibility, hence refusing to adjust their business model and consider the effects carbon pricing and stricter regulations will have on their industry. Instead, they spent millions on lobbying and ranting against climate protection policies, which among other things led to the failure of the Kyoto protocol and the absence of a cap on emissions in the USA (Frumhoff et al., 2015; Hormio, 2017;
Schäfer, 2015).
The distribution of false information and discreditation of scientific knowledge has happened not only in relation to climate change, but also with several other areas where these industries were later held legally responsible for their continuous sale of those products, which could function as important references for future accountability allocations (Frumhoff et al., 2015;
Jaworska, 2018).
These goods include tobacco, lead and asbestos, all once regarded as harmless or even helpful and healing, but turned out to be toxic for the human body and its environment. When these discoveries reached the public, the producers and manufacturers were held responsible, regardless of whether the product was previously legal. In the special case of tobacco, corporations insisted on shifting blame to consumers since they chose to use tobacco, but as society became increasingly aware of the consequences of smoking, public pressure increased. In 1995, the tobacco industry was finally deemed responsible for knowingly distributing false information, which demonstrates the impact society’s outcry and demands can have (Frumhoff et al., 2015; Jaworska, 2018).
More recently, producers of meat, soy and palm oil have increasingly been under investigation regarding their manufacturing process and its environmental damage, which are now more strictly regulated with labels declaring ‘fair’ or ‘sustainable’ agriculture, therefore gaining a social license for continuing to sell these products. This concept of corporate social responsibility has partly been picked up by fossil fuel producers who recognise that they require a social license in order to avoid damages to their image, which in turn could incapacitate their trade on the world market (Favotto & Kollmann, 2019; Frumhoff et al., 2015; Jaworska, 2018). Part of this social responsibility is reflected in the attempt of establishing a corporate carbon disclosure.
17 3.2.2CORPORATE CARBON DISCLOSURE
Hahn et al. (2015) reviewed the literature on carbon disclosure and summarised three theoretical perspectives to explain the reasons for the installation of such a framework within the industry.
According to them, socio-political theories assume that demands by the public, stakeholders or the government lead to a disclosure of information, thus ascribing it to external pressure.
Second, they introduce economics-based theories, which suggest companies adjust their transparency reports to gain benefits on the world market by diminishing asymmetric information, attaining trust and loyalty of customers and investors, as well as appealing to environmental organisations. Lastly, they present the institutional theory, where requirements from organisations or governments result in the corporations’ adaptation of their guidelines (Hahn et al., 2015).
Hahn et al. display several researchers who deem voluntary disclosure a successful concept that fulfils stakeholder demands. However, they also acknowledge that while many companies engage in voluntary reports regarding environmental issues, they very rarely disclose in what capacity they contribute to a sustainable future. Instead, they use vague descriptions of environmental sustainability in a noncommittal way, to improve their image and gain competitive economic advantages. Since these reports do not have to fulfil specific requirements, the companies are left to decide what criteria they want to address and to what extend to go into detail, thus mandatory reporting standards have been suggested (Hahn et al., 2015; Jaworska, 2018).
Moreover, with voluntary carbon disclosure, the companies can select which guidelines they intend to follow, hence complicating comparisons of carbon achievements and performance since the various guidelines include different sources of emissions (Hahn et al., 2015).
When analysing the topics mentioned in environmental reports, most corporations note the gravity of the situation, but few regard this change as an opportunity to transform their business model and adopt new strategies. Furthermore, they prefer using more neutral or abstract scientific expressions such as ‘climate change’ instead of ‘global warming’, the latter of which is perceived as more threatening and immediate. During discussions on climate change and the IPCC, the subjects of energy demand, preservation of jobs and high costs of a transition to low-carbon energies are usually mentioned shortly after and emphasised more strongly. Additionally, statements by the IPCC are frequently paired with words like ‘believe’
or ‘potential’ to assert uncertainty, instead of scientifically proven research. At the same time, fossil fuel industries focus on the importance of individual action to divert responsibility, whereas risks from the climate crisis are mainly projected onto economic dangers rather than describing the catastrophic consequences for citizens (Jaworska, 2018).
Maclean (2019) presents another technique of deference through regulatory capture referring to the method of shifting the public eye away from regulatory action to the interests of corporations, mostly by these industries themselves. The most common process entails stating how they are acting in the ‘public’ or ‘national interest’ and are thus difficult to detect, as
18
economic benefits are highlighted, while other needs for a flourishing society, like an inhabitable planet, are neglected (Maclean, 2019).
However, as Hahn et al. state in their literature review, there exists a discordance regarding the effects of carbon disclosure. These mixed results refer to both the reduction of GHG emissions, as well as gained advantages on the world market by reason of disclosing information. Therefore, the impact of carbon disclosure requires further examination (Hahn et al., 2015), while other areas of the industry are clearly obligated to apply more extreme methods to fulfil their role in taking on responsibility (Friedmann et al., 2019).
3.2.3TRANSFORMING THE HEAVY INDUSTRY
The heavy industry accounts for around 10 % of anthropogenic 𝐶𝑂2 emissions and 42 % of industrial emissions and thus demands transformation to low-carbon alternatives to facilitate achieving global temperature targets. These high percentages result from the combustion of fossil fuels to generate temperatures up to 2000 °C, to enable processing materials like cement, steel, or glass (Friedmann et al., 2019).
Trying to decarbonise this industry has been challenging since fossil fuels are the most effective option, possessing the highest energy density, next to nuclear energy, hence having the best heat quality and being relatively cheap. Alternatives such as biomass, hydrogen, or electrical heating all significantly raise manufacturing costs and thus also the product price on the market, which leads to trade disadvantages. Additionally, methods like biomass and electrification implicate high uncertainties regarding their carbon footprint (Friedmann et al., 2019).
Carbon capture use and storage (CCUS) might be an option to subtract 𝐶𝑂2 from the facility’s emissions, but entails cost uncertainties, as well as increased efforts for adapting it to these industries, although it would still be easier than switching the supply method (Friedmann et al., 2019).
As a substitute for fossil fuels, hydrogen offers the best characteristics regarding heat supply, straightforward adjustment, and costs, which would rise by 10 to 50 %. However, this is based on blue hydrogen, which is generated with natural gas and then decarbonised, whereas green hydrogen is produced without carbon emissions by electrolysis of water powered by wind, hydro or solar energy, but elevates costs by 200-800 %. These prices would drop considerably if renewable energy costs sank in the future (Friedmann et al., 2019).
Furthermore, since industrial markets trade globally, they must be highly competitive with regions where manual labour and energy costs are low and environmental standards underdeveloped. Therefore, further policy regulations of global trade issues are required to be established, enabling the capacity to compete for industries employing low-carbon heat production (Friedmann et al., 2019). At the same time, the possibilities of renewable energies are crucial in determining how industries could have induced shifts to sustainable economies in the past and what they will have to undertake in the present and future.
