In defence of the personal carbon footprint

 From Kristian Steensen Nielsen

I often hear people, including in the climate community, dismiss the concept of a personal carbon footprint. I believe this is a mistake. Here are three reasons why.

The usual argument against the personal carbon footprint is that the fossil fuel industry created it. This is not entirely true. But BP and Ogilvy & Mather were instrumental in popularizing it and for very problematic reasons. Nevertheless, the concept can still have scientific and practical value.

1️⃣ Carbon footprints can highlight the immense #inequality that exists between and within countries. Wealthier countries and wealthier people generally have disproportionately large carbon footprints. www.nature.com/articles/s41...

2️⃣ Personal carbon footprints can inform people about which of their actions are most carbon-intensive. This solves a real problem, as most people lack knowledge about which behavior changes matter for climate change mitigation (understandably, since this is complex).

A better understanding of carbon footprints may help prioritize behavior changes and community and organizational climate initiatives. It could also direct public attention to the most effective climate actions, which, in turn, might increase people's support for more ambitious climate policies.

3️⃣ Your carbon footprint does not imply that you have full control over your emissions! This point is crucial. Some emissions happen outside your control and are embedded in supply chains, public services and infrastructure. Moreover, shifting away from carbon-intensive behaviors can be difficult...

... and reducing barriers to change will often require policy interventions. The severity of the barriers varies across contexts and socioeconomic groups. I would argue that wealthier people will often have an easier time changing behavior. www.sciencedirect.com/science/arti...

We need both individual and system-level change, and they are deeply interconnected. Even with system changes, people with high CFs will need to reduce air travel ✈️, live in smaller, energy-efficient homes 🏡, cut meat consumption 🍽️ 🥦, increase their use of public transportation 🚆, and more.

While the concept and its measurement have limitations, carbon footprints can help guide people, municipalities, and countries toward actions and initiatives that matter. And I highly doubt that the fossil fuel industry (and supporting industries) would be happy about this 🤔

Importantly, personal carbon footprint only speaks to consumption. The opportunity space for taking impactful climate action is much wider, and for some people, actions in other 'roles' will be more impactful than changing their consumption. www.nature.com/articles/s41...