Why blaming consumers won't solve climate issues

Have you ever used a carbon footprint calculator and felt guilty? Well, I did. If you did as well, we both fell into the propaganda trap of the oil industry. When their painkiller started to kill thousands of American patients, Purdue Pharma argued that those who became addicted had issues with drugs independent from their product (Oxycontin). CEO and owner Richard Sackler called them “reckless criminals”. The patients were responsible for their addiction, not the drug. Similarly, the tobacco industry has argued for decades that smokers are adults who make autonomous choices and that any policy with the objective of reducing tobacco consumption should thus target them and not tobacco companies. When the consumption of their products shows unpleasant side-effects, numerous industries have been quick in shifting the blame to consumers and convincing politicians that solutions must focus on sensitizing the choices of consumers, not limiting those of producers. After all, that is the foundation of free market societies, the right to produce whatever consumers are willing to consume. Consumption is freedom and freedom is a human right. Such a discussion successfully distorts the public opinion about how we can solve societal problems towards the choices of individuals. The oil industry tries to frame the ecological crisis and the necessary societal transformation in the same logic. In 2004, BP created the “carbon footprint calculator” so that individuals could calculate their CO2 footprint and – if they wanted – change their behavior to reduce it. If you smoke, if you take that pill, if you fly on an airplane, you know what you do. If you keep doing it, why blaming companies? Let us rather nudge consumers to behave differently (spoiler: it turned out that nudging is nonsense. It doesn't work). There are no free choices on markets. Our behavior is created, promoted and routinized by the institutional design in which it is embedded. Companies that profit by those routines will do what they can to defend current practices. Tobacco companies have over decades targeted teenagers to start smoking by presenting it as cool, risky and for adults. Pharma companies incentivize doctors to prescribe pills and train patients to ask for them. Oil companies do what they can to delay the ecological transition by aggressive lobbyism and propaganda. The truth, however, is that massive change happens only when this infrastructure is dismantled. When tobacco is forbidden in restaurants and on trains while smoking is made uncool in the perception of teenagers; when health is understood in a more holistic way, while healther choices are incentivized; when trains replace cars and airplanes while the frequent flyer card is uncooled by flight-shame. Sure, we all have to do our part, but to tell you that you and your choices are responsible for the ecological crisis is pure propaganda. The oil industry is.

"We've got to stop putting it on consumers to solve the problem." That's Gayle Sloan from the Waste Management and Resource Recovery Association of Australia, talking about Australia's soft plastics crisis. Two years after RedCycle collapsed, here's where we actually stand: 90–94% of Australia's soft plastics currently end up in landfill or the environment. Recent figures suggest only about 6% are recycled, with rates fluctuating in past years. Even at RedCycle's peak, they were only processing 7,500 tonnes out of 538,000 tonnes produced annually. That's less than 2%. But here's what the plastic lobby doesn't want you to know about those "recyclable" soft plastics: → Chemical toxicity: Recycled plastics contain higher concentrations of hazardous additives that migrate into food and water (Food Packaging Forum, 2024). → Economic reality: The energy and transport costs to recycle soft plastics exceed the cost of virgin materials. The economics are fundamentally broken. → Infrastructure gap: Australia has never had the capacity to process more than a fraction of collected soft plastics at scale. Yet for decades, the messaging has been: "Just put it in the recycling bin. Be a responsible consumer." Meanwhile, plastic production is set to triple by 2060. The real problem isn't consumer behavior. It's system design. Companies that package products in materials they know can't be recycled at scale are shifting responsibility to consumers who have zero control over packaging choices. That's why Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) schemes are gaining momentum globally. Make the producers responsible for the entire lifecycle of their materials. At Planet Protector, we've taken a different approach since day one: Design materials that don't need recycling because they integrate naturally into biological cycles. No toxic additives. No complex processing infrastructure. Only materials that work with nature. — Should producers be held responsible for their packaging waste? PS. I welcome healthy debates and peer-reviewed research as sources. Anyone from the chemical manufacturing space who disagrees with me, I ask you to keep it professional.

If just 36 companies are responsible for half of global CO₂ emissions… why does it still feel like this is everyone’s fault? We know oil is the biggest emitter. We know coal and cement are right behind it. We even have names—Saudi Aramco, ExxonMobil, Shell. The Carbon Majors Database spells it out: 36 companies, 50% of all fossil fuel and cement-related emissions. So if the math is that simple, why is meaningful accountability so hard? Here’s why: 1️⃣ State ownership blurs the lines. The majority of these top emitters aren’t private corporations. They’re state-run. Which means the same governments setting climate targets are also profiting from the pollution. How do you regulate a system you own? 2️⃣ Systems don’t shift with knowledge - they shift with pressure. We’ve normalised treating climate as a consumer behaviour problem. But when global infrastructure, trade deals, and subsidies are built to protect fossil flows, Individual action can only go so far. 3️⃣ We’re still investing in the problem. Despite every climate headline, fossil fuel investment is still increasing. As demand rises, public accountability gets diluted, and emissions continue climbing—quietly, systemically. So maybe the real question isn’t: “Why haven’t we acted?” It’s - Who benefits from inaction? Because when responsibility gets spread thin, everyone gets blamed, but no one gets held. This is why we need policies that target concentration, not just encourage participation. That recognises power, not just behaviour. And above all - transparency that doesn’t just name polluters… but asks: What are governments doing with that information? Picture - Visual Capitalist

This will ruffle some feathers. But it's more timely than ever: Individual actions won't solve the climate crisis. I am tired of this: "Top 10 individual actions to reduce your climate impact". Yeah sure, take a cold shower. Congrats. You saved the planet. Deflection is Big Oil's favorite PR stunt. Instead of shifting the blame on consumers, why don't we talk about: 📌 100 companies responsible for 71% of GHG emissions 📌 20 companies responsible for 55% of plastic waste 📌 USD 1 trillion in fossil fuel subsidies in 2022 Does this mean you should just sit back and let "someone" handle it? Of course not! You can have a real impact if you: ✅ Demand action ✅ Get organised ✅ Get engaged In your workplace, community, or politically. We need systemic, structural change. Now. Not another 10 years of green consumerism. Thoughts? #cop28 #climatechange #sustainability