Should we care about plastic straws?Individual vs systemic action event summary

( Kirsty O'Connor/PA )

What is the appropriate level of action to fight climate change? Individual, or systemic? This subject of fierce debate was discussed at our event last Monday "Should we really care about plastic straws?".
The speakers Dr Tina Fawcett and Dr Thomas Hale acknowledged the argument for some that focusing on individual action represents not only a complete waste of time, but also a danger: 

1. The “Mississippi syndrome”: if you focus on the little boats going upstream, you may lose sight of the big polluting boats that keep going downstream.
2. It may come with a form of “purity test”: “you can’t be a good person if you don’t do X Y or Z”. As a consequence, this may disqualify some people from working towards a systemic change, just because of some feature of their personal behaviour (e.g. flying for their holidays).
3. We don’t all have the same needs. The plastic straw is a good example of a thing we should not blindly demand the disappearance of: some people do need them (e.g. due to some disability). We shouldn’t go too fast saying “nobody needs what I don’t need”.

Both of the speakers, however, refuse this binary way to frame the debate – as if you couldn’t both act for systemic change and change your individual behaviour. In particular, they underline the following advantages of undertaking individual action:

1. It helps you being credible when you talk. When a speaker calls for change but flies and eats meat, it may do a lot of harm. Conversely, making changes to your lifestyle that are consistent with your ideology makes your demand for systemic change much more persuasive.
2. The main sources of emissions in the UK are transport, food, accommodation- things which ultimately connect with our everyday life. Thus, there is an unavoidable connection between the individual and the systemic changes we call for.
3. It contributes to change the social norm.
4. It makes you more knowledgeable, about what the best things to be done. Thus, Dr. Fawcett mentions that a lot of her research is about house renovation; renovating her own house helped her to identify further elements to be taken into account.
5. It also makes you feel empowered: however huge the crisis may be, at least you’re doing your best to act against it.

But how? How can individual actions participate to a more systemic change? Dr. Hale enumerates at least four mechanisms:

1. Consumer power: what we buy, don’t buy… NB: To be an effective customer, however, you obviously need money. Therefore, although an effective tool, it is not available to everyone.
2. Employee power. We’re not only consumers: we work, and we can 1) try to choose our company/institution in accordance with our values, plus 2) try to act from within our company/institution to make it change its behaviour.
3. Normative action. According to Dr. Hale, slavery ended because the social norm evolved. How do you enact this change? By talking, and by reinforcing the message with concrete actions that lend it moral credibility. However, whatever the degree of commitment of the person you’re talking with, it is crucial to first listen to the person and their values. People coming from very different normative backgrounds may feel concerned with the climate crisis, (e.g. conservatives may be particularly concerned with the preservation of their neighbourhood). Dr. Fawcett mentions the work of the organisation Climate Outreach (https://climateoutreach.org/).
4. Political engagement. Pressuring parties is one of our most effective ways, because they control the policies and that’s what going to make the biggest change. There is in the UK a consensus through the parties about the climate crisis, which is not common. There is room then to talk to everyone and try to get all parties to fulfil their commitments – Dr. Fawcett mentions the project “Talking to the centre-right”.