Making climate change an issue of self-interest

Unless countries approach solutions to climate change as a game of appealing to individual self-interest, real change may come too late. Climate change is one of the most important topics being discussed in the national and international spheres. It’s a common argument to say that it is in the national self-interest of countries to lower emissions and try to mitigate the negative impacts of climate change. This is why countries like Canada are releasing emission-reduction plans to combat climate change. But how can countries convince people that it is in their individual self-interest to take the actions that are needed in their daily lives to mitigate the negative impacts of climate change? What I mean by individual self-interest is in terms of living a “good life.” People only get to live once and want to maximize their personal pleasure in whichever way they see fit. In other words, individuals want to live a fulfilled and happy life. Individual self-interest is relevant to climate change because the decisions and changes people are willing to make—both in their day-to-day lives and when it comes to marking their ballots during an election—will reflect how they can best achieve their vision of a “good life.” For some, living a “good life” and pursuing their individual self-interest is consistent with reducing the negative impacts of climate change. This is the case for many who are concerned about providing future generations with a sustainable future. However, the individual self-interest of others may lie elsewhere. If humans were all selfless, societies could make radical changes tomorrow that could prevent a lot of future damage to the planet. For instance, if every person in every society selflessly decided to stop eating meat, to stop using any kind of non-clean energy, and only used energy to power essential services, then they could drastically halt the ongoing damage being done to the planet. However, even if people were willing to be this selfless, many would not have the means of making these changes since poorer people and countries are likely to be more vulnerable to climate change due to their higher dependence on natural resources. While these radical changes would be a dream come true for some, it is more likely that an individual will make change in accordance with their individual self-interest or will commit to actions that do not drastically change their daily life. For example, a common personal commitment that individuals make to help the environment is to recycle. While better than doing nothing, there are debates and criticisms about how effective the recycling process is, since about only nine per cent of plastic waste that has been produced has ever been recycled. Saying that, a more effective personal commitment would likely be for individuals to stop using single-use plastic altogether instead of trying to recycle them. However, it seems that if it is in someone’s individual self-interest—instead of the long-term self-interest of the planet—they will revert to non-environmentally friendly practices. This was best demonstrated during the COVID-19 pandemic, when there was a surge of single-use plastics because people wanted their food and products to be protected from the virus through the use of plastic. This shows that even if people are committed to helping the environment, they will likely put their short-term self-interest of living a “good life”—in this case, not getting sick or attempting to avoid dying from a virus—ahead of the long-term interest of the planet. Valere Gaspard is a research fellow at Western University’s Leadership and Democracy Lab, a graduate student at the University of Ottawa, and an alumnus of the Parliamentary Internship Programme. Photograph courtesy of Valere Gaspard While this sounds like a criticism of human nature, it is not. Being individually self-interested and wanting to live a “good life” is not a negative quality. If anything, knowing that people are individually self-interested is helpful because we can approach solutions to climate change with the assumption that unless a person is able to pursue their version of a “good life” within those solutions, they will likely not partake in them or be opposed to them. It is easier said than done to try and appeal to everyone’s individual self-interest. Since we all have different ideas of how to live a “good life,” no solution will be equally appealing to everyone, and someone will inevitably be more dissatisfied than another. Therefore, there seems to be two possible solutions to the dilemma of individual self-interest and climate change. The first solution to the dilemma is to always appeal to the self-interest of the largest group. While this is captivating since it seems to be the most democratic option, it may prove problematic if the self-interest of the largest group is not consistent with the actions that are needed to reduce the negative impacts of climate change. The second solution to the dilemma is to try and mitigate the negative impacts of climate change in a way that affects everyone as equally as possible. This means instead of appealing to the self-interest of the largest group—and making the self-interest of smaller groups secondary—everyone’s self-interest and freedom to live a “good life” is affected as equally as possible. Canada’s carbon pricing system could be considered an example of this second solution, since it puts a daily cost on instances of carbon pollution for all Canadians, and attempts to ensure “consistency and fairness for all Canadians.” In practice, these types of pricing solutions that are meant to be applied as equally as possible to all—but may end up affecting some individuals more than others—are meant to encourage people to have their version of a “good life” be consistent with the proposed solution. It is meant to change behaviour by appealing to individual self-interest. Both solutions have their respective benefits. However, unless the self-interest of the largest group is to selflessly want radical changes to mitigate the impacts of climate change, the second solution is likely to produce results and change more quickly. While there is no policy that can appeal to everyone’s individually, there is an obvious path forward: to beat climate change, countries need to calculate their decisions in terms of how it impacts individual self-interest. Valere Gaspard is a research fellow at Western University’s Leadership and Democracy Lab, a graduate student at the University of Ottawa, and an alumnus of the Parliamentary Internship Programme. The Hill Times

Making climate change an issue of self-interest

Individual self-interest is relevant to climate change because the decisions and changes people are willing to make will reflect how they can best achieve their vision of a ‘good life.’

Stop recycling failed ideas to manage plastic waste

World’s in a rapid downward spiral of grotesque accumulation of wealth, power: reader

It’s time Canadians embraced equitable, low carbon lifestyles

Stop recycling failed ideas to manage plastic waste

Canada needs a modern, national health data architecture

To address online harms, Canada must commit to digital media literacy

A cure for multiple sclerosis could be just around the corner

Renewable energy is the way to go, says letter writer

Supporting local broadcasters is critical for our democracy

Plenty of low-hanging fruit for feds to pick in curbing consumption of single-use plastics

Plastic waste is a problem—it’s also a resource we shouldn’t be wasting

Reducing plastic waste: is banning plastics the solution?

Why feds ban on single-use plastic is a step backwards in eliminating waste

Some reasons to hope

News

Get free news updates

Opinion

Submit a guest opinion article

resources

Advertise

subscribe

get help

Making climate change an issue of self-interest

Individual self-interest is relevant to climate change because the decisions and changes people are willing to make will reflect how they can best achieve their vision of a ‘good life.’

Get The Policy Briefings Newsletter