Global carbon emissions and global temperatures have risen sharply since the Industrial Revolution in the 1800s. Since 1850, the average temperature has risen by 1.1 degrees Celsius due to carbon emissions from human activities.[1] At the current rate of carbon emissions, the global temperature is expected to rise to 4 degrees Celsius from the 1850 baseline.[2] Most of the current carbon emissions come from corporations, while a relatively small amount comes from households and individual consumption. In fact, 70% of the world's carbon emissions come from 100 corporations that rely on fossil fuels.[3] In contrast, only 20% of carbon emissions result from households' consumption habits.[4] Considering that this figure represents the collective carbon emissions of all households around the globe, an individual's contribution to global carbon emissions makes up a minuscule and almost negligible percentage of global carbon emissions. Hence, there has been much debate over the concept of individual action on climate change and whether a change in an individual's consumption habits can make a significant impact on global carbon emissions. Many individuals have argued that a change in an individual's consumption habits to reduce his personal carbon emissions may be negligible and futile as there is little effect on global carbon emissions, considering the small amount of carbon emissions from an individual's consumption habits relative to global carbon emissions. Within the U.S., concerns about global carbon emissions and rising global temperatures have fallen. In a 2022 Associated Press poll, only 35% of American adults were highly concerned about rising global temperatures and their impact on their personal lives, a decrease from 44% when the same poll was conducted in 2019.[5] Hence, many individuals are either ignorant or indifferent to their actions and their contributions to carbon emissions and rising global temperatures. 

In light of this debate, this essay will examine whether individuals should be morally required to change their consumption habits to reduce their contributions to global carbon emissions. This essay's thesis will argue that individuals are morally required to change their consumption habits to reduce carbon emissions and minimise the suffering and deaths caused by climate change and rising global temperatures. This essay will base its argument on Peter Singer's argument in his 1972 paper Famine, Affluence and Morality. Subsequently, it will explain how Singer's argument can be applied to an individual's consumption habits and his contributions to rising global temperatures. The essay will then examine objections to this thesis and offer possible responses to these objections. 

Peter Singer's 1972 paper Famine, Affluence and Morality argues that we should prevent suffering and death if it is in our power to do so. Writing his paper in response to the suffering and deaths of 9 million individuals in East Bengal from "lack of food, shelter and medical care," Singer argues that people living in affluent societies should work to prevent "suffering and death from lack of food, shelter and medical care."[6] Singer arrives at such a conclusion based on three premises. The first premise that Singer raises is that "suffering and death from lack of food, shelter and medical care are bad."[7] Singer argues that support for such a premise is unnecessary as this premise is uncontroversial.[8] Singer's second premise is that "If it is in our power to prevent something bad from happening, without thereby sacrificing anything of comparable moral importance, we ought, morally, to do it."[9] Singer supports this premise by raising the hypothetical example of a drowning child. He argues that if an individual walks past a child drowning in a pond, the individual is morally obligated to swim into the pond and save the child. Problems like dirtying one's clothes are insignificant compared to the child's death.[10] Singer argues that an individual should donate as much money as possible to the Bengal refugees until the point when the donation of money will harm himself or his dependents.[11] The third premise is that it is within our power to prevent suffering from lack of food, shelter and medical care.[12] Singer supports this third premise by highlighting that there are effective charities like the Bengal Relief Fund that can effectively utilise the money people donate to support refugees in East Bengal.[13] Hence, based on the soundness and the validity of this argument, Singer concludes that we ought to prevent suffering and death from a lack of food, shelter and medical care since it is within our power to do so.[14]

The premises and conclusion that Singer arrives at in his paper can be applied to the concept of individual action on climate change and whether individuals are morally required to change their consumption habits to reduce an individual's consumption habits. The premise that "suffering and death from lack of food, shelter and medical care are bad" can be applied to the suffering caused by rising global temperatures due to global carbon emissions. In 2022, the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change published its annual report highlighting that an increase in global temperatures will result in up to five times as many global heatwaves, floods, and fires. Currently, 3.3 billion people, particularly those living in developing countries, are highly exposed to the impacts of climate change and are fifteen times more likely to die from disasters caused by rising global temperatures. Furthermore, many people are also at risk of starvation due to rising global temperatures, creating problems for crop growth. People are also being displaced from their homes due to rising global temperatures, making their homes uninhabitable. By 2050, 1 billion people will be exposed to coastal flooding, and land exposed to wildfires will increase by up to 35%.[15] Thus, the deaths and suffering caused by rising global temperatures are bad. Such a premise is considered uncontroversial.

Singer's second premise, "If it is in our power to prevent something bad from happening, without thereby sacrificing anything of comparable moral importance, we ought, morally, to do it," is similarly applicable to individual action on climate change. Singer's hypothetical example that an individual who walks past a child drowning in a pond is morally obligated to swim to save the child is likewise applicable to changing one's consumption habits to reduce carbon emissions. In this case, the example is no longer hypothetical as an individual who changes his habits to reduce carbon emissions is literally saving not one but many children who are at risk of drowning from floods caused by rising global temperatures, among other disasters caused by global warming. Thus, there is strong support for the second premise. The actions an individual can take to reduce the carbon emissions of his consumption habits are simple and at little cost to the individual. These actions include switching off electrical appliances when not in use, using fans instead of air-conditioners, switching off water taps when brushing teeth and air-drying clothes in the sun instead of using a dryer.[16] These actions may cause some discomfort and inconvenience to an individual. However, such mild discomfort and inconvenience are of much less moral importance as compared to the deaths and suffering caused by rising global temperatures. Hence, Singer's second premise is applicable to individual action on climate change as the discomfort from changing one's consumption habits to reduce one's carbon emissions is of much less moral importance than the suffering and death caused by rising global temperatures. 

Finally, Singer's third premise that it is within our power to prevent suffering and deaths also applies to individual action on climate change. The average American household contributes about 24,000 pounds of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere from its consumption habits. Each household can cut up to half its carbon emissions if it changes its habits to be more environmentally friendly.[17] If everyone changes their consumption habits to reduce their carbon emissions by half, we can halve the 20% of carbon emissions from global carbon emissions that come from consumers, and global carbon emissions would fall by 10%. Furthermore, while corporations make up 80% of global carbon emissions, many of these corporations' carbon emissions are indirectly caused by consumers' consumption habits. These include corporations that produce products that households consume and corporations that transport products to households, including airlines and shipping companies. Only 10% of carbon emissions from corporations come from corporations that extract fossil fuels, while the other 90% of carbon emissions come from corporations that supply households with products they consume.[18] Hence, if individuals were to reduce their consumption or change to consuming products that require minimal carbon emissions to produce, they would indirectly reduce the carbon emissions from corporations globally. Hence, it is within individuals' power to reduce global carbon emissions and prevent the deaths and suffering caused by global warming, providing strong support for Singer's third premise. 

Thus, this paper has argued that Singer's three premises can be applied to individual action on climate change as they have strong support and are sound when applied. Hence, because of the validity of his argument, the same conclusion that "we ought to prevent suffering and death from a lack of food, shelter and medical care" can likewise be applied to individual action on climate change. It would be valid and sound to argue that individuals are morally obligated to change their consumption habits to reduce carbon emissions to prevent suffering and deaths caused by rising global temperatures. Subsequently, this paper will consider and respond to objections to the conclusion. 

One objection to such a conclusion is that people are unaware of the deaths and suffering caused by rising global temperatures. Such an objection may go along the lines that there are few signs of changes in the environment in some countries, and people living in these countries are unable to observe the impacts of rising global temperatures. For example, people living in developed countries are less impacted by climate change, as compared to those living in developing countries with poor infrastructure to respond to the changing environment.[19] Hence, people in developed countries may argue that they are unaware of rising global temperatures as they cannot observe significant environmental changes. However, people who raise these objections cannot raise such an objection and claim ignorance, considering the widespread publication of climate reports and many activist campaigns to raise awareness of changing global temperatures. Such reports and campaigns are based on empirical scientific research. Hence, individuals cannot feign ignorance over the impacts of global warming. 

In a similar vein, even if an individual is aware of the impacts of rising global temperatures, he may object to the conclusion by arguing that people impacted by rising global temperatures are not in their immediate surroundings. As the people who will suffer the worst effects of climate change live in developing countries halfway across the world or are part of future generations in decades to come, some people in developed countries may argue that it is not their business to help these people. Such an argument is based on the logic that we are only morally obligated to prevent suffering and death if they are in close proximity to us, whether geographical or time-based. However, as Singer highlights, the second premise makes no distinction based on proximity or distance. The second premise implies a principle of impartiality and universality when deciding whom we should save from suffering and death.[20] If the child drowning in the pond is in a pond that requires an individual to swim a greater distance from the bank of the pond, he is still morally obligated to save him. Similarly, if an individual knows that a child with no experience in swimming is going to swim in a pond in two hours and will likely drown, he is also morally obligated to prevent that child from swimming in the pond. Hence, we are morally obligated to change our consumption habits to reduce our contributions to global warming, even if the people suffering from the impacts of rising global temperatures are thousands of miles away from us or will experience these impacts decades in the future. 

Another objection that people may raise to the conclusion is that even if they change their consumption habits to reduce their carbon emissions, other people around them may not change their habits to reduce their carbon emissions. Furthermore, considering how many people are required to change their consumption habits before there is a significant reduction in carbon emissions, many argue that changing their consumption habits is inconsequential or insignificant, especially in light of the small amount each individual contributes to global carbon emissions. However, as Singer raises, the number of people that can prevent suffering and death should not matter. If an individual walks past a child drowning in a pond and several people around him can also save the child from drowning, it does not change his moral obligation to save the child from drowning.[21] Even if an individual contributes a small amount to rising global temperatures, he still contributes to suffering and deaths globally and is still morally guilty. Contributing a small amount to global suffering and death does not absolve an individual from moral guilt. An individual is morally obligated to save the child drowning in the pond even though he only saves one life. Similarly, we are also morally obligated to change our consumption habits to reduce the rise in global temperatures, even if it may only save a few more lives. Furthermore, if large numbers of people change their consumption habits to reduce their carbon emissions, corporations are more likely to respond to these changes in consumption habits by changing to more environmentally friendly production methods.[22] Hence, individuals cannot use the excuse that their consumption habits are insignificant as contributing a small amount to global carbon emissions still makes them morally guilty of contributing to suffering and deaths from rising global temperatures.  

In conclusion, this essay has argued that individuals are morally obligated to change their consumption habits to reduce their contributions to global carbon emissions and to prevent suffering and death caused by rising global temperatures. Using Peter Singer's argument in Famine, Affluence and Morality, this essay has used Singer's three premises to support this argument. First, this essay has raised that suffering and deaths caused by rising global temperatures are bad. This essay has also argued that if it is in our power to prevent the suffering and deaths caused by rising global temperatures without sacrificing anything of comparable moral importance, we are morally obligated to do so. This essay then demonstrated that it is within our power to prevent suffering and death caused by rising global temperatures by making simple changes to our consumption habits. Hence, this essay has concluded that we are morally obligated to change our consumption habits to reduce global carbon emissions and to prevent suffering and deaths from rising global temperatures. The essay has then highlighted that individuals cannot argue that they are unaware of the impacts of climate change due to the widespread publication of reports and activist campaigns to raise awareness of the impacts of climate change. The essay has then highlighted that individuals are morally obligated to change their consumption habits even though the suffering and deaths are thousands of miles away or are many years in the future, as the second premise does not imply any difference in whether to prevent suffering and death based on proximity or distance. Finally, the essay has highlighted that even if other individuals do not change their consumption habits, an individual is still morally obligated to change his consumption habits as his actions still contribute to suffering and death from global rising temperatures, even if he only contributes to a small quantity of it. 

Bibliography

Borenstein, Seth. "U.N. Climate Report: 'Atlas of Human Suffering' Worse, Bigger." AP NEWS, February 28, 2022. https://apnews.com/article/climate-science-europe-united-nations-weather-8d5e277660f7125ffdab7a833d9856a3.

Herring, David. "Climate Change: Global Temperature Projections." NOAA Climate.gov, March 6, 2012. http://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/climate-change-global-temperature-projections.

Law, Tara. "Climate Change Will Impact the Entire World. But These Six Places Will Face Extreme Threats." Time, September 30, 2019. https://time.com/5687470/cities-countries-most-affected-by-climate-change/.

Norcross, Alastair. "Puppies, Pigs, and People: Eating Meat and Marginal Cases." Philosophical Perspectives 18, no. 1 (2004): 229–45. 

PBS NewsHour. "5 Charts Show How Your Household Drives up Global Greenhouse Gas Emissions," September 21, 2019. https://www.pbs.org/newshour/science/5-charts-show-how-your-household-drives-up-global-greenhouse-gas-emissions.

PBS NewsHour. "Many in U.S. Doubt Their Individual Impact on Fighting Climate Change," August 15, 2022. https://www.pbs.org/newshour/science/many-in-u-s-doubt-their-individual-impact-on-fighting-climate-change.

Ritchie, Hannah, Max Roser, and Pablo Rosado. "CO₂ and Greenhouse Gas Emissions." Our World in Data, May 11, 2020. https://ourworldindata.org/co2-and-other-greenhouse-gas-emissions.

Singer, Peter. "Famine, Affluence, and Morality." Philosophy & Public Affairs 1, no. 3 (1972): 229–43.

Valle, Gaby Del. "Can Individual Consumer Choices Ward off the Worst Effects of Climate Change? It's Complicated." Vox, October 12, 2018. https://www.vox.com/the-goods/2018/10/12/17967738/climate-change-consumer-choices-green-renewable-energy.

[1] Hannah Ritchie, Max Roser, and Pablo Rosado, “CO₂ and Greenhouse Gas Emissions,” Our World in Data, May 11, 2020, https://ourworldindata.org/co2-and-other-greenhouse-gas-emissions.

[2] David Herring, “Climate Change: Global Temperature Projections,” NOAA Climate.gov, March 6, 2012, http://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/climate-change-global-temperature-projections.

[3] Gaby Del Valle, “Can Individual Consumer Choices Ward off the Worst Effects of Climate Change? It’s Complicated,” Vox, October 12, 2018, https://www.vox.com/the-goods/2018/10/12/17967738/climate-change-consumer-choices-green-renewable-energy.

[4] “5 Charts Show How Your Household Drives up Global Greenhouse Gas Emissions,” PBS NewsHour, September 21, 2019, https://www.pbs.org/newshour/science/5-charts-show-how-your-household-drives-up-global-greenhouse-gas-emissions.

[5] “Many in U.S. Doubt Their Individual Impact on Fighting Climate Change,” PBS NewsHour, August 15, 2022, https://www.pbs.org/newshour/science/many-in-u-s-doubt-their-individual-impact-on-fighting-climate-change.

[6] Peter Singer, “Famine, Affluence, and Morality,” Philosophy & Public Affairs 1, no. 3 (1972): 230-232. 

[7] Ibid., 231. 

[8] Ibid.

[9] Ibid.

[10] Ibid.

[11] Ibid., 231-234.

[12] Ibid.

[13] Ibid., 233. 

[14] Ibid. 

[15] Seth Borenstein, “UN Climate Report: ‘Atlas of Human Suffering’ Worse, Bigger,” AP NEWS, February 28, 2022, https://apnews.com/article/climate-science-europe-united-nations-weather-8d5e277660f7125ffdab7a833d9856a3.

[16] Herring, “Climate Change.”

[17] Ibid.

[18] Ibid.

[19] Tara Law, “Climate Change Will Impact the Entire World. But These Six Places Will Face Extreme Threats,” Time, September 30, 2019, https://time.com/5687470/cities-countries-most-affected-by-climate-change/.

[20] Singer, “Famine, Affluence, and Morality,” 232. 

[21] Ibid., 233. 

[22] This objection and its response have been adapted from Alastair Norcross, “Puppies, Pigs, and People: Eating Meat and Marginal Cases,” Philosophical Perspectives 18, no. 1 (2004): 233.