Change your lightbulbs. Buy a hybrid. Recycle.

These are just some of the actions we were told to take over the past couple of decades to do our part for the climate, especially after the release of Al Gore’s 2006 documentary An Inconvenient Truth. The dominant liberal narrative asserted that these small changes in individual consumption would be enough to avert climate catastrophe.

That was a lie.

The Failure of Individualism

It’s easy to see why this was the solution pushed by the liberal establishment. Since the 1970s, we’ve been inundated with messaging prioritizing individual action over that of governments and larger social systems. Eventually even centrist and center-left political parties like the US Democrats, UK Labour, and many more like them gave in.

Through this lens of understanding the world, the black homeless man you passed on the street didn’t find himself there because of systemic racism, intergenerational poverty, and other fundamental social factors — he was there because he wasn’t trying hard enough, not applying for jobs, not putting himself out there. Failures of governments and society were recast as individual failures, and people went along with it.

So when this thinking was applied to climate change by the very people who adopted it from right-wing economists and political parties — Bill Clinton and Al Gore were dubbed the New Democrats for embracing neoliberalism — it’s no surprise that they focused on the individual, even though individual action cannot properly address climate change.

And that may be part of the reason that, despite decades of agreements and accords — remember, the Rio Earth Summit brought together more than 100 heads of state to discuss climate change back in 1992 — emissions kept rising. By focusing on individuals, at least in the dominant English-speaking countries, governments and corporations were let off the hook.

But that needs to change.

Drastic Action is Needed

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) released its Special Report on Global Warming of 1.5ºC — that’s 2.7ºF for Americans — on October 8, 2018, laying out the swift action that needs to be taken to avoid catastrophic warming and how the half-degree difference between 1.5ºC and 2ºC will actually have devastating consequences.

As reported by The Guardian:

At 1.5C the proportion of the global population exposed to water stress could be 50% lower than at 2C, it notes. Food scarcity would be less of a problem and hundreds of millions fewer people, particularly in poor countries, would be at risk of climate-related poverty. At 2C extremely hot days, such as those experienced in the northern hemisphere this summer, would become more severe and common, increasing heat-related deaths and causing more forest fires. But the greatest difference would be to nature. Insects, which are vital for pollination of crops, and plants are almost twice as likely to lose half their habitat at 2C compared with 1.5C. Corals would be 99% lost at the higher of the two temperatures, but more than 10% have a chance of surviving if the lower target is reached. […] Carbon pollution would have to be cut by 45% by 2030 — compared with a 20% cut under the 2C pathway — and come down to zero by 2050, compared with 2075 for 2C. This would require carbon prices that are three to four times higher than for a 2C target. But the costs of doing nothing would be far higher.

The report makes it clear that we need to keep warming at or below 1.5ºC, and that will require swift action over the next 12 years to slash emissions by 45 percent. Yet the world has already warmed by 1ºC, and based on current pledges we’ll soar past 2ºC and may even surpass 3ºC of warming. And if the difference between 1.5ºC and 2ºC is so bad, imagine what will happen if yet another degree is added.

There can be no more delay in taking the necessary action to rapidly decarbonize our energy systems, transform our transportation systems, change the way we build to make it more sustainable, and more. This does not need to be scary; indeed, it presents us with opportunities to make our societies fairer, more resilient, and more in line with the progressive values that the vast majority of people share.

If that’s the case, why aren’t we changing? Because powerful interests are standing in the way.

The Rich and Powerful Are Holding Us Back

Australian politics has been thrown into disarray for a decade over climate change, with prime ministers constantly being deposed over climate policies. In Canada, Justin Trudeau was elected in 2015 promising real climate action, only to use a failing plan to price carbon to greenwash his nationalization of a pipeline, approval of a new liquified natural gas facility, and support for expansion of oil production on both sides of the country.

And that’s not even to mention the United States, where a Republican president backed by major fossil fuel interests has again challenged international climate agreements, opened massive new areas to oil exploration, and is trying to save the coal industry — among many other terrible actions.

It isn’t a coincidence that this keeps happening across the world. There are powerful people who benefit from the status quo and do not want to see a transition to renewable energy, an end to automobility, and other changes that will free us from our dependence on fossil fuels.

Consider this: a mere 100 companies are responsible for 71 percent of global emissions since 1970, and when we consider lifestyle consumption emissions — essentially what would be reduced through individual decisions — 49 percent are generated by the top 10 percent.

Remember when Leonardo DiCaprio took a private jet from New York to Cannes to accept an environmental award? That’s how rich people live, and it’s not going to change without a radical reimagining of what our societies should look like.