A recent dining hall conversation I had with a friend around the climate crisis led to a discussion on the printing cap issue, which really made me think, to say the least. While I expressed my support for the initiative, they gave me a pessimistic nod and expressed the following opinion: Is it even worth the compromise it will impose? Because this isn’t going to solve the problem at all. A few individuals in a tiny university printing a few pages less isn’t going to reverse climate change. It is the bigger industries, the oil corporations that are truly responsible for this, and the blame should be theirs.

This is one of those many instances when people have expressed their skepticism toward individual responsibility for the environment, dismissing it altogether. And these claims are, in fact, well-grounded by reports that show that just 100 major companies are responsible for 71 percent of global emissions since 1988, thereby reinforcing the narrative of the futility of individual actions. However, individual effort toward greater sustainability is still extremely important — not so much for its tangible impact on the environment, but rather for the ripple effect it will create in initiating a culture of sustainability.

Given the global rise in temperatures and sea levels, the shrinking of ice sheets and glacial retreats, we know for a fact today that climate change is real. In 2018, the UN Intergovernmental Panel of Climate Change reported that to keep the global rise of temperature within the threshold of 1.5 degrees Celsius this century, emissions would have to be cut by 45 percent by 2030. A majority of scientific organizations worldwide endorse the idea that such climate warming trends are largely a culmination of human activities — and so it is only our willingness and effort that can save the environment. Yet, we don’t seem to be doing as much as is needed to face this urgent crisis, or rather, those big oil industries and governments aren’t doing what they should be. But before we delve into the failure of these bigger entities to combat climate change, let us examine ours.

For us as individuals, it is neither a state of oblivion nor the inability to take actions that keep us from rerouting ourselves toward sustainability. It is, almost always, an unwillingness to do so that mostly arises from the fact that becoming more sustainable entails making less convenient choices. In consuming single-use plastic over carrying around a reusable container, or in taking a cab over a public bus, there lies convenience. On the contrary, choosing to eat less meat, being a minimalist or avoiding fast fashion means compromising on that privileged lifestyle. Becoming conscious of the environment and actively trying to make different, more sustainable choices would almost always entail some discomfort. And it is mostly this discomfort that comes with environmental responsibility that makes us shy away from it — even when we fully realize that we can no longer afford to make these beautifully convenient choices. Such individual reluctance to make even marginally less convenient choices is reflective of the bigger problem: our collective reluctance to prioritize the environment over anything else. If we as individuals refuse to compromise certain comforts in order to amend our lifestyles to become more sustainable, we certainly also cannot expect institutional and structural changes from governments and industries. If between convenience and the planet, we choose the former, they will do the same.

Individual choices therefore matter. Even if individual actions toward sustainability cannot make fundamental reforms in the environment, or single handedly save the planet, they do determine the social priorities we collectively define for ourselves and can create an environment that is conducive to influencing institutional and governmental reforms. If individuals prioritize making pro-environmental choices, creating a culture of willingness to compromise in our materialistic conveniences and changing the way we live, it will create social pressure for businesses and corporations to incorporate these values into their models. If individuals actively choose to be environmentally conscious and urge grassroots changes, they will produce better policy and structural changes from governments. At the end of the day, it is how much individuals care about the environment that determines what and how much is done about it.

Psychologists have found that changes in consumption and conservation behavior spread among people. For example, a recent study reports that second order normative changes regarding energy use — that is, the belief that community members think that saving energy helps the environment — helps in curbing energy consumption. The underlying idea behind this is that changing behavior requires effort and a willingness to compromise on certain conveniences. And such collective decisions to make these lifestyle changes make people aware of the urgency of the issue. Our decisions send a message about our environmental consciousness to not just other individuals who can adopt similar practices but also to bigger corporations that can actually make the required changes. To governments, it sends a message of public support for a potential policy to fight climate change. Individual actions may not fix climate change, but they can fight climate change denial.

Regardless of how naive and cliché it sounds, change has to start from somewhere. It is individuals who can drive collective action. And it is high time individuals lead by example and take the right initiatives to fight climate change. It is high time we make the environment a priority over convenience and over profit.