Climate Change and Rugged Individualism: Mass Media's Framing of Systemic Issues as Individual Moral Failings

 

       What the new report on climate change expects from you, a CNN article writes. In Fighting Climate Change, What’s an Individual to Do?, a New York Times headline reads. In light of the recent IPCC report, there have been a plethora of articles that have been *rightfully* concerned about the ecological future of our planet. However, the majority of analyses concerning the IPCC report (and the concept of climate change in general) centers around the idea of reducing one's own carbon footprint, i.e., the total amount of greenhouse gases (including carbon dioxide and methane) that are generated by our actions. For the purpose of this article, I want to specifically focus on the carbon footprint, the narrative of "personal responsibility," and the ideological underpinnings behind them. 

        The carbon footprint that we know today was initially popularized by BP "as part of its $100+ million per year ‘beyond petroleum’ US media campaign. This isn't surprising as, at the end of the day, oil giants like BP, Exxon, and Shell have a vested interest in downplaying their role in producing CO2 emissions and why wouldn't they? Why would these companies acknowledge their inherently destructive existence if it meant a reduction in their profit margins? The hallmark of good PR is the cultural maintenance of a positive public image. Therefore, it is not surprising that oil giants have spent millions of dollars in manufacturing the narrative of "personal responsibility," setting the range of debate surrounding climate mitigation efforts and "green" economics. Through extensive advertising and mass media's individualist framing, the systemic nature of climate change is either ignored or briefly mentioned. These companies are trying to squelch the fact that environmental exploitation is inextricably tied with commodity production, especially in a society that conflates consumption with value. This isn't to say that individual mitigation efforts are bad, but, as with most social issues, real material change requires collective and organized efforts. Thus, as in true mass media fashion, the main ideological motivation surrounding the narrative of "personal responsibility" is to reinforce faith in the capitalist social order, to blame the consumer instead of the system itself, and to force the consumer to personally identify with commodities and material goods that require the exploitation of natural resources. Rarely do you see an article or advertisement that highlights the role that corporations and overproduction have played in exacerbating the climate crisis. Why is the fact that only 100 companies have produced "70% of the world’s greenhouse gas emissions since 1988" never mentioned? Why is Exxon's climate denialism and propaganda campaign never covered? As I've already pointed out, such framing is intentional and it will continually manufacture our consent until we address and provide an adequate critique for it.

        Before I wrap up, I do want to highlight some potential "ramifications" concerning mass media's defense of corporations and uncritical espousal of corporate viewpoints. Tweets like the one that CNN posted, blaming the working class and their consumption habits as the sole arbiter of global warming, only provide a shield for "Big Oil." The real nefarious framing behind the entire "carbon footprint" media narrative and subsequent advertising is, in my opinion, the fact that it is intentional. These companies are aware of the potential ramifications of climate change. Yet, acknowledging the problem means that the existence of oil and fossil fuels will become obsolete; investment in green infrastructure, public transportation, and environmentally-friendly energy sources means that our dependence on oil would inevitably decline. That is why news outlets (and the voices they promote) have intentionally "water-downed" the science behind climate change, espousing out-right conspiracism and denialism regarding humanity's role in greenhouse emissions. Moreover, the demonization of policies like the Green New Deal by right-wing media pundits, despite the fact that a plurality of voters (40 percent) support it, has essentially downplayed the necessity of collective action that would benefit both the environment and working class. At the end of the day, corporations will protect their profits, whether through lobbying, regime changes, imperialism, propaganda, or all the above in the case of "Big Oil." What Exxon, BP, and Shell have done is unforgivable, valuing short-term profits over long-term sustainability. The media is complicit in this, especially given that the large sum of their revenue comes from advertisers and sponsors due to the way in which mass media is structured. The solution, in the long run, is to ultimately move beyond commodity production and to evaluate the way we treat one another as that is often an unconscious justification of ecological domination. In the short term, however, we must organize and protest, challenge the media's reinforcement of rugged individualism, and promote a world in which an injury to one is an injury to all. Only then, will the absurdity of our one-sided, anti-labor "blame-game" be fully realized.