- Formal negotiations
- Finance
- Global review
- Global report
- Digital sequence information
- Harmful subsidies
- Marine biodiversity
- Planning, monitoring, reporting and review
- Article 8(j) implementation
- Biodiversity and climate change
- Links with other bodies
- Around the COP
- Armenian presidency
- Protests
- Lobbying and influence
- Carbon and biodiversity markets
Mindy Hernandez is director of the Living Lab for Equitable Climate Action at the World Resources Institute.
We’ve all heard it: Eat less beef. Fly less. Buy secondhand. Track your carbon footprint.
But what’s less known is that the very idea of a ‘personal carbon footprint’ was popularized by oil giant BP, which, in a 2004 campaign, encouraged people to measure their own emissions – diverting attention from the fossil fuel industry and toward individual consumers.
Two decades later, that sleight of hand still shapes much of the public discourse, overshadowing the policies, infrastructure, and market leadership needed for faster, broader climate action.
New research from the World Resources Institute shows that adopting 11 pro-climate behaviors in energy, transport, and food could reduce an individual’s greenhouse gas emissions by about 6.53 tonnes per year, more than offsetting the average person’s current emissions (about 6.3 tonnes per year).
At energy security talks, US pushes gas and derides renewables
However, the study also reveals a stark gap between what’s theoretically possible and what’s achievable under current conditions. When efforts focus solely on changing individual behaviors – without transforming the overarching systems – they deliver only about one-tenth of their potential (about 0.63 tonnes annually), a fraction of the broad-based change the world truly needs.
The remaining 90% of emissions savings stay locked away, dependent on governments, businesses and collective action to make sustainable choices more accessible for all, not just the green-minded few.
How much do personal choices affect the climate?
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) says comprehensive shifts in human behavior could theoretically reduce global emissions by up to 70% by 2050 – essentially wiping out emissions from China, the US, India, the EU, and Russia combined.
But it is also clear that these massive reductions would result from individual behavior change combined with supporting policy, industry and technological transformations.
Xi commits China to full climate plan but emissions-cutting ambition still unclear
This doesn’t mean individual action doesn’t matter. It means we need to focus on the systems that shape what’s possible for everyone in order to exponentially increase the potential impact.
While choices like flying less or switching to EVs make a difference, they only scale when supported by policies and infrastructure that make them easier, more affordable and accessible – which is where public and private-sector decisions play a crucial role.
Which behavior shifts make the biggest difference?
Our research also identifies which individual actions have the greatest climate impact – and therefore should be prioritized in decision-making. In order of climate impact, they are:
1) Shift to sustainable ground travel
Shifting from gas cars to public or active transit dramatically reduces emissions. Going car-free is 78 times more impactful than composting. Ditching your car may seem extreme, but even switching to a hybrid or electric car can have a significant impact.
2) Shift to air travel alternatives
When possible, replace flying with videoconferencing, train travel or even driving (ideally electric or hybrid). Air travel is among the most carbon-intensive activities. Since 89% of the world’s population has never flown, frequent flyers, especially in high-income groups, have a greater responsibility to lead on this.
3) Install residential solar and increase home energy efficiency
Rooftop solar and upgrades like better insulation, heat pumps or moving to a smaller house can significantly cut emissions. Unlike small changes (like switching light bulbs), these structural home improvements have a deeper impact – but often require government support, such as tax credits or incentives, to be widely accessible.
4) Eat more plant-rich meals
Cutting back on meat and dairy, particularly beef and lamb, has a massive, underestimated climate impact. While buying organic or local and reducing processed foods helps, shifting away from animal proteins matters far more. Full veganism can save nearly 1 ton of CO2 annually, but even reducing meat consumption achieves 40% of that.
How to change behaviors most effectively
These behaviors are only feasible at scale when systems support them. For example, Bogotá’s long-term investment in bike infrastructure helped increase cycling from less than 1% of trips in 1996 to 9% in 2017.
In the Netherlands, subsidies and net-metering for solar panels made renewable energy accessible, turning the country into a European leader in rooftop solar adoption. On the dietary front, public institutions and businesses can make plant-rich options more appealing and accessible (such as by adopting “meatless Monday,” like the Los Angeles Unified School District did in 2012).
How behavior change interventions are designed also matters. WRI reviewed numerous real-world programs and found that “choice architecture” (e.g. making sustainable options more visible or the default) and commitment devices (like pledges) are the most effective tools. Traditional information campaigns – like carbon calculators – are among the least.
System change is our only way out of the climate and biodiversity crises
Leveraging our collective power
The personal carbon footprint narrative has dominated the climate conversation for two decades, but it’s time to update it.
While personal choices do matter, this narrative has obscured where individuals’ real power lies: in voting, advocating for systemic change and pushing for the policies, infrastructure, and supportive environments that maximize the impact of individual climate action so it can be truly transformative.
To meet this moment, we must stop treating behavior change as a distraction from systems change – and start treating it as a force multiplier.
A version of this article originally appeared on WRI.org.
The post Individual action won’t save the climate – unless governments and businesses back it appeared first on Climate Home News.
Individual action won’t save the climate – unless governments and businesses back it
Continue Reading
Prepared by a coalition of nine Western Australian union, industry, conservation, and community organisations—including UnionsWA, the Conservation Council WA, and the Smart Energy Council—the WA Clean Energy, Jobs & Industry Plan provides a practical roadmap to transform Western Australia into a clean energy powerhouse while creating thousands of secure local jobs.
Western Australia stands at a pivotal crossroads: lead the global clean energy economy or watch investment, future industries, and secure jobs go elsewhere. The WA Clean Energy, Jobs & Industry Plan outlines a transformative blueprint to harness the state’s world-class solar and wind resources. Discover how legislated renewable targets, green iron manufacturing, and a dedicated regional training strategy can generate tens of thousands of local jobs, lower household bills, and build a resilient, net-zero future for all Western Australians.
WA needs a clear and forward-thinking plan if it is going to become a competitive renewable energy powerhouse and maintain its economic strength through the energy transition.
“Western Australians know a faster renewable energy transition will lower their household expenses and prevent harmful climate pollution. But the community also needs clear direction to ensure this transition will create jobs, lower costs and not cause undue environmental harm.
“Here, sectors representing a broad range of interests have laid the groundwork for those outcomes, clearly outlining what is needed to create a future for WA that is good for the environment, for the climate, for workers and for the economy.
Summary
The WA Clean Energy, Jobs & Industry Plan sets out a strategic roadmap to position Western Australia as a global clean energy superpower while creating thousands of secure local jobs.
The report establishes three overarching goals:
- Creating local employment.
- Maintaining industrial competitiveness.
- Lowering household energy costs
To realize this vision, the framework details actionable measures to follow on from the recent WA Government announcement of a 75% Renewable Energy Target by 2031 for the South West Interconnected System. This includes developing a statewide Renewable Energy Target, coordinating statewide workforce and training pipelines, strategically planning regional infrastructure to safeguard high-value biodiversity and cultural heritage, and ensuring equitable benefit-sharing through household electrification incentives and First Nations equity partnerships. Ultimately, the plan highlights that establishing clear policy and regulatory certainty will unlock lower energy bills, boost power reliability, and secure the state’s global competitiveness in emerging green commodity export markets.
Key Findings
- Statewide Renewable Energy Target and Emissions Reduction Targets: The report calls for a statewide RET and 1.5°C aligned emission reduction targets to remove policy risk, lower capital costs, and attract clean energy investment.
- Transformative Job Creation: Accelerating the transition offers massive employment prospects, including up to 8,800 solar and battery jobs by 2050, as well as 24,000 ongoing and 11,000 construction jobs in a commercial green iron industry.
- Industrial Electrification & Competitiveness: Requiring large gas users to adopt binding electrification timetables and providing concessional financing will protect existing energy-intensive manufacturers from rising energy costs and impending domestic gas shortfalls.
- Green Commodity Export Leadership: Western Australia can build new export markets in green iron, green ammonia, and offshore oil/gas decommissioning by constructing shared common-user infrastructure and setting dedicated Green Commodity Export Targets.
- Coordinated Workforce & Training Pipeline: To address critical skill shortages the plan recommends establishing a WA Clean Energy Jobs Plan 2050, three regional training hubs, and dedicated pathways for female and under-represented apprentices.
- Environmental Safeguards & Community Benefits: Fast-tracked development must be paired with State Planning Policies that avoid high-biodiversity and cultural heritage lands, mandate new data centres to run on additional renewable power, and deliver household electrification rebates and First Nations equity partnerships.
What you can do
WA has an opportunity to lead on sustainable, clean energy and associated industries. You can help by:
- Sending an email to Environment Minister Murray Watt and Prime Minister Anthony Albanese, calling on them to reject Browse.
- Sharing this story to help more Australians understand what’s at stake.
- Encouraging your friends and family to take action.
Countries have completed the first “global review” of their progress towards reversing nature loss by 2030 at the COP17 biodiversity talks in Yerevan, Armenia.
The review “notes with deep concern” that, unless action is “rapidly accelerated”, the goal to reverse nature loss and meet a set of 23 targets by 2030 “will not be achieved”.
It “urges” countries to accelerate action, including by “increased ambition in addressing the gaps”.
Much of the discussions in Yerevan focused on how to raise the necessary funds to help developing countries protect nature.
Some major economies pushed to expand the range of nations that are expected to provide finance, with countries agreeing at the end of the two weeks of talks that non-donors that want to contribute can “signal interest” before COP18.
This came after developed countries failed to meet a target to significantly ramp up nature finance over the last few years.
It also came as a landmark fund agreed at COP16 in Colombia to pay communities for the genetic resources derived from nature stands nearly empty two years on.
The Yerevan talks marked the halfway point of the “Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework” (GBF), the “Paris Agreement for nature” first made in 2022 and due to be achieved by 2030.
During the nearly 12-hour-long final plenary, countries voted for Quito, Ecuador, to host the COP18 nature talks, which will be held in 2028.
Countries managed to sign off on all the major negotiation texts, marking a stark contrast to COP16, which ran so far over time that the Colombian presidency lost “quorum”, forcing talks to resume in Rome months later.
Below, Carbon Brief has detailed analysis of all of the key outcomes from COP17.
Formal negotiations
Finance
Finance, predictably, was at the heart of the discord and deadlock at the Yerevan talks.
At COP17, discussions on finance had to achieve several outcomes.
The first part – to take stock of biodiversity finance mobilised so far to meet the nature deal’s goals – fell under the global review.
As the global report noted, developed countries failed to meet their commitments to raise “at least $20bn a year by 2025” for nature. Delegates pointed to falling aid levels and a sharp 27% decline in environmental funding for the 2026-30 period.
The second part was to agree on how to mobilise resources for the next four years, to meet the GBF’s goals and targets.
Calls to “broaden the contributor base” of who pays to protect nature – and whether that should include emerging economies – became the most fraught element of the talks.
Eventually, countries agreed on what Switzerland described as a “super, mega-delicate” text. It hinged on major “political compromises”, with “no major winner or loser”, according to Kenya.
Per the decision, countries that want to be included on a list of developed country donors can “signal interest” through bilateral, confidential consultations before COP18 and every alternate COP after.
Finally, countries also agreed on criteria to shape and resource a new, permanent financial mechanism to protect nature after 2030.
However, this did not immediately take the form of a new fund under the COP that biodiverse countries have demanded since 2022, deferring the mechanism’s institutional structure to COP18.
Resource mobilisation discussions at the GBF’s halfway mark were supposed to agree on how to close the “biodiversity finance gap” and to “increase resources from all sources” to “at least” $200bn per year by 2030, as set out in target 19 of the GBF.
The talks were largely dominated by a push, led by the JUSCANZ bloc of developed countries, to “broaden the contributor base”. This could see emerging economies, such as Qatar, China, Saudi Arabia and India, being added to the list of countries that pay to protect nature.
Article 20 of the UN Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) states that developed countries “shall provide new and additional financial resources” to developing countries to meet the costs of implementing measures to protect nature.