Morality, as described by Charles Darwin, is the human trait of having the ability to compare one’s past and future actions and to determine whether they are right or wrong. This unique trait has helped us govern our actions and intentions throughout history, which have subsequently contributed to our unprecedented development. Today, human morals are typically grounded in common objectives directed towards promoting peace, enhancing economic prosperity and preventing destitution. As climate change is likely to seriously undermine these objectives, many argue that we are now morally obligated to prevent such a calamity from unfolding. As each individual contributes to a society that is inadvertently increasing this burden, it has become necessary to question the individual’s moral responsibility for preventing climate change.

Scholars who argue the individual is not morally responsible for preventing climate change often cite a phenomenon known as ‘Individual Causal Inefficacy’ (ICI), which describes the disproportion of scale between an individual’s actions in relation to global phenomena i.e. too small to make a difference. Take going for a Sunday drive for example. The emissions from one individual driving their car are so miniscule that it makes no difference to the outcome of climate change. Ostensibly, this is a logical argument to make as it is true that individual driving choices do not have a statistically significant impact on climate change. Therefore how reasonable is it to suggest that the individual is morally obliged to change their behaviour?

Recent studies even indicate that ICI is ubiquitous amongst society as many believe pro-climate efforts are futile if they are not collectively made. However, other related studies suggest that individual actions do in fact have an effect on the outcome of climate change through, for example, reduced household emissions as a result of switching to green energy providers. These contrasting findings highlight the contentious nature of the issue. On the one hand, the isolated action of the individual has a microscopic effect on climate change. On the other, the collective actions of billions of individuals is a key force behind anthropogenic climate change.

A key reason for ICIs prominence is the human disposition for short-term thinking. It has been proposed that our evolutionary behaviour, shaped by natural selection, has evolved to detect more immediate threats to our lives, such as wildfires, than more long-term threats such as disease. Studies suggest that this is because historically, human beings were far more vulnerable to immediate dangers than those occurring over a longer time span. As humans have been living in the natural environment for far longer than in an industrial, global one; it is likely our evolutionary psychology remains adapted to the former. This implies that although climate change is a threat to our species, its spatial-temporal scale exceeds our natural ability to fully appreciate it.

This is especially problematic when we consider the atmosphere to be a finite resource. Studies have found that it has become so inundated with greenhouse gases (GHGs) that its carrying capacity has for a long-time been exceeded and now, the net impact of additional GHGs is actually increasing. Therefore, presupposing the atmosphere as a finite resource, each additional unit of GHGs emitted equates to one less unit available for someone else. Left unchecked, this would inevitably lead to a ‘tragedy of the commons’ scenario. When looking at such a scenario from an evolutionary perspective, its nuances become clearer.

Some scholars argue that natural selection has typically rewarded selfish behaviour when acquiring resources, hence our seemingly innate ineptitude to effectively conserve them. Yet, while it is this very behaviour that has allowed us to succeed as a species, it is argued that it is also responsible for us being psychologically ill-equipped to consider the long-term impacts of this success. However, now, we must consider those long-term impacts, but are naturally psychologically-inept at doing so.

Human evolutionary behaviour is just one of many reasons for ICI’s prevalence. It is important to consider as it can help us to understand why we may feel morally distant from our climate-affecting behaviour – and understanding the issue is often the first step to solving it. However, it is also imperative not to fall into the trap of allowing this limitation to define our actions. Although human instincts may be more adept to the ancient world, our moral obligations certainly lie in the contemporary one.

There are a plethora of studies demonstrating a correlation between individual actions and their climate-related effects. For example, one study illustrated how the decision of European households to switch to a green energy provider significantly contributed to the reduction of household GHGs. Moreover, it has been argued that the act of driving is part of “an entrenched system of cars, roads, oil drilling, and gas stations”, meaning its associated emissions are hardly isolated from that of the system. Systems thinking such as this is particularly useful for addressing the moral dilemma of climate change.

‘Socio-ecological systems’ describe the networks of ecological and sociological systems that intertwine, and reinforce each other. They are highly complex and comprise constant reciprocity between actors within each system and the systems themselves. As humans have become the dominant force of change on the planet, it is suggested that natural processes hardly ever occur without some sort of anthropogenic input or influence. Therefore the study of socio-ecological systems has become increasingly relevant for understanding how we interact with the natural environment. Take the following example of a socio-ecological system:

A farmer’s crop provides the honeybee with a source of nectar, resulting in pollination, essential for the crop to be cultivated. The source of nectar sustains the honeybee, allowing it to continue its function within the local ecosystem (ecological), while the farmer can grow and sell their crop, make a living, and contribute to the local economy (social). If the local economy grows, the farmer plants more crops, which increases the supply of nectar, furthering support for the honeybee, and in turn sustaining the local ecosystem.

From this example, it is clear that actions travel beyond their vicinity and quite often they cascade through both ecological and social systems due to their interdependencies. Suppose the honeybee were sensitive to the actions of the farmer, while the local ecosystem relied on the honeybee to fulfil its function. Perturbations to the social system, such as pressure imposed on the farmer from the demands of the local economy, may result in the application of pesticides in order to increase crop yields. Thus, the growth of the economy causes a cascade effect, impacting the local ecosystem as pesticides harm the honeybee, inhibiting its ability to fulfil its function.

The honeybee example can be extrapolated to the actions of the individual and their effect on the climate. For instance, a discounted train ticket that incentivises commuters to take the train instead of driving can lead to a cascade effect. Consumer choices, road traffic, and vehicle GHGs would all be affected. The extent to which the effect cascades through the systems, however, depends on the individual’s response to the ticket discount and the number of individuals that respond positively to this discount.

Clearly, the individual is an actor within a system. They alone will not change the outcome of climate change, but the change they aspire to see, is disseminated through their decisions as an actor within those systems. Regardless of the prompt, it is through the actors in which the impact travels. Therefore, the cascading effects of environmentally-friendly actions and how far they spread depend on the decisions of the individual.

Humans are a moral species and throughout history moral obligations have been used to overcome the most seemingly insurmountable tasks. As many describe climate change as the defining challenge of the century, it is likely we will need every tool in our toolbox in its confrontation. Undoubtedly, moral responsibility will have a prominent role to play. The recognition of our natural disposition and evolutionary psychology is crucial for understanding individual limitations. However, by recognising themselves as an actor within a socio-ecological system, the individual can affect their contribution to climate change. This is done through changing their perspective and choices to allow themselves to become a conduit for pro-climate actions and their cascading effects, such as choosing to take public transport instead of driving. Ultimately, the individual is just one of many through which a system may work, whereby both its positive and negative effects cascade through their actions and behaviour. Therefore, the issue is not just about the size of the effect of the individual’s actions, rather it is about the individual’s responsibility for acting upon which effects they want to pass on.