The twisted morality of climate protection

Climate change is a global challenge that can only be tackled at a global level. Most people now agree on this — at least those who accept that global warming is man-made.

And yet in Germany, the focus falls primarily on the individual when it comes to how we can fight climate change and protect the climate. This begins with the more or less explicitly stated wishes of various government bodies that citizens should act as "sustainable consumers" and keep track of their own ecological footprint, which can be calculated on the websites of the Federal Environment Agency. Virtually every actor in society joins in this chorus alongside numerous media outlets — from insurance companies to universities.

This has left its mark on how people relate to one another. Who hasn't wrinkled their nose at the colleague who drives an SUV, or the neighbor still heating with oil? Not to mention the friend taking her third short trip to Mallorca this year, or the customer at the supermarket checkout piling up pork neck steaks on the conveyor belt as if it were the most natural thing in the world. Such behavior is increasingly being called out in everyday social interactions. Those who are sensitive to these issues might develop "flight shame." And there is no shortage of labels for those who prefer cow's milk over oat milk, or who drive their child to school by car rather than cargo bike: they are "climate sinners," or, more pointedly still, "climate pigs."

The imperative to live one's life in a climate-friendly way has long since ceased to be a purely moral matter. There are now many laws that impose obligations on individuals, too. Perhaps the best known is the Buildings Energy Act (commonly referred to as the "Heating Act"), which contains far-reaching restrictions on individual freedom — including a ban on operating heating systems powered by liquid or gaseous fuels for more than 30 years.

Behind all of this lies the idea that every individual must "do their part" for the global effort to combat climate change to ultimately succeed. It is clear that any one person forgoing a flight or replacing their gas boiler will not save the climate. But if everyone acted this way — if sustainability were practiced worldwide — then, so the argument goes, that would make the difference. Each individual act would be part of a greater, climate-protecting whole.

The Federal Constitutional Court articulates a similar logic at the level of nation-states. In its "Climate Ruling," the court characterized Germany's share of global CO₂ emissions — at just under two percent — as "rather small in itself." What matters, the court held, is that national climate protection measures be embedded in worldwide efforts, because they are then "capable, as part of the overall effort, of bringing about the end of climate change."

Does it therefore follow that legislators, state institutions, and many members of society are entirely right to direct their attention to the individual in matters of climate protection? Is "flight shame" justified? Can we reasonably demand that the person ahead of us in the supermarket queue grill a tofu schnitzel and leave the pork on the shelf? The answer, at least for now, is: no. Reducing one's own CO₂ consumption and shrinking one's individual ecological footprint are not currently required — neither ethically nor legally — even if this contradicts a widespread assumption.

Why not? At the heart of the answer lies a concept that the Federal Constitutional Court itself highlights in the passage of its Climate Ruling cited above: the suitability of measures to achieve the goals they are meant to serve. In legal terms, this criterion flows directly from the constitution. Restrictions on freedom — such as statutory obligations regarding how one heats one's home — must be proportionate, which in turn requires that they are at least capable of achieving their intended purpose. The suitability criterion also plays a decisive role in ethics, at least if one does not want to judge human actions solely by whether they reflect the right "attitude." Under that standard, what matters is whether an action can actually produce the outcomes it aims for.

Particularly in the context of climate change, such a consequentialist ethics seems absolutely essential — after all, we genuinely want to solve the problem. But then it is not enough to hand out grades for good intentions. On the contrary, if all we did was assess who meant well by their actions, without anything actually being achieved in the end, we would not come one step closer to solving the problem — we would simply waste valuable time. Worst of all, we might drive a wedge through society by getting bogged down in fruitless debates about who is the biggest "climate sinner."

Everything, therefore, comes down to this question: are individual measures — the home solar panel, the oat milk macchiato, the cargo bike, the secondhand sweater — genuinely capable of making a difference? Are they, to use the Federal Constitutional Court's formulation, "capable, as part of the overall effort, of bringing about the end of climate change"? On closer examination of the current global situation, the answer is sobering: they are not.

The reason is the absence of a functioning global framework for combating climate change into which individual actions by states or individuals could meaningfully fit. The Paris Agreement, which may come to mind at this point, does not in fact provide such a framework. The treaty has so far been unable to prevent global CO₂ emissions from reaching new record highs year after year — with the brief exception of the COVID dip. Last year saw the highest levels ever recorded.

Climate scientists are not surprised by this. The Paris Agreement is a toothless tiger: it contains no sanctions in case participating states fail to meet their self-imposed commitments. It is not designed around reciprocity, and thereby creates a strong incentive for free-riding — the phenomenon whereby some parties rest on the sacrifices made by others. And worse still: the Paris Agreement actively promotes so-called carbon leakage. This refers, for example, to the way in which reduced consumption of fossil fuels by Germany and other European states leads to price reductions that incentivize other countries to consume even more CO₂ than they would have at higher prices, which can result in overall global consumption actually increasing compared to what it would have been if European states had continued buying.

Such effects make one thing clear: unilateral national action is not merely unsuitable for effectively countering climate change. It actually makes the problem worse at the global level. To put it plainly: German climate policy in recent years has, among other things, contributed to the fact that the problem of global climate change has been further aggravated by ever-new record highs in worldwide CO₂ emissions.

So why the focus on the individual? Why the metric of the ecological footprint? Why ever more legal restrictions on personal freedom and ever greater moral pressure on the individual? At bottom, this reflects a profound sense of powerlessness. Because what is necessary to get a grip on climate change is not being achieved at the global level, the frustration and anxiety this generates is translated into a kind of performative busyness at the small scale. And admittedly, some people may find a sense of personal relief in aligning their lives with various sustainability ideals. However uncomfortable this insight may be, that is all it is: a salving of the conscience that, on closer inspection, is not even justified. Whether the individual behaves one way or another is currently irrelevant to climate protection. As long as no globally functioning overall framework exists, the individual contribution makes no difference — and in the worst case, it may even contribute to making the problem worse.

The situation is dangerous, and in more than one way. First, because of the waterbed effect already mentioned. When measures are taken in Germany, Europe, or elsewhere without a coordinated global framework, this can sometimes exacerbate the global situation further — for example, because companies relocate their production to regions with no or significantly fewer restrictions.

Second, the focus of climate protection imperatives on the individual, as practiced particularly in Germany, diverts attention away from those who are actually responsible: state actors who are obligated at the global level to work toward a shared solution. Moreover, many people are lulled into a false sense of security, believing that through sustainable consumer behavior, they are already doing everything necessary to save the climate. It simply does not occur to them that their own actions contribute precisely nothing to that goal. This, in turn, tempts quite a few into problematic moralizing — the finger is pointed at all those who, in their view, are not living sustainably enough.

This has already led to the closing down of debate within the climate discussion. As with other societal challenges (the pandemic, the war in Ukraine), camps have formed on climate protection whose positions have sometimes hardened to the point where conversation across the divide is barely possible. None of this brings us one step closer to solving the problem — neither is what is necessary being done globally, nor is social cohesion being built around one of the great challenges of our time. A fundamental rethink is urgently needed in how we approach climate change — not least here in Germany. Instead of getting lost in the minutiae of individual eating or travel habits and calibrating one's moral status according to oat milk consumption or rail loyalty points, attention should be directed toward those who are actually in a position to act. There is simply no time for social trench warfare over who can demonstrate the better attitude on climate protection.

This is a translation of the article published in Der Spiegel, in German. illuminem Voices is a democratic space presenting the thoughts and opinions of leading Sustainability & Energy writers, their opinions do not necessarily represent those of illuminem.

Track the real‑world impact behind the sustainability headlines. illuminem’s Data Hub™ offers transparent performance data and climate targets of companies driving the transition.