The Carbon Footprint Lie

It’s claimed the “carbon footprint” concept was popularized by oil giant BP. Analyses show the real responsibility for the climate crisis lies not with individuals, but with giant corporations.

The “Reduce Your Carbon Footprint” Propaganda: Are You the Culprit?

“Reduce your carbon footprint!”, “For a greener world…”, “Use electric cars, change your light bulbs, use less water…” We hear these kinds of advertisements and calls every day, don’t we? These campaigns, sponsored by large corporations, create a perception that stopping the devastating effects of climate change depends entirely on our individual efforts. We are expected to recycle plastics, take the train instead of the plane, and even collect carbon points based on the number of steps we walk. But can we really stop the climate crisis with our individual choices? Or is this a grand game designed to divert attention from the real culprits?

Interestingly, the origin of the term “carbon footprint” doesn’t trace back to a climate scientist or an environmental activist, but to one of the world’s largest oil companies. Yes, you heard that right. One of the main actors that introduced and popularized this concept is BP (British Petroleum), a company that emits hundreds of thousands of times more carbon than any one of us reading this article. How does that feel, a bit deceived? Let’s delve deeper into this absurd situation and the facts behind it.

What is a Carbon Footprint? Individual and Corporate Measurement

First, let’s look at the concept itself. A carbon footprint, in its simplest definition, is a measure of the greenhouse gases (primarily carbon dioxide and methane) emitted into the atmosphere by an individual, organization, or activity. These gases are the main culprits behind climate change, which is causing our planet to warm up.

• Individual Carbon Footprint: This includes the impacts of our direct actions that produce greenhouse gases, like driving a car, as well as our indirect effects. For example, the greenhouse gases emitted during the production of electricity that charges our mobile phones or during the process of getting the food we eat from the farm to our table are also included in our individual footprint. Dozens of factors like how we heat our homes, what kind of light bulbs we use, and how much waste we produce are part of this calculation. (There are online calculators developed by various institutions for those interested.)
• Corporate/Government Carbon Footprint: For companies and governments, this calculation is more complex and is usually done in three scopes (Scope 1, 2, 3):
  • Scope 1: Emissions from sources directly owned or controlled by the organization (e.g., factory emissions, company vehicles).
  • Scope 2: Indirect emissions from the generation of purchased energy (electricity, heating, etc.).
  • Scope 3: All other indirect emissions that occur in a company’s value chain (e.g., supply chain, employee commutes, use of sold products, waste disposal, business travel, investments). This scope usually accounts for the largest share.

Human activities release approximately 37 billion tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere each year, and this accumulation has caused our planet’s average temperature to rise by 1.1 degrees Celsius since 1880. Scientific data shows that if this warming continues, we will face much more devastating consequences in the future.

BP’s Game: The Popularization of the “Carbon Footprint” Term

So, how did such an important concept enter our lives through the marketing strategy of an oil giant? Although the term “environmental footprint” emerged in the 1970s, “carbon footprint” specifically began to be used in the late 1990s but wasn’t popular.

What propelled the term to its current widespread use was the major advertising campaign launched by BP in 2005. The name behind the campaign was the advertising giant Ogilvy & Mather. This agency was a powerhouse that built the image of giant brands like American Express, IBM, and Dove, and created viral campaigns.

BP’s campaign, launched with the slogan “What’s your carbon footprint?”, was a masterfully crafted perception management operation:

1. Initial Ads: People seemingly chosen randomly from the street are asked about their “carbon footprint,” and nobody seems to know. The ad concludes with the message, “The first step to reducing our carbon footprint is to find out what it is,” directing viewers to a BP-owned carbon footprint calculator website. The site quickly received hundreds of thousands of clicks.
2. Subsequent Ads: A mix of people who know and don’t know about the concept are shown, giving the impression that people are starting to get familiar with the topic. The message “We can all do more to emit less” is repeated. One character even asks, “Are you talking about the impact my life, the products I consume, have on the world?” explicitly blaming individual consumption.

These campaigns were not product advertisements; they were clearly an effort in social engineering. What was the goal?

“Greenwashing”: The Tactic of Shifting Responsibility to Individuals

The image that oil giants (not just BP, but others like Shell, Saudi Aramco, ExxonMobil also employed similar tactics) tried to create with these campaigns was this: “We aren’t actually harming the environment that much. The real problem lies in the consumption habits of citizens like you. We are merely intermediaries meeting your needs.”

To reinforce this image, BP even changed its logo in 2000. It abandoned its famous shield emblem for a green and yellow logo resembling Helios, the Greek sun god. One can’t help but ask, “What does oil and natural gas have to do with the sun?” By announcing a few renewable energy projects, they tried to make people forget the immense damage they had inflicted on the world for a century and BP’s own annual carbon footprint of about 320 million tons (63 million times that of an average Turkish citizen!).

This strategy is called “Greenwashing.” It’s the effort to create a false environmentally friendly image to hide or downplay environmentally harmful activities. The increased emphasis on individual carbon footprints since 2005 was primarily for this reason: to shift the spotlight of the climate crisis away from themselves and place the responsibility and blame onto individuals – you and me.

The Numbers Don’t Lie: Who is Really Responsible?

So, what do the numbers say? Are individuals really the main culprits of the climate crisis? Absolutely not.

• The Misleading Nature of Per Capita Calculations: Figures like “an average Turk’s footprint is 5.1 tons” are artificial numbers obtained by dividing Turkey’s total emissions (citizens + companies + state) by the population. To see the real impact of individuals, you need to separate the share of companies and the state.
• The Share of Companies and the State: Research shows that, on average, about 55% of the per capita carbon footprint is generated by the activities of companies, and about 10% by governments. The remaining 35% stems from our individual lifestyles. This means corporations are responsible for more than half of our footprint!
• The Overwhelming Role of Giant Corporations: Global numbers are even more striking:
  • Approximately 15% (5.1 billion tons) of the world’s total carbon footprint is produced solely by the oil and gas industry. When the use of these products is added, 55% of all greenhouse gas emissions from humans, companies, and states are linked to the production and use of oil and natural gas.
  • Despite there being over 330 million companies worldwide, just 100 companies are responsible for 50% to 60% of all carbon emissions in the last 30 years.
  • According to a more recent report, just 57 companies (mostly fossil fuel corporations) emitted 80% of all carbon dioxide emissions between 2016 and 2022. The remaining 20% was shared by all governments and billions of people worldwide.

Faced with these figures, isn’t it tragicomic for companies to tell individuals, “Change your light bulb, save the world”?

The Limits of Individual Effort: Is Zero Footprint Possible?

Of course, individual efforts are not insignificant. We can make a difference by making greener choices. However, it’s crucial to understand that this difference is not as substantial as advertisements claim. Because:

• The Cost of Living: Even breathing produces carbon dioxide. No matter how “green” your diet, producing that food emits carbon. The construction of the house you live in, the production of the bicycle you ride to work – they all create a carbon footprint. As long as we exist, we are bound to emit carbon. There’s a minimum level to which we can shrink our footprint.
• Minimal Footprint: Calculations show that the annual 5.1-ton average footprint of a citizen of the Republic of Turkey living at the most basic level can, despite all efforts, only be reduced to 3-3.5 tons at most. So, even if you dedicate your entire life to it, you might reduce your footprint by maybe 30%.
• Corporate Impact vs. Individual Impact: If a giant like BP reduces its footprint by just one-thousandth (0.1%), it creates an impact equivalent to you sustaining that 30% reduction for 200,000 years!
• Easy Solutions for Corporations: Simple decisions by companies or governments can have a much larger impact. For example, a campaign in New Zealand increased walking/cycling rates by 30%, but the reduction in the total carbon footprint was only 1.6%. In contrast, Ikea’s simple policy of replacing broken parts for free reduced the footprint of products used at home by 45%. Boeing switching its factories to renewable energy reduced production emissions by 30%.

So, companies not only create the bulk of the problem but also hold the biggest key to the solution. Despite this, their effort to shift responsibility onto individuals is a conscious strategy, confirmed by academic studies.

The Role of States and Global Injustice

What about governments? They also bear significant responsibility in this equation. They can intervene in the climate crisis not only through their own activities but also through their regulatory power over corporations. However, often, instead of taking necessary steps, they turn a blind eye to companies shifting the burden onto citizens.

Furthermore, there’s a global injustice issue. Developed Western countries, in particular, achieved their current level of prosperity largely by polluting the world recklessly since the Industrial Revolution. Now, they turn to newly developing countries and say, “No brother, we emitted, but you shouldn’t, think about the world!” This is serious hypocrisy. Of course, every country has a responsibility, and it would be wonderful if developing countries could transition to clean energy immediately. But placing the burden of this technological and economic transformation solely on them is unrealistic. If global cooperation is truly desired, the developed countries that have already enjoyed the fruits of the earth the most must provide significantly more support to those just beginning to access those fruits. However, we are yet to see such sacrifice at a sufficient level from developed nations. This situation can even cause people to become skeptical of scientific facts like the climate crisis.

Final Thoughts

The concept of a carbon footprint can be a scientifically valid and useful measurement tool. However, it becomes dangerous when used as a weapon by giant corporations to shift responsibility onto individuals. Yes, we should make more conscious choices individually, reduce our consumption, and try to live more sustainably. We all have a responsibility towards the planet.

But we must not forget that the real significant impact will come from systemic changes and the giant corporations and governments that have the power to make these changes. We must not be content with our individual efforts but must hold these major actors accountable, demand transparency, and push them towards real change. Feeling virtuous by changing a few light bulbs or driving less might suit them. But real change will begin when we turn the spotlight back onto the real culprits. Don’t feel guilty for the individual sacrifices you make, but never forget the responsible parties in the bigger picture.

Bibliography

Note: This news report/analysis was prepared based on the provided general content and publicly available information. There are no direct quotations from or references to specific academic works within the text. The concepts and organizations listed below are related to the topics discussed in the text and can serve as starting points for further research:

• Carbon Footprint Calculations and Methodologies
• BP (British Petroleum) Advertising Campaigns and Corporate Communication Strategies
• Ogilvy & Mather Advertising Agency Works
• Climate Change and Greenhouse Gas Emission Reports (e.g., IPCC Reports, Carbon Majors Report)
• Greenwashing Concept and Examples
• Corporate Social Responsibility and Sustainability Policies (e.g., reports from companies like Ikea, Boeing)
• Climate Justice and Responsibility Sharing Between Developed/Developing Countries

Views: 0