Public shaming is not without controversy, but it happens more often than you think: in Slovenia there is an online pillory for tax evaders, in the USA for people who have been convicted of child abuse. The term flight shaming was coined in Sweden. Should climate sinners generally be publicly exposed? The American emissions project Climate Trace says yes, Judith Mayer is ambivalent. “Companies count their numbers nicely or buy a tree so that they can call their products ‘climate-neutral’,” explains the professor for sustainability in ntv’s “climate laboratory”. In the case of individuals, on the other hand, she considers a pillory to be destructive, unlike tax evasion: “Do I really want to attack you for getting on a plane?”
ntv.de: Do we need a public pillory for climate sinners so that we can make faster progress in overcoming the climate crisis?
Judith Mayer: The question arises, on which level? The tax evader is an easily accessible individual. The topic is not very complex either, but climate change and the climate crisis are. So do I want to start with the individual and charge an individual for boarding a plane? Or do I want to start systemically and pillory states or companies?
That wouldn’t be a bad idea for companies. You have a rough idea of ??which are climate sinners and which are not.
Intended for companies, and sometimes that already happens when they are sued because their climate targets are not ambitious enough, as in the case of Shell. But this is an enormously complex and difficult to grasp topic. The violations are not visible, measurability is a problem.
Is there a risk of judging people or companies too quickly?
Yes. Shame is also very problematic as a feeling, similar to envy. It would be easier if you talk about guilt or a guilty conscience. It would be even better if you didn’t think destructively and try to break someone, but rather solution-oriented: What can we do to overcome the climate crisis? Do I really want to attack the individual for getting on a plane? A single person will not be able to solve the problems, but we as a society can. This includes holding companies and states accountable for what they do or don’t do.
But if you want to hold someone accountable, you have to make public what he, she or it has done.
Companies report figures on their emissions. But you have to rely on them to report correctly and, as with states, you have to accept that there is still a lot to appreciate. Now, for the first time, Climate Trace wants to measure emissions with satellite data and artificial intelligence at the point of origin. A lot is cobbled together to create comparability and to be able to say: where do the emissions come from?
How reliable the information from Climate Trace is remains to be seen. But the plan is to say who emits how much CO2, methane or other greenhouse gases and then to practice naming and shaming, i.e. publicly denouncing the polluters.
Transparency is positive. When it comes to naming and shaming, however, science says it only works for those who acknowledge climate change, set goals and start implementing them. If I don’t do anything at all, there’s no point in pillorying myself because I’m simply not interested in change. Unfortunately, in the USA we are once again seeing a trend away from climate protection, because otherwise inflation could increase and the economic situation could deteriorate.
Otherwise, I believe that the Trace project can be very effective with states. The Paris climate agreement is actually based on social pressure. Perhaps shaming was considered from the start, because there is no legal obligation for a state to stick to its own goals.
At the enterprise level, I don’t know how much trace will bring. In the automotive industry, you can certainly calculate the emissions from supply chains properly and credibly. But I’m skeptical about the usage phase. There are many cars driving around on our roads, for which there is the so-called fleet consumption. I estimate that this is more than 50 percent of the emissions that can be attributed to car manufacturers. How will Trace measure this output? If that doesn’t work, Trace only makes half the contribution. Then you have to estimate again who the worst polluters are.
Like cosmetic products, where most of the emissions come from use, because you need a lot of water to use a shower gel or shampoo?
Exactly. But I have to look at these emissions because otherwise there is no need to change the business model.
But that only works with a public pillory and more with companies than with states. As a consumer, I can at least try to find a replacement product. If a country falls short of the climate targets it has set itself, there is little that can be done.
Nevertheless, it is extremely important to keep up the pressure on governments. Last year at the world climate conference in Glasgow, 193 countries said they would adjust their climate targets because they are not ambitious enough. Exactly 19 did it by the deadline. In any case, you have to put your finger in the wound more often.
When it comes to personal consumption, there is also what is known as an attitude-behaviour gap: I want to consume sustainably, but in the end I don’t do it. Most are only willing to pay a premium for sustainability when it comes to food or cosmetics, i.e. products that touch my body directly. With everyone else, the price often wins.
With technology, cars, housing and clothing?
Clothing is a difficult industry because the issue is very visible there. But price also plays a major role here, because sustainability often costs more.
Despite this, many companies boast about how green they claim to be. This assertion just stands there without being able to understand whether it is true. And even if you find out that the statement is false, there are no consequences.
The EU wants to take action against greenwashing. Companies are also becoming more cautious as more scandals come to light. But that can’t be the solution either. Therefore, a database that transparently lists all emissions from individual companies would actually be of great benefit. Because of course they calculate their numbers nicely and subtract their offsets, although it has been proven that this is of no use because the earth cannot bind as much CO2 as we emit. That works for maybe a quarter of the emissions.
It can therefore be said that states and companies can be publicly denounced, but one should be more careful with individuals.
Put simply, yes.
Feel free to make it more complicated than that.
(Laughs) With an individual, shaming is problematic because it’s very destructive. One must not forget that 10 percent of the world’s population is responsible for 50 percent of emissions, that’s about 800 million people. It’s probably the top ten percent, many of whom also come from the USA or Germany. We must be aware of that. That’s why, especially in this country, we shouldn’t point the finger at others and say: someone is even worse than me, but you should start with yourself and reward positive behavior.
Public pressure can be a constructive element for companies and states. In the meantime, everyone has set more or less ambitious climate goals, now it’s time to implement them. Transparency can help that something really happens, because you can easily set many goals.
It could also reverse the trend of some industry campaigns that have encouraged individual shaming, like the personal carbon footprint dreamed up by BP.
It would also be nice if one day the products would not only show the price, but also how much the production cost the environment. Today, companies write “climate neutral” everywhere because they bought a tree somewhere that will probably not be planted at all. This is an advertising stunt to morally justify increasing consumption.
Clara Pfeffer and Christian Herrmann spoke to Judith Mayer. The conversation has been shortened and smoothed for better understanding.
