Does Gandhi’s “Be The Change” Apply to Climate Change?

“Be the change that you wish to see in the world” is perhaps Gandhi’s most famous quote. But when it comes to our personal behaviors and climate change, is alignment a moral imperative or a moral hazard?

Climate change is unlike most other challenges humanity faces. Each and every one of us cannot help but be complicit in the problem by virtue of the economic systems we inhabit. Every day we engage in behaviors, most often out of total ignorance, that cast an implicit vote for the institutional structures that got us into this mess in the first place.

In the last year, I’ve shifted considerably to better align myself with the sustainable systems we must convert ourselves to. I just moved our checking accounts to a local bank that promises not to fund fossil fuel development, instead of the larger national bank we’ve used for years. I’ve tightened the screws on my already almost vegan diet, I carry my water bottle around religiously, I’ve started making purchasing decisions based on how much and what kind of packaging is involved. I buy less stuff overall, I give experiences instead of things for birthdays and holidays.

But does it matter in the face of the colossal challenge in front of us that is decarbonizing our society? Worse, could widespread adoption of such behavioral change be counterproductive to the cause? This is a debate I have all the time.

My first response is always, yes it matters, even if simply from the perspective of my own moral compass. Once you start to become aware, I struggle to understand how one can in good conscious continue to behave in ways that contribute to the problem. While it’s not possible to completely disconnect from society, it’s also quite easy to reduce one’s carbon impact. One can eat less meat, buy carbon offsets for flights, change banks, commit to his or her next car being electric, compost and recycle religiously. San Franciscans can, for less than ten dollars a month, upgrade their PG&E bills to power their homes with 100% renewable energy.

While these measures may make me feel better about myself, adoption at scale is obviously insufficient to get us out of this mess. For every American who goes vegan, at least an order of magnitude more people start eating meat as incomes rise less developed countries. So, no, ultimately behavior change is not nearly enough. The scope and scale and pace of the economic transition that’s necessary to contain the worst effects of global warming is nothing short of staggering. Slow and steady shifts in consumer preferences are not going to offset the contribution of increases in global population and income anytime soon, and we are working on a very tight timeline (approximately ten years to really change course to mitigate the worst effects of climate change).

To be clear, I vehemently agree that the only way we get where we need to go as fast as we need to get there is with government policies regulating the market. Imagine how long would it take for demand for electric vehicles to increase, and costs to decrease, to entirely replace gas-powered vehicles? A very long time, to be sure. Or you could just be a government and ban the sale of fossil fuel burning cars entirely, as France aims to do by 2040. So yes — of course — federal, state, and local policies are the imperative.

The primary argument I hear against addressing the climate crisis via behavior change is that people will feel like they’ve done their part and fail to exert the political pressure needed to get policies put in place. This is the moral hazard concern. I just don’t buy it. I argue that behavior change is not a moral hazard for actual political change, rather, it’s synergistic. Here’s why.

First off, while policy is the clear imperative, we’re inhabiting a moment where faith in our political systems is incredibly low. I worry that getting people riled up about climate and then telling them to vote in the next election will lead to a lack of meaningful action. By contrast, changing one’s behavior is empowering, giving one a sense of making a contribution to the issue throughout his or her day. Having the ability to do something immediately is far more motivating than waiting for the next election cycle. Moreover, the quotidien nature of changing our habits keeps the issue top of mind.

Secondly, behavior change has an inherent virality to it, supporting a slow but steady change in consciousness. Behavioral shifts are conversation starters that help to raise awareness. I sit down to dinner at a restaurant with my friends and tell them I’ve gone mostly vegan and explain why. I reject a to go cup at the local coffee shop, explaining to the barista that I do everything I can to minimize single use materials. Changing our behaviors is thus a compelling strategy to bringing about the shifts in public sentiment that proceed policy.

Thirdly, consumer preferences matter. While I’m only one person, ultimately the economic institutions that have given us climate change are driven by demand. The more we align our spending and investments with the future of our planet, the more businesses will shift as well.

Finally, I think once you start integrating climate aligned behaviors into your life, it naturally bleeds into your voting preferences. Rather than changing behaviors being a moral hazard, I see it as a complementary vector, laddering more and more people into political action.

Changing out habits is hard. We can’t help but inhabit a linear economic system reliant on fossil fuels. But there’s much we can do, today and every day. Bit by bit we can become more aware, bit by bit we can become less a part of the problem and more a part of the solution.

So if you ask me, Ghandi wasn’t wrong at all. This an issue that demands all of us. Behavioral change allows us to be the change, starting today.