In 2021, the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change had just released a report saying that it was a “code red for humanity”. That report was prepared by 234 scientists from 66 different countries and highlighted that human influence had “warmed the climate at a rate that is unprecedented in at least the last 2,000 years”. Those scientists pointed to stronger-than-ever evidence that human influence is responsible for changes in extremes such as heatwaves, heavy precipitation, droughts, and tropical cyclones. In the same year market research firm IPSOS published its Perils of Perception report into climate change, which looked at how people understood the environmental ramifications of their actions. (A 2024 report focusing on facts vs fiction has since been released.) The 2021 report found that when asked to nominate what three actions were most likely to reduce the greenhouse gas emissions of an individual living in a wealthy country, most chose recycling as much as possible (59 per cent), renewable energy (49 per cent) and using an electric or hybrid vehicle (41 per cent). The problem was that while all of those are good things to do, the report claimed “none are in fact in the top three most effective measures”. So what were the top three? The most effective way to reduce carbon emissions was to have one fewer child, followed by not having a car at all. And thirdly, avoiding one long distance flight. Only 11 per cent of 21,011 adults who took part in the study correctly picked “having one fewer child” as the best thing they could do to reduce emissions. On the other hand, while ecologists first raised the concept of an “ecological footprint” in the early 1990s, the idea of an “individual carbon footprint” was cooked up by oil giant BP in an American ad campaign in 2004 that was designed to place blame for the environmental impact on consumers, not corporations. When I booked a flight, Qantas charged me around $20 to “offset” the footprint of my seat, even though the company made $21.9 billion in revenue last financial year. A lack of regulation allows corporations and shareholders to keep giant financial profits and “externalise” the cost of their impact on the planet. I am not anti-natalist but I can do more to reduce my carbon footprint than I am doing today. But corporations and governments through policy can do a lot lot lot lot more than I can even do. As an individual I can also vote, shop selectively, and get on line and advocate for them to do a lot lot lot lot more.