A new study from the University of Sydney reveals that promoting individuals as climate saviors unfairly shifts responsibility away from industries and policymakers.
Key Points at a Glance
- The “net zero hero” narrative often emphasizes individual actions, such as installing solar panels or buying electric cars, as pivotal in combating climate change.
- Research shows this framing minimizes the role of energy companies and governments in systemic emission reductions.
- Associating climate solutions with individual efforts alone can lead to feelings of helplessness and disengagement.
- The energy sector’s storytelling should highlight collective efforts, incorporating corporate and government accountability.
It’s common to celebrate individuals as “headers” of the fight against climate change, with narratives highlighting personal choices like adopting rooftop solar or driving electric vehicles. While inspiring, these stories risk oversimplifying the solution to a global crisis, according to new research from the University of Sydney.
The study, led by Associate Professor Tom van Laer, delves into the implications of the “net zero hero” narrative propagated by energy companies and policymakers. It finds that this framing often shifts the burden of climate responsibility onto individuals, masking the substantial changes needed from industries and governments to achieve meaningful climate action.
This is not the first time industries have shifted environmental accountability onto consumers. In the 1970s, the beverage industry popularized recycling campaigns to deflect attention from their role in waste generation. The “net zero hero” narrative continues this trend, portraying individual actions—like turning off appliances or upgrading to energy-efficient models—as crucial steps toward reducing emissions.
However, such messaging can obscure the energy sector’s significant contributions to global emissions. For example, electricity generation accounts for nearly half of Australia’s emissions, according to 2021 International Energy Agency data. Transport and industrial sectors also remain major emitters.
“While individual efforts are motivational and have driven grassroots movements, placing the burden solely on consumers without systemic industry and policy shifts breeds frustration and disengagement,” says van Laer.
Van Laer’s research critiques the storytelling framework often employed by energy companies. In typical “heartwarming” reports, consumers are painted as lone heroes overcoming climate challenges, while the roles of corporate and government allies remain understated.
“True hero’s journeys involve allies,” van Laer explains. “In climate action, these allies are corporations and governments making substantial policy and market changes. Right now, the narrative isolates the consumer, creating an impossible mission.”
One example highlighted in the study is Chile’s ban on plastic bags, which placed responsibility on individuals without adequately addressing broader systemic issues. Such measures can lead consumers to question why their efforts matter if industries and governments fail to act decisively.
The researchers argue that the narrative must evolve to emphasize collective action. Policymakers, corporations, and individuals must work in tandem to drive meaningful change.
For individuals inspired to take action—whether by electrifying their homes or installing solar panels—the study recommends contextualizing these efforts within a broader framework. Recognizing that personal contributions are part of a larger ecosystem of systemic change can combat feelings of helplessness.
“The energy sector must present solutions as a team effort,” van Laer concludes. “Only then can we create an inspiring and achievable path to net zero.”
This shift in narrative could help bridge the gap between individual actions and the larger-scale changes required to tackle the climate crisis effectively.
